I had occasion to make a short speech at presbytery today. I forgot to start my computer talking thing, so I was slightly on the backfoot. This is what I planned to say, I hope I said some of it well. I think it went over ok bearing in mind i only had 5mins. new motion
Urge the Planning and Implementation committee to engage with the Kirk Session of Lanark Greyfriars. at the earliest possibility in the new year. Thank you. Moderator, This new motion in my name is six months overdue, well, nearly seven, The Kirk Session received a final judgment by the General Assembly Mission Plan Review Panel on a Request for Review on the 23rd of May 2025. 197 days ago. The Review Panel considered eight grounds raised by the Kirk Session. The review panel did not accept five grounds; however, three grounds were accepted. This is factual. There is no debate about this Judgment. For information, The appeal could only be made on three grounds. The Kirk Sessions appeal was accepted on all three grounds, including, one, a material error in Church law, two, a material error of process on the part of Presbytery, and three, the plan fails to take into account a relevant material fact. However, there are two other comments which the review committee made in their judgement on the current Mission Plan as regarding Greyfriars parish church. The mission narrative and building categorisation is inconsistant. The Second comment the Review Panel made was, and I quote.
“The Panel does not accept the Presbytery’s argument that the resulting inconsistencies should be addressed in future revisions of the Plan. It is the task of the Panel to assess the current Plan and the process by which it was approved.”
My interpretation of this point is that the review panel do not accept the presbytery’s argument to leave things as they are, and sort them in the future. That argument was rejected 197 days ago. The congregation of Greyfriars contacted the Presbytery by email 197 days ago asking of comfort in this matter and offering to meet the committee who presbytery has remitted this matter to. This has not happened and contact has not been made. As this is matter with a written final judgement I argue it is not unreasonable to expect a formal written reply to a request to meet within 197 days. It’s worth drawing attention to Presbytery this final judgment, as this final judgment was about Presbytery, and was made regarding Presbytery. As trustees we have think what level of risk we will accept for the presbytery. In this motion, the risk I identify is between the final decision of the General Assembly review panel and the presbytery’s actions in fulfilling this. When I move this motion moderator, technically the motion becomes a possession of Presbytery. If successful, and that is not guaranteed, the Presbytery will and has the right to instruct its committee to do as it wishes, in this case, urging the Planning and Implementation committee to have a meeting with the Kirk Session. The review panel accepted three grounds of appeal. The review panel said the building catergorisation has been done wrong. The review panel said there are inconsistencies in what is foreseen mission of the church. The review panel said presbytery cannot ignore these issues, It is unacceptable to be comforted in the knowledge that this inconsitancies will be solved by a future action.
I find it notable that the comfort given by the vice convener in his speech a minute ago was about actions in the future. Yet, demonstrably, the church are in the same position we were 197 days ago, same errors in law, same errors in process and no contact. Moderator, it’s up to Presbytery. What happens next.
I urge presbytery to support this new motion, I move the motion in my name, and hopefully someone will second it.
...