Dear friends,

Discussions amongst the Larkhall church of Scotland congregations with regard to the future continue. For the past ten years or so the plan for Larkhall has been to unite all three congregations - St Machan’s, Trinity and Chalmers into one very large parish served by two ministers with an additional "staff member" (e.g. a youth worker) serving on a part time (0.5) basis. It would be expected also that one of the three church buildings would close.

Last year the Presbytery decided on a different strategy - to allow local congregations to decide themselves how the allotted personnel and buildings should be distributed between the congregations. There have been a number of meetings with three representatives from each congregation one of which has to be the minister.

Dalserf has been included in the discussions but Dalserf is not subject at present to any readjustment. Currently three options are being considered (1) Two parishes and charges North and South. The North would comprise the present Trinity parish with the present St Machan’s parish minus most of Hareleeshill.

The South parish would be the present Chalmers parish plus the major part of Hareleeshill. (2) Two parishes and charges East and West. East would be the present St Machan’s parish West a union between Trinity and Chalmers with possibly an entirely new building in a location central to the new parish. (3) One charge comprising a union between St Machan’s and Trinity linked to Chalmers. The pro’s and cons of all these options have already been examined and continue to be discussed by the Kirk Sessions. We are without doubt very fortunate in Dalserf in not having to consider any changes at present.

We should not however be too complacent, this could change. Although we are amongst the forty percent of self supporting congregations in Hamilton Presbytery a change in our status in this regard would almost certainly cause the Presbytery to view us as a prime candidate for readjustment - linkage or union. It is no secret that almost no one wants their congregation to close. This is understandable but is it right that we should automatically resist any change in our congregation. The question has to be asked "does the survival of our congregation unchanged in terms of status represent the best goal we should aspire to?"

The Church of Scotland in pursuing its policy of reducing the number of charges quite evidently regards this strategy as the most desirable given all the  relevant parameters not least of which is the limited finance available at the present time. The policy may well be the wrong one in many cases but where a church member were to oppose a change in their congregation it is important that they do so for the right reasons. I personally don’t want to see any change in the independent status of Dalserf congregation, but I sincerely hope my concern for the welfare of Christ’s kingdom would never be compromised to accommodate my personal desires. Opposition simply on the basis that we don’t like change is not acceptable. We must be prepared to accept changes we don’t like if such changes represent more effective growth of the kingdom of God. This is nothing less than Christian charity (unconditional love) which "cares more for others than for self" (1 Cor.13: The Message).

Yours faithfully

Cameron McPherson