Fractional church means many Christians will now drive out of thier local community, where they know their neighbours; where family circles are tight; etc. to join another fellowship that’s more to their “taste” (used deliberately, because there is no doctrinal distinction between these fellowships). Thanks, but just explain how this helps rural evangelism, where the truth has long been this: you have the most impact where you live?

(Editor’s Note: In January, Carl Trueman posted on the Reformation 21 website an article entitled “An Important and Positive Lesson from the Liberals (which you might not hear elsewhere)” In the article, Trueman did his normal critical analysis of megachurch pastors and especially the new breed of ‘flying pastors’. He then gave his comment on ‘fractional pastors’ (more than one charge) as well as tent-making pastors (of which group he will soon become a part). Following is a blog article from Scotland analyzing those issues in light of current events there. Readers who haven’t seen it might want to visit the Trueman article first.)

What Carl is saying is not just a US phenomenon. Smaller churches this side of the pond are struggling with the same issue – how can we afford to pay for ministry, and will that mean having a fraction of a minister?

For, like, as long as I’ve been a minister (and then some, sorry a lot more some) my denomination has been looking at what we call non-stipendiary or what Carl’s contacts call bivocational ministries. That is, Pastors typically have two jobs: they serve their congregations as they can; but their main income comes from their other occupation, whether car mechanic, teacher or whatever.

The bottom line is this – this is coming to a Scottish Church near you soon. Maybe it has already, and if so, comments would be appreciated. My gut feeling is that this is a second best option, and doing things that are likely going to lead to it, hasten it, are probably not wise.

The Scottish urban scene is not the same, mega churches of the scale Carl talks about just don’t exist here. My concern is that in remote, rural areas another factor is driving the move to needing fractions of ministers, and that is fractional church. Fractional church is when the church needlessly divides up into smaller fractions – all allegedly holding the same doctrine. There is another name.

Stupid remote/rural denominationalism
This last week finally saw the birth of a “new church” in my neck of the woods. The chaps behind it are (understandably) narked at the Church of Scotland’s trajectory away from Scripture. But, rather than humbly join up with one of the other faithful, but struggling, denominations – with whom they would seem to theologically agree – a new fellowship was spawned.

This hits a whole number of issues dear to my heart.

It’s anti local church. The reason the new thing shouldn’t directly affect us is that it’s a 40 mile round trip from my door, and further than a half dozen other fellowships, all meeting in sparsely populated rural areas. Fractional church means many Christians will now drive out of thier local community, where they know their neighbours; where family circles are tight; etc. to join another fellowship that’s more to their “taste” (used deliberately, because there is no doctrinal distinction between these fellowships). Thanks, but just explain how this helps rural evangelism, where the truth has long been this: you have the most impact where you live?

It’s anti unity in the Gospel. To be fair, I can see why leaving the Church of Scotland was desirable, but most of the people leaving that denomination locally in these parts joined it within the last 5-10 years. Has it deteriorated since then, really? And did the Free Church guys not offer some flexibility in traditional form of worship for the sake of local unity? Thanks, but just explain how setting up new churches helps unity? Even if we take unity at its loosest extent, we’re talking unity in the work of the Gospel. I fail to see how fractional church is even serving that goal, when those abandoning their local churches are often abandoning the Gospel work these churches are doing.

It’s anti fellowship. I love it when people break away from a fellowship, and pretend that it’s a small thing to not be able to overcome differences. If we follow Paul’s teaching in Philippians, fellowship is, among other things, a sharing in suffering. In these remote rural areas Christians are suffering. The depopulation alone means younger Christians are rare – so stripping them out of fellowships to gather in one place seems not to have true fellowship at its heart. There is a lot of sadness in these days where growth is small, where Gospel witness and light seems to be flickering. Fractional church does nothing to help this and it hurts those who don’t share the same “taste”.

It’s anti Christian education. Satan loves to undermine what we’re doing when it serves God’s purposes. Just imagine these rural communities being blessed with their churches running a Sunday School jointly – remember, there’s no practical doctrinal difference to speak of. That might just help overcome generations of denominational hostility and misunderstanding in the Scottish Highlands. But now, it’s threatened because some of the staff feel they couldn’t try to overcome the pull towards fractional church, and have to drive away to another area. Thanks, but just explain how this is going to help future generations of kids understand Christian doctrine, e.g. the unity o the church?

Count the Cost
My point is that spawning new factional churches in remote rural areas, rather than working out differences, is actually bad for the Gospel. Urban strategy might be different – the numbers are hugely different for one thing. But rural work is not helped by this.

It means more Christians in smaller churches, who will not be able to afford to pay a pastoral ministry to do all the distinctly pastor-led ministry that rural work demands.

It means more Christians in smaller churches able to organise less effective servant ministry to the needy in the same community.

It means more Christian denominations to confuse an already confused, superstitious and mocking population.

It means Christians, who actually have an awful lot in common, holding on to denominational suspicions for longer.

It means more Christians having to fall back on untrained teachers, as supply preachers, and so on – some of it might good, but hardly a recipe embraced by the Church, who have for hundreds of years recognised that theological education was necessary for the good of the Church.

It means more older Christians marginalised, as they get left behind, holding onto perhaps a misplaced but real sense of connection to buildings and places of worship they loved and had put serious effort into maintaining.

Yeah, fractional church is nothing to do with the Gospel, and will just mean less ministry, by more divided groups, served by distracted ministers, and with limited cohesion, sorry, unity.

(And note, this post doesn’t even address the macro-denominational issues Fractionalism like this will pose for the Scottish church scene – new denomination ahoy!)

Gordon Matheson is a Minister in the Free Church of Scotland and serves a congregation in the Sleat region of the Isle of Skye. He blogs at Jedi Rev (yes, he actually owns a lightsabre!) where this article first appeared. It is used with his permission [Editor’s note: the original URL (link) referenced is no longer valid, so the link has been removed.]