Ministry

---

I am currently suffering from PTSD, as a result of the treatment I received from a small number of people who work for The Church of Scotland. For this reason it's not particularly healthy for me to talk about why I left ministry, and so, in future, when people ask I will direct them to this webpage. It does not really seem possible to say nothing at all as there are always people who will fill in the blanks for you, with utter nonsense. I have spoken at length about everything on my Rev Youtube Channel. Please note that, other than the most recent episodes, I filmed this shortly before suffering a breakdown, and was not in a good place. 

I will provide links to newspaper articles at the bottom of the page which, if you click on them, will take you to the corresponding stories. This will fill in some of the blanks. 

In short, leaving my church was a very difficult thing to do because they did not want me to go (they wrote to the Law Department expressing as much, and also expressing concern for my wellbeing and the way I was being treated by them.) I've spoken about the issues at length on my Rev YouTube channel but in short, I was offered a censure of reprimand which would have put things to an end and allowed me to go back to work, which is what we all wanted. I accepted the censure, and two days later it was amended to say that  I had to pay my church a lot of money that I did not have, and that they had said they did not want. As I had already applied to the Minister's Hardship Fund, and the reason for having had housemates was because I was struggling to live on a part time stipend which came about as a result of the pandemic, 121 (central church) knew that I could not pay this, and thus they created a situation where I felt that I had no choice but to leave. I could not go back to work with things as they were, and the sensible solution (the initial censure of reprimand) had been removed. 

It took a year to arrive at the first censure offer which meant I had to pay a solicitor to act on my behalf. I had to sell my car to pay for this.  Ultimately, the decision to change the offer of censure after I had already accepted it meant that OKB church will never have another minister, and is being joined with others. The responsibility for this lies with whomever decided to show what I can only see as a huge lack of integrity, in changing the censure offer. It is my understanding that 121 are there to serve the interests of the church, I believe that in due course it will be clearly demonstrated that the wishes of my church, who are the owners of the manse I had housemates in, were completely ignored. The effects of this, and all the other things I endured at the hands of 121 during my ministry, on my health and wellbeing, were also completely ignored.  

No, none of the charges levelled against me (and they managed to come up with an impressive amount), were deemed worthy of suspension, and there was never any question of losing my status. Many ministers have made serious mistakes (those deemed worthy of suspension), and are still serving ministers.  

A minister was absolutely the last thing I ever wanted to be. Having grown up in a manse, I knew exactly how difficult it was and it's impact on family life, and that was for my dad who was a fairly traditional minister, I'm sure you can imagine what it was like for a Porsche driving DJ minister, as the papers frequently liked to call me. I became a minister as I had a strong sense of call to it that I could not ignore, as much as I may have tried. One minister who knows me, and met me again at the first General Assembly I was at, said, "Ah you made it, you came kicking and screaming!" To become a minister I had to complete an access course to gain entry to University, which meant I studied for a total of 5 years. The training process was 7 years, but it was over a 10 year period as I took a break before entering the final placement. I was ordained in 2015, 10 years after I started the access course.

Leaving my church also meant leaving my home, and so I was effectively homeless. I was in a very fragile and vulnerable state, and was unfit for work. My grand plan was to restore 4 old golfs on my YouTube channel, and drive to Thailand in a bulletproof defender. I tried very hard to "move on," after posting what I intended to be the final video on my "Rev," channel, and started posting on my new channel the next day. Unfortunately, I was overly optimistic about my ability to "bounce back," from all of this. I was in such a paranoid and fragile state that I told nobody, not even my family, where my unit was, changed my phone number, and only communicated through Facebook. I  was completely emotionally burnt-out and knew I had no fight left in me. I needed time to heal and get into a better place before I could consider re-engaging with those who by this point, I could only view as my oppressors. Unfortunately, I was so low that after a few weeks I struggled to do anything, and suffered a breakdown. It took the help of a psychiatrist, counselling, and many months of being looked after by my parents before I was functioning well enough to look after myself and try to become productive again in some way.  

I moved to Ayrshire on 30th July 2023. I chose to move there because friends had a flat there that they weren't using and said I could stay there with no pressure to pay rent until I had created income. I had previously lived in Ayrshire for 7 years, had friends there. and had done well there, so it seemed like a good option. Things went well that year, but after returning from holiday for 3 weeks of January I did not feel that there was as much work momentum as I had expected. I had been doing gigs and conducting funerals. December had been surprisingly quiet for funerals, and I had no bookings for funerals in January. 5 months later, I found out through Facebook, that the church had removed my status in December 2023,  which was no doubt common knowledge to everyone but me, including the funeral directors. Indeed, when I went around the funeral directors in Forfar, I presented myself as a minister without charge, as to the best of my knowledge and that of both the presbytery I was a member of, and the one I was about to join, I was. Interestingly, despite a long track-record and many positive testimonials from conducting non-religious funerals, I did not receive a single call from any of the funeral directors locally. It may be the case that they also knew that I was no longer a minister, when I did not.

A lot of people are asking this question because to remove the status of a minister who had previously been offered a censure, and who had not been suspended is, I believe,  unprecedented in the history of the Church of Scotland. I am sure that there are a small number of people at 121 who are congratulating  themselves, but for the most part, the response to this has been one of shock, anger and disgust. The way I found out about it has been described as "unforgivable," by a minister whom of course shall remain nameless. I find it frightening, how easily the church can discard people in comparison to the lengthy process involved in becoming a minister in the first place. This involves in-person assessment by dozens of people over years. They took my status away without so much as a phone-call, or meeting to ever hear my side of the story, from the very moment that first letter from the law department arrived in my letterbox and shattered my world again, to the tribunal which I knew nothing about.  I have never before felt the need to turn to producing YouTube videos to share my side of things, nor did I ever believe that this was something I would feel I had no option but to do.

There was nothing new that came up in the tribunal, which I was not invited to attend, nor aware of until 5 months later when I learned that they had removed my status. The only new criticism of me that, as with the other charges,  had nothing to do with my performance as a minister, was that I had not been willing to engage with them. I have a mountain of medical evidence which clearly demonstrates that I was medically unfit to engage with them, which I am sure will prove useful, in due course.

Instead of completely removing my status, the church had the option to change the "category of my status." 

Category O - Those in Parish Ministry or working as Associate Ministers

Category E - Those in employment, such as in the national offices, or chaplaincies

Category R - Those retaining status as a minister and authorised to perform the functions of ministry out with an appointment covered by Category O or Category E.

Category S - Suspended

These have recently been changed, as there were previously categories such as "Inactive," "Allowed to perform duties with permission," etc.

The complete removal of my status means that I cannot:

- Hold a pastoral charge 

- Marry anyone

- Baptise anyone

- Offer pulpit supply

- Administer Holy Communion

- Become a military or prison chaplain

- Move to another denomination as a minister, (there are many churches worldwide that recognise the status of Church of Scotland Minister, PCUSA being just one.)

- Conduct funerals as a minister. I could conduct funerals as a celebrant but since finding out about the removal of status, I've avoided anything that reminds me of church, or activities I conducted as a minister.

If I were to appeal, I would be appealing to the same people who considered it appropriate to hold a tribunal without my knowledge and with nobody there to defend me, and who felt that removing my status was a measured response to alleged actions which were not deemed serious enough to merit suspension. To make matters worse, my former Session Clerk who was at the tribunal had no idea that I was not present, that there was no-one there to defend me, or that she would not have the opportunity to give answers to questions which would have allowed her to voice her support of me. It was a completely one-sided affair.

It was not until November 2023 that I, and my doctor felt that I was in a good enough place to begin re-engaging with the church. I did this by joining the Presbytery of the South West, in that same month. To do this I obtained confirmation of my status from 121. When I decided to move to my parents in Perth for a while before moving to Forfar, my dad highlighted a job in the presbytery for a locum in Dundee. I enquired about this but decided not to pursue it due to it paying minimum wage, which I didn't feel was proportionate the stipend of a parish minister. Instead, I decided to offer my help by way of offering pulpit supply to colleagues who required cover. I tried to  post on Minister's Discussion Forum, and realised that not only was I no longer a member of it, I could not even see the page to add myself to. I contacted the admin who told me that the Church Solicitor, Mary McLeod, had contacted them in December to tell them that my status had been removed. I questioned this given that I was a member of the Presbytery of the South West, and already had a date to be "sworn in" as a member of Perth Presbytery.  I then received an email from the church solicitor accusing me of knowing that my status had been removed and telling me that I should not be applying to join the Presbytery of Perth, nor enquiring about becoming a locum!

Unfortunately, this is the "guilty until proven," innocent behaviour I've come to expect from 121. The church solicitor referred to having emailed me about the tribunal and my status, to "an email address that was active at the time." The only email address to which the solicitor could be referring is my Church of Scotland one, which I have not had access to since 2018 and which has had an "autoresponder message," since that date, saying that it is unused and unchecked. When I started at OKB Church, in 2018, I set up an email account on the website I built for the church, and the autoresponse email said "I do not use this email address, for church enquiries please contact minister@okbchurch.co.uk and for business enquiries, please contact enquiries@scottmccrumltd.co.uk,"  This account had not been accessed or checked in 5 years. What was an active email address for me was the one that 121 sent proof of my status to in October 2023, the same one that the presbytery of the South West also had since October 2023, two months before the tribunal was held. The presbytery also had my current mobile phone number for two months before the tribunal was held.

Given what I have spoken about already both on my channel, and on this page, I doubt that it would be surprising to anyone that I have no faith in the ability or intent of those involved to consider an appeal in such a fashion that would be acceptable in another charity. The minister who was attached to my "case,"  with the lawyer, is one who is known not to like me, mainly because of my previous close association with another minister who he is known not to like. He was also very discourteous to me when I emailed him in his capacity as Presbytery Clerk, after having moved to a new presbytery. He was apparently angry that I had not informed him of the move, which I still believe to be the responsibility of Presbytery. One of the people on the committee that opted to remove my status was the wife of a minister who works at 121 who has also been very discourteous to me, so much so that I politely suggested that he consider more carefully the tone of his emails. It would be interesting to see who decides who will serve on such committees, and whether there is ever any consideration given to conflict of interest. 

I am no expert in church law however, it is my understanding that the General Assembly, as the highest court of the church, has the power to rule the action taken by the law department, as out of order, or, simply overrule the decision. I believe that this would require a minister or elder to put forward a motion with a "seconder."  I may be incorrect about the details however, the General Assembly does have the power to  restore my status, or re-enact the original offer of censure. 

As alluded to in my most recent video, talking to the newspapers can be a hit or miss as they are trying to sell newspapers, and even where they are not trying to paint you in an untrue light, there are usually some errors in details. It's for this reason that I've decided to do an on-camera interview. While I'm strong enough to have re-examined all of this, and started to take some advice, this is not something I feel able to do at this moment in time. I feel that the best thing I can do just now is focus on continuing to rebuild my life, and continue to work my way back from what was rock bottom, in every sense of the phrase. I intend at some point to talk to an expert in  law pertaining to human rights/disability.

During the process I did speak to someone from the Scottish Government pertaining to the Church of Scotland Act of 1921, this is what effectively makes the church a law unto itself. There does not appear to be any oversight or anyone to hold the institution accountable for it's actions. They did ask for further details which I have not yet been back to them with.

My parents are deeply disappointed by the way I've been treated by the Church of Scotland. They believe that the removal of my status was "very unfair," and they are very unimpressed about the way it was done, and how I found out.

My dad is a Church of Scotland minister, and both he and my mum are retired. I have never wished for them to get involved, and they have done everything possible to support me, as parents. 

I have been advised by my doctor to be assessed for ADHD. Should I, as he expects, be diagnosed with ADHD, this will potentially add discrimination against a disability.

ADHD is a recognised mental health condition in the UK. According to UK law, a person who has a formal diagnosis of ADHD may be considered to have a disability if their condition has a “substantial” and a “long-term” negative effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. Depending on how it impacts you, ADHD can qualify as a disability under UK law3. Being neurodivergent will often amount to a disability under the Equality Act 2010, even if the person does not consider themselves to be disabled.

1In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.

2Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

3Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:

(a)to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;

(b)to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;

(c)to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;

(d)to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;

(e)to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

1No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.

2This Article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations.

1Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

1Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

1Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

Helen Percy, a former CofS minister lost a discrimination case against CofS through the Scottish Courts which was then taken to the House Of Lords. Percy won the case, and the CofS was ordered to pay her compensation. Rather than admit clear wrongdoing, the CofS spent £1 million  defending itself, and she received only £10, 000 in compensation. I took the opportunity to meet up with Helen on several occasions, she was disappointed though not surprised to hear about my situation, or that of the many other ministers we both knew who had the misfortune of being caught up in the CofS disciplinary procedure. I recall one minister saying to me, "I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy."

Despite winning the case against the Church of Scotland, Helen's status as a minister has never been restored. She's written to every moderator of the General Assembly since winning the case, and has not had a response from any of them. Before rushing to judge every moderator concerned, perhaps it is worth considering whether the letters reached them, or whether they were asked or encouraged not to respond. If so, by whom?

I learned of Helen's case through googling "guilty until proven innocent" which led me to this article:

Helen Percy: spat out by the Kirk

This is at once a terrible and a beautiful book. Terrible, because it describes, admittedly in an episodic and soft-focussed way, a shameful story that besmirches contemporary Scotland. Beautiful, because it is a testament to the resilience, poignantly and quietly described, of a woman who as she herself notes, has no great reserves of courage and strength. It is also a beautiful book because it is infused with the noble quality of hope.

Helen Percy was abused by her father when she was a child. Later, she went to St Andrews University, and she describes graphically her early days there. She presents herself as desperately shy and almost helpless. Then we fast-forward to her leaving the university, when she has won various prizes. She is now, in worldly terms, a success. What has happened in between? We’d surely like to know, but that is one of the many gaps in this piecemeal narrative.

Although she does not write much about her faith or her personal beliefs – her version of Christianity seems to be more social than spiritual – Percy goes on to tell us that she is ordained as a Church of Scotland minister.

She ministers for a time in Paisley, and then, when she is still young, moves to the supposedly lovely context of deepest rural Scotland, serving several parishes in the Angus glens.

Here she is raped by one of the most senior men in her flock. The rape was of course bad enough in itself; but what followed was almost worse – a protracted saga of institutional bullying, legalistic nastiness and bureaucratic obfuscation which was devoid of compassion and replete with puffed-up pompous sanctimony. Through this demeaning and deeply unpleasant process Percy, the victim, somehow became the culprit. The minister herself forgave the rapist; she even, at one point, wants him to join the general ‘merriment’ in her kitchen – but her church does not forgive her, the innocent party.

I hate to write this, but the Church of Scotland comes out of this book very very badly. Among the many senior personnel who are indicted in this book are two men who are well known to me and whom I respect. I thought of contacting them to hear their side of the story, but then that would be to revisit the whole tedious and religion-destroying process of legalistic claim and counter-claim which Helen Percy had to endure.

Meanwhile I know that in many ways our national church is still a caring and compassionate organisation that manages, despite its rapidly dwindling resources, both human and monetary, to achieve a great deal of practical good, in Scotland and beyond. I am pretty certain that there remain in it far more good people than bad. But it is also, these days, a grievously divided church, indeed a broken church that is barely fit for purpose, and this devastating book gives at least some indication of how that has come about. There is far too much forensic fiddling about, far too much narrow-minded control-freakery and backroom bossiness, while the fires that destroy faith and charity burn ever stronger.

At its worst the Church of Scotland is a bloated bureaucracy and its complex, adversarial forensic procedures were always going to militate against pastoral decency and basic human compassion, although I for one would have hoped that even legalistic processes could potentially be used as an instrument for care rather than oppression.

There is also the problem that the church’s sovereign body, the General Assembly, is a gathering totally lacking in any meaningful continuity. Its large membership changes from year to year (it is difficult to determine exactly how and why the commissioners, as they are portentously called, are chosen) as does its leadership. The moderator of the assembly, new every year, takes charge of this vast and ramshackle assembly for a week in May as the first of his year’s duties. No wonder that the new moderators sometimes seem lost and overwhelmed as they confront the most important task of their moderatorial year at the very start of it.

In the overall experience of Helen Percy, the Church of Scotland was wholly unable to provide the kind of consistent pastoral succour required by a young minister who was desperately in need of loving support. Instead she was subjected to humiliating, bruising inquisitions and a ludicrously overstretched legalistic process.

It is salutary to learn that it was in another church – the Roman Catholic Church – that she was able to find at least some evidence of the blessed qualities of tenderness, redemption, hope and love. She knew a local priest, ‘a man with the heart of Christ’. She discovered that the Catholic Church could triumph over institutionalised malice. When she is spat out of her own church, treated as someone dirty and shamed, when she is subjected to systematic condemnation and to vile gossip, she is, thank God, welcomed in another church.

In her own simple, straightforward words: ‘I go to mass in the local Roman Catholic Church. The priest knows my whole story. He is prepared to offer me the Bread of Life that the Church of Scotland withholds. Strictly, he should not give it to a non-Catholic. In his book, pastoral need takes precedence over ecclesiastical law.’

At times I am not certain of the precise accuracy of Helen Percy’s witness. She can and often does write beautifully, but there is an evasive and elusive quality about her prose which is not always suited to a tale which, like it or not, is often about the detailed minutiae of institutional procedures. So it might have been better to tell it in a more documentary, matter-of-fact manner.

Yet for obvious reasons I hesitate to suggest that the book would have had more authority had it been written in a more focussed and dare I say masculine style; in this context, such a suggestion would be crass. On the other hand the careful reader notes that Helen Percy leaves out a great deal. But if this book comes down to Percy versus the Church of Scotland, as it probably does, then I am completely and unequivocally on the side of Helen Percy.

It might seem simplistic to present this terrible tale as a black and white case: Helen Percy good, Church of Scotland bad. Of course it is more complex than that. But at the heart of this sorry scarring saga is the inescapable fact that the Church of Scot-land chose, quite unnecessarily, to make an extended adversarial point. Having sought to make that point, but ultimately losing it, the Church of Scotland can then hardly wonder if this entire affair is presented in terms of a confrontation: The Kirk against Helen Percy.

I still cannot understand why our national Church was so doggedly determined to pursue a very long and desperately expensive – for a body that is sorely strapped for cash – sequence of tedious and dispiriting litigation. This surely cannot be God’s work on Earth.

It is not only the Church of Scotland that comes out of this book badly. Our Scottish press – and in particular the Scotsman – does not emerge at all well. But at least there’s a balancing goodness here; certain individual journalists have written sympathetically and supportively about Helen Percy.

Apart from the critique of the Church of Scotland at the core of the book, there is a secondary lingering and in a way horrifying theme. Helen Percy loves the countryside and animals, as she makes abundantly clear (almost too clear for my personal taste), and she writes with a special poetic sweetness about the rural context in which her nightmare unfolded. Her descriptions of upper Angus make the heart sing. Reading some of her passages, I was reminded of that fine Angus writer Violet Jacob.

But nastiness and evil can occur in idyllic rural contexts just as much as they can in the slums of inner cities or the wastelands of bleak housing estates; and in some ways an abused woman is further from help and succour in a so-called close-knit rural community than she is in the badlands of urban Scotland.

I have not described at any length the infuriating and consistently petty legal process which Helen Percy had to endure. It would take more than Helen Percy – perhaps a Charles Dickens – to achieve the levels of eloquent literary indignation required to deal with this disgraceful spun out saga.

Suffice to say that the verdict of the courts of the Church of Scotland was endorsed by the Scottish Court of Session, and it took the House of Lords – the House of Lords – to overturn them. So much for any residual trust we may have in our Scottish institutions. Not just as a member of the Church of Scotland, but also as a long- serving Scottish journalist and indeed as a Scottish citizen, this book makes me hang my head in shame.

I have certain residual doubts about Helen Percy’s testament, but I repeat: overall I must be on her side. For it is inescapable that she was bullied without mercy as she was put under pressure to confess to culpability when the real culpability lay elsewhere. The hounding of this vulnerable woman scars and shames contemporary Scotland.

Helen Percy

ARGYLL PUBLISHING, £9.99, 384PP ISBN 978-1906134747

 August 2011 – Page 2 – Scottish Review of Books 

Helen's book is available on Amazon.