THERE is little pulling of punches in the Council of Assembly report on the challenges facing the Church of Scotland. In charting a way forward for the Kirk over the next 10 years, the report also lays bare a background of impending financial crisis and a crisis of existential proportions.

That is no exaggeration. Warning that the majority of those attending Church are over 60, the report says whole generations are missing from many congregations. “These missing generations pose a real challenge to the very existence of the Church,” it notes.

The list of problems is daunting. There are very few children and young adults in the church, but the number of people in their 30s and 40s is also “very small”. A chart of income shows reductions in congregational contributions, fees from social care work, donations, grants and legacies, as well as a decline in return from the Church’s investments. These, despite an improvement in “trading activities” amount to a net drop in annual income of £6.3m since 2013.

With three-quarters of ministers now over 50, the report suggests many will need to take on more than one congregation, adding: “the present model of one Minister to one parish is no longer sustainable”.

Too many of the church’s buildings are no longer fit for purpose. This includes the Kirk’s headquarters in Edinburgh’s George Street and next year’s General Assembly will have to take a decision on whether to sell it or spend scarce resources refurbishing it.

What of that 10 year strategy, then? While the Council’s call for local reviews is sensible, it will not be easy, or painless. It proposes parishes are divided into three groups: these where new or growing congregations are possible, those where sustainability is the best to be hoped for and rather bluntly: “congregations [which] have no long term future”.

Presbyteries (of which there are also too many) cannot continue turn a blind eye to areas where through a shortage of ministers, parishioners or income, the Church’s presence is no longer sustainable. Financial pressures on the work of the Church’s social care arm Crossreach are to be scrutinised. Creating new congregations, in new area, may be more productive than putting effort into declining communities.

Recognising and planning for the decline in the Church’s resources is responsible. Many parishioners however may find this vision a little too brutally pragmatic. It also offers little sense of how the Church can reassert its relevance in an ever more secular society.

It sets out a path for survival, but many within and outwith the Kirk will hope that the “creative thinking” it calls for is forthcoming, and something more inspirational can be built on the report’s foundation.