When I was a minister in England, the structure of the Union was (and still is) such that churches for the most part belong to an Association, which employs one or more so-called Regional Ministers (RM).  The Associations then belong to the Union (as do the churches) with all its resources.  Ministers technically relate directly to the Union, but in practice, most of the time, relate to their Associations.  In one sense this can lead to a hierarchical view - that the Union is the top, the Association the next level down and the church at the bottom.  But I think what it endeavours to do is to provide rings of responsibility, a non-hierarchical relational support network.  It gets tricky - lots of churches emphasise their autonomy and vocally assert that 'they [the Union/Association] can't tell us what to do.'  And that's true.  But for ministers it's not, their covenant relationship with the Union requires them to accept the disicplines of the Union, even where they may be at odds with the local church.  So, for example, whilst a local church can refuse to allow women into its pulpit, an accredited minister accepts the ordination of women whether he likes it or not (I assume women ministers do also, but in this case gendered language seems appropriate!).

One of the advantages of this model is that it provides mechanisms for ministers to seek advice and guidance at a local level, without having to go running to the Union every time something tricky crops up.  So, for example, when I was in Dibley and most of our deacons wanted to retire, I rang my RM to get advice on the minimum legal and practical requirements for us to still exist (if you don't have a secretary and a treasurer, techncially you don't exist).  Similarly, when we failed to fill one essential post, I sought advice on how long we could legitimately continue in that situation.  Once or twice I sought guidance on pastoral matters.

Moving to Scotland, a much smaller Union, there is no interim level - no Association, no RM to whom I can turn for advice.  If I have a query or concern, there is only one port of call - the Union.  The upshot of this is that everything then becomes more significant, more 'official'.  I can ask an RM something 'off the record' or 'hypothetically';  I can't with the Union.  I can use an RM as a sounding board, or as a safe person to discuss something with; I can't with the Union.  I fully understand why the BUS is structured as it is, and I'm sure that it works well most of the time - just sometimes I miss having an RM I can ring up and say 'what do you think...'