Agenda Volume 2 - Methodist Conference

The Methodist Church 

Agenda volume two 

Annual Conference 2013 

The Methodist Church Annual Conference 2013 • Agenda volume two

Contents 

Order of Business* 278 

23. Conference Diaconal Committee 283 

24. Connexional Central Services Budget 2013/2016 286 

25. Connexional Central Services Budget 2013/14 – District Allocations 309 

26. Unified Statement of Connexional Finances 311 

27. Relief & Extension Fund for Methodism in Scotland 325 

28. Methodist Ministers Housing Society 328 

29. Education Project – Progress Report 331 

30. Methodist Academies and Schools Trust 335 

31. Safeguarding 339 

32. Joint Implementation Commission 345 

33. Central Finance Board: Review of the year ended 28 February 2013 349 

34. The Future of Wesley House, Cambridge 355 

35. Larger than Circuit 368 

36. Westminster College Oxford Trust Limited: Estate Development 406 

37. The Faith and Order Committee 421 

38. Report of the Methodist Missionary Society Working Party 427 

39. Managing Trustees of Central Hall Westminster 440 

40. Sharing Agreements and Ecumenical Partnerships 444 

41. The Discipleship and Ministries Learning Network 449 

42. Ministries Committee 472 

43. Conference Arrangements 497 

44. Methodist Council 500 

45. District Resolutions 512 

46. Authorisations Committee 514 

47. Appointments of District Chairs 522 

48. Supreme Court case 529 

49. Review of the Membership of the Conference 532 

50. Report of the Presbyteral Session Business Committee 543 

51. Transfer Committee 545 

52. Presbyteral Candidates and Probationers Oversight Committee 547 

53. Ministers Becoming Supernumerary or Returning to the Active Work 554 

54. World Methodist Council Ministerial Exchanges 557 

55. Methodist Forces Board 558 

56. Permissions to serve 561 

57. Presbyters and Deacons from other Churches 563 

58. Committee Appointments 572 

59. Appreciations 582 

60. Referred Memorials and Notices of Motion 583 

Members of the Conference 2013 586 

Presbyters attending the Conference at their own expense 594 

Index to Volume Two 595 

Conference Agenda 2013 

277

Order of Business* 

(*Subject to change - The Conference Business Committee will keep this programme under 

review and inform the Conference of any changes, as necessary.) 

Memorials – Memorials relating to items of business listed below will be considered 

alongside the items listed. 

The number in brackets after an item refers to the agenda number for that item. 

Representative Session 

Saturday 6 July 

10.30 Opening of the representative session and Induction of the President and Vice- 

President of the Conference (1) 

The President’s Address 

12.45 Lunch 

14.15 The Vice-President’s Address 

Report of the Conference Business Committee (2) 

Report of the Conference Diaconal Committee (23) 

Presentation of the Budget (24) 

16.30 Tea Break 

17.00 General Secretary’s Report (3) 

Methodist Children and Youth Assembly Report (4) 

Prayers 

18.45 Adjourn 

Sunday 7 July 

11.00 Conference Worship and Reception into Full Connexion 

12.30 Adjourn 

15.00 Ordination Services: Westminster Central Hall and St Margaret’s Westminster 

17.00 Ordination Services: Hanwell Methodist Church; Hinde Street Methodist Church; 

Surbiton Hill Methodist Church; Trinity Church, Sutton; Walworth Methodist 

Church; and Wesley's Chapel 

278 Conference Agenda 2013


18.00 Ordination Service: Southwark Cathedral 

Monday 8 July 

09.30 Prayers 

Methodist Council (44 except Para 2 and Resolution 44/2– see below) 

11.00 Coffee Break 

11.30 Connexional Finance (26) 

Supreme Court Case (48) 

Westminster College Oxford Trust (9 and 36) 

13.00 Lunch 

14.15 Bible Study 

Ministers with Ill Health (20) 

Same Sex Marriage (Methodist Council Report Para 2 and Resolution 44.2 (44)) 

Joint Implementation Commission (32) 


17.00 Review of the Conference membership (49) 

Law & Polity Committee (21) 

Faith & Order Committee (37) 

Special Resolutions (11) 

Prayers 

19.00 Adjourn 

Tuesday 9 July 

09.30 Prayers 

Future Mission Together (MMS)(38) 

Notices of Motion relating to the Budget 

District Resolution (Scotland) (45a) 



279


11.30 Connexional Allowances Committee (6) 

Methodist Ministers Pension Scheme (15) 

Ministries Committee (42) 

Stationing Committee (22) 

Methodist Homes for the Aged (14) 

13.00 Lunch 

14.15 Bible Study 

Discipleship and Ministries Learning Network (41) 

Wesley House, Cambridge (34) 

District Resolution (Cornwall) (45b) 

15:15 Workshops: Local Pastoral Ministry 

Local Preachers and Worship Leaders 


17.00 JACEI (19) 

Any agenda business removed from en bloc 

Memorials removed from en bloc 

Referred Memorials and Notices of Motion (60) 

Prayers 

19.00 Adjourn 

Wednesday 10 July 

09.30 Holy Communion 


11.30 Result of President and Vice-President Ballots 

Ecumenical Report (12) 

Safeguarding (31) 

Larger than Circuit (35) 

13.00 Lunch 

14.15 Address by the Archbishop of Canterbury 

280 

Conference Agenda 2013


16:00 Bible Study 

Introduction to Workshops 


17.00 Workshops – Equality, Diversity and Inclusion 

18:00 Notices of Motion unrelated to other items of business 

Prayers 

19.00 Adjourn 

Thursday 11 July 

09.30 Prayers 

Results of Conference-elected Representatives and Conference Business 

Committee Ballots, 

Conference Arrangements (43) 

Budget Decisions (24) 

District Allocations (25) 

En bloc Business 


11.30 Presbyters and Deacons becoming Supernumerary or returning to the active work 

(53) 

Presbyteral Transfers and Reinstatements (51) 

Presbyters recommended for transfer out of full connexion or to be permitted to 

serve another conference or church or to serve abroad or reside abroad (56) 

Presbyters from Other Churches (57) 

District Chairs (47) 

Authorisations Committee (46) 

Associate Members (see Conference Arrangements (43)) 

Prayers 

13.00 Adjourn 


281


En bloc items: 

Methodist Independent Schools Trust (5), Action for Children (7), Methodist Relief and 

Development Fund (8), Guernsey Methodist Church Purposes (10), Managing Trustees 

for New Bristol (13), Personnel Files for Ministers (16), Methodist Diaconal Order General 

Report (17), Trustees for Methodist Church Purposes (18), Relief and Extension Fund 

for Methodism in Scotland (27), Methodist Ministers’ Housing Society (28), Education 

Commission Progress Report (29), Methodist Academies and Schools (30), Central Finance 

Board (33), Managing Trustees of Central Hall Westminster (39), Sharing Agreements 

and Ecumenical Partnerships (40), World Methodist Council Ministerial Exchanges (54), 

Forces Board (55), Ministers from other Churches (57), Committee Appointments (58), 

Appreciations (59), Memorials. 

282 


23. Conference Diaconal Committee 

Report to the Representative Session of 

business conducted by the Conference 

Diaconal Committee. 

The Conference Diaconal Committee (“the 

Committee”) met during the Convocation 

of the Methodist Diaconal Order on 9 May 

2013. The President took the Chair. 

1. Deacons who have died 

The Committee approved the 

Obituaries, as printed and circulated, 

of Marjorie Elizabeth Bates, Rosalie 

Margaret James, Agnes Davidson 

Notman, Emily Elizabeth Florence 

Sherwood and Dorothy Jean Taylor. 

2. Candidates 

The Committee recommended, with 

the required majority, acceptance 

by the Representative Session of 

the following candidates to proceed 

immediately into pre-ordination 

training: 

Corinne Anne Brown 

Linda Brown 

Jacqueline Abigail Patricia Nike 

Esma-John 

Sally Elizabeth Hammond 

Caroline Holt 

Phillipa Kirby-Girdlestone 

Alison McMillan 

Gail Morgan 

Marlene Skuce 

Sarah Wickett 

Jackie Wright 

A resolution will be presented to the 

Representative Session of the Conference 

at the appropriate point that the above 

named be accepted as candidates for 

training. 

3. Transfer 

No case 

4. Training and Probation 

The Committee noted that the 

following student had withdrawn 

from training: 

Bridget Jane Crossfield 

The Committee recommends to the 

Representative Session that the 

following continue in training: 

Angela Patricia Allport 

Melanie Beaven 

Laura Evans 

Jon Everingham 

Linda Gilson 

Elizabeth Harfleet 

Valerie Hicks 

Maria Howard 

Lianne Justine Elizabeth 

Kensett 

Pamela Luxton 

Karen McEwen 

Julie Morton 

Selina Jane Nisbett 

Lemia Nkwelah 

Helen Osborne 

Margaret Eleanor Patchett 

Peter George Reast 

Colette Lerczak Ritson 

Ian Rossiter 

Ramona Samuel 

Susie Gidini Barony Viana 


283




following’s training be deferred: 

Emma Holroyd 



following continue on probation: 

5. Ordinands 

Guy Austin Bride 

Helen Bamber 

John Brobbey 

Prudence Elizabeth Cahill 

Dawn Nicola Canham 

Timothy Arthur Coleman 

Josephine Frances Ann 

Critchley 

Sheila Mary Dawson 

Michaela Jayne Doherty 

Annabel Lorna Graham 

Tracey Jane Hume 

Gill Judge (ordained 

probationer) 

Esther Longe 

Linda Rose Kinchenton 

Yasha Rukudzo Mashoko 

Annette Sharpe 

Angela Shereni 

Marilyn Olayika Slowe 

Carole Irene Smith 

Steven Wayne Sowerby 

Joy Anne Sykes 

Irene Nyarai Tafirenyika 

Jill Taylor 

Liesl Collette Warren 

Linda Watkin 

following are fit to be admitted into 

Full Connexion with the Conference 

as deacons and, if not already 

ordained, to be ordained: 

Georgina Mary Brooks 

David Keegan 

Ruth Marion Lakenby 

Alison Margaret McCauley 

Deborah Marsh 

Sian Marie Street 

Terry Street 

Samantha Mary Taylor 

Helen Mary Webster 

A resolution will be presented to 

the Representative Session of the 

Conference at the appropriate point 

that the above named be received 

into Full Connexion and, if not already 

ordained, be ordained. 

6. Deacons becoming Supernumerary 



following deacons be permitted to 

become supernumerary: 

Kathleen Barrett (23) 

Margaret Crompton (20) 

Ruth M Hinch (38) 

Sylvia J Kempson (14) 

A resolution will be presented to 

the Representative Session of the 

Conference at the appropriate point 

that the above named be permitted 

to become supernumerary. 



284 



7. Annual Inquiry 

The Warden of the Order gave to 

the Committee on behalf of the 

Convocation the assurances as 

to the character and discipline of 

the deacons and diaconal 

probationers required by Standing 

Order 183. 

***RESOLUTIONS 

23/1. The Conference receives the Report. 

23/2. The Conference adopts the report on diaconal students and probationers 

recommended for continuance in training or on probation as set out in section 4. 


285

24. Connexional Central Services Budget 2013/2016 

Contact Name and Details 

Nick Moore 

Head of Support Services 

mooren@methodistchurch.org.uk 

Summary of Content and Impact 

Subject and Aims Agreement of a central budget covering the three years from 1 

September 2013 for the Conference to adopt the 2013/14 year 

under SO 361 (2) and to adopt a formula for determining the total 

MCF assessment for the three years commencing 2014/15. 

Main Points 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

Income and expenditure assumptions by fund and cluster; 

Selection from three options for calculating the MCF; 

assessment for three years from 2014/15; 

Proposal to increase the management charges on the main 

ring-fenced funds by 1% and an additional 1% on the World 

Mission Fund; 

Proposals to utilise an agreed amount of the Epworth Fund 

capital investing in mission over the next three years. 

Background Context 

and Relevant 

Documents 

Impact 

Risk 

The budget is proposed to the Conference by the Methodist 

Council following adoption by the Strategy & Resources 

Committee. 

Will determine the use of connexional funds and the level of 

assessment to be paid to the Methodist Church Fund by circuits. 

The budget is based on forecast levels of income and expenditure 

so there is a risk that these are not realistic. However, a three year 

forecast helps to mitigate such risk and promote stability. 

1. Over the last two years the 

Connexion has been focussing on 

what it means for the Methodist 

Church to be a ‘discipleship 

movement shaped for mission’. 

Participation in God’s mission 

requires us to give generously of our 

time, talents, and other resources. 

Our stewardship of that giving, 

especially of the financial resources 

given freely in churches across the 

Connexion week by week, is the 

subject of this paper. 

2. Paul writing to the Corinthians tells 

us “Remember this – a farmer who 

plants only a few seeds will get 

a small crop. But one who plants 

generously will get a generous 

crop. You must decide in your 



heart how much to give. And don’t 

give reluctantly or in response to 

pressure. “For God loves a person 

who gives cheerfully.” And God will 

generously provide all you need. 

Then you will always have everything 

you need and plenty left over to 

share with others.” 2 Corinthians 9:6 

– 8, (NLV) 

3. It is the giving of the Methodist people 

in the past and present that enables 

the Church to resource its work, and 

it is in the hope of future giving that 

we must plan for the years to come. 

The budget proposed for the period 

2013/16 is set within the context of 

good stewardship, grace-led decision 

making, and generous giving. 

4. In his report to the 2011 Conference 

the General Secretary posed some 

questions about connexionalism, 

such as how we resolve to live 

together in a mutually acceptable 

and nourishing way. In many 

ways, this is a central issue when 

establishing the Connexional Central 

Services Budget. The overarching 

financial structure of the Church 

reflects its connexional nature, with 

the majority of work that is deemed 

to be uniquely or best performed 

centrally by the Connexional Team 

funded by the assessment on local 

churches via the circuits to the 

Methodist Church Fund (MCF). 

5. Recognising the importance of this 

process for a connexional Church, 

the Methodist Council has for 

several years been asking the Team 

to present a budget that includes 

detailed three-year projections. 

This is not because the Church’s 

overriding concern is financial 

planning, but rather because it will 

provide a more stable environment 

within which the Church can take 

important decisions about mission. 

6. In addition to three years, the 

proposed budget covers all of the 

main funds that are under the 

managing trusteeship of the Council. 

It provides the Conference with a 

clear view of connexional funds, held 

for a variety of uses, and asks the 

Conference to approve a budget that 

includes the forecast income and 

expenditure for each of them. 

7. This budget is recommended to 

the Conference by the Methodist 

Council in accordance with SO 212. 

The Council has played a full part 

in the evolution of the budget by 

debating the context in which it is 

set, and the assumptions that should 

be used. The detailed figures and 

assumptions behind them were 

presented by the Senior Leadership 

Group (SLG) to the Finance Subcommittee 

(FSC) of the Strategy 

and Resources Committee (SRC) in 

February. The full budget, including 

the FSC’s recommendations, were 

subsequently debated by the 

SRC. The Connexional Treasurers 

highlighted the enhanced level of 

information that was made available 

this year, recognising that already 

the investment in the new finance 

database is beginning to bear fruit. 


287


8. The place of the assessment to the 

Methodist Church Fund (MCF) has 

already been mentioned and it is 

the Conference which determines 

the formula that is used to calculate 

this as a total amount. To reflect the 

changing needs and context of the 

Church, this is reviewed every three 

years, with 2013 being such a year. 

Recognising the importance of this 

across the Connexion, the paper is 

divided into two parts as follows – 

i. The requirement for the 

Conference to agree the 

formula by which the MCF 

assessment for the three years 

commencing 2014/15 will be 

calculated; 

ii. The Connexional Central 

Services Budget for 2013/14. 

Part One - MCF Assessment Calculation 

9. SO 361(2) states that “The 

[MCF] shall be maintained by an 

assessment levied by the Conference 

on each Circuit in the home church 

through the several Districts...” The 

level of assessment to be collected 

in 2013/14 has been calculated as 

the third year for which the existing 

formula will be used. Therefore, the 

Conference of 2013 is required to 

decide on a formula that will apply 

from the 2014/15 assessment. 

10. The total assessment is not 

calculated from scratch each year, 

but is rather a modification on the 

previous year. The existing formula 

divides the Team’s core costs into 

two parts. Those that are deemed 

to be outside of the control of 

the Team’s management change 

automatically each year based on the 

agreed budget for the previous year, 

whilst those deemed to be under the 

control of the Team’s management 

are increased by CPI inflation. 

11. The level of the total assessment has 

been under scrutiny from around the 

Connexion as many local churches 

with declining membership, and 

other increasing demands on finite 

resources, have questioned increased 

assessments. In 2011 the Conference 

received a District Resolution 

which had the effect of producing a 

commitment that the assessment 

would not be increased by more than 

CPI inflation in any one year. The 

Conference directed the Council to 

ensure that future plans were “based 

on a realistic understanding of the 

implications of declining income for 

connexional expenditure”. 

12. The advent of a detailed three year 

budget, in which the assessment for 

year one is already fixed, provides 

an opportunity for this matter to be 

debated more effectively, without 

destabilising year one. The Council 

therefore proposes that, in addition to 

the assumptions made in preparing 

the figures contained within this 

paper, the Conference considers two 

other potential formulae, providing 

three options as follows: 

A. The proposed three year budget 

is based on a flat increase 

288 



of 2% per annum. This is the 

amount that is sufficient to 

meet the target of eradicating 

the MCF deficit within three 

years without reducing the 

services delivered other than in 

the ways outlined. It is therefore 

the option that the SRC feels is 

most suitable, so is the basis 

for the figures within this paper. 

It results in an increase in the 

assessment from 2013/14 to 

2014/15 of £250k. 

B. The second option would be 

to retain the existing formula. 

This divides the assessment 

into two parts – ‘Team costs’ 

are those determined to be 

largely under the control 

of the SLG and these are 

currently increased annually 

by CPI inflation; ‘non-Team’ are 

conversely those over which the 

SLG has little control, such as 

training (now the Discipleship 

& Ministries Learning Network), 

and governance and oversight 

costs. These are automatically 

adjusted to reflect the budget 

from the previous year. In the 

proposed 2013/14 budget the 

split is almost exactly 50/50 

between Team and non-Team. 

Assuming the March CPI rate of 

2.8% (and it’s likely to increase) 

this formula would produce a 

total assessment that is £453k 

higher than the 2013/14 figure 

and £208k higher than the 

budgeted presented within 

this paper. This trend would be 

likely to continue throughout 

the three years. 

C. The third option would be to 

freeze the overall assessment 

at the 2013/14 level. This 

would significantly increase 

the MCF deficit and would 

require additional savings of 

over £500k within two years 

in order to reach a zero deficit 

figure. Given that the area of 

the budget that is generally 

trending upwards is the non- 

Team part, it is most likely that 

such savings would have to be 

made within the core work of 

the Team, leading to a reduction 

in the activities supported and 

services provided. 

Options Summarised 

2013/14 

assessment 

2014/15 

assessment 

increase 2014/15 

deficit/surplus 

A: £12,350k £12,600k £250k £152k surplus 

B: £12,350k £12,803k £453k £355k surplus 

C: £12,350k £12,350k £ nil £98k deficit 


289


It is important to stress again that 

because the total assessment 

for 2013/14 is already fixed, the 

Conference can choose between 

options A, B and C for the three 

years 2014/15 without affecting the 

proposed 2013/14 budget at all. 

Under SO 136 (2C) the Conference 

adopts only year one of the budget; 

ie the figures for years two and three 

are not fixed, but indicative forecasts 

that facilitate better planning, but 

will themselves have to be adopted 

in the relevant years by subsequent 

Conferences. 


24/1. The Conference adopts option A as set out above as the methodology that will 

be used to determine the total MCF assessment for the three years commencing 

2014/15. 

The following resolution will be moved only if resolution 24/1 is not adopted 

24/2. The Conference adopts option B as set out above as the methodology that will 


2014/15. 

The following resolution will be moved only if resolution 24/1 and 24/2 are not adopted 

24/3. The Conference adopts option C as set out above as the methodology that will 


2014/15. 

Part Two 

13. The 2012/13 Connexional Central 

Services Budget was agreed with an 

MCF deficit of £676k. The Council’s 

instruction to the SRC was to 

produce a budget which eradicated 

the MCF deficit over the next three 

years. This has been a challenging 

task, but the proposed budget 

does satisfy this aspiration, using 

assumptions that the Council feels 

are an appropriate balance between 

the prudence of good stewardship 

and the demonstration of our belief 

in God’s faithful provision. 

290 



Table 1 - Proposed Income and Expenditure for MCF 

Budget 

2012/13 

£000 

Budget 

2013/14 

£000 

Budget 

2014/15 

£000 

Budget 

2015/16 

£000 

Income District Assessment –MCF only 12,114 12,349 12,595 12,844 

Donations 586 552 565 579 

Grants 102 36 46 56 

Investment Income 150 10 10 11 

Legacies 25 50 50 50 

Miscellaneous Income 719 529 513 515 

Rental income 309 124 124 12 

Trading Income 1,176 939 894 851 

Internal Transfer – Fund levies 1,447 1,535 1,519 1,511 

Total Income 16,628 16,124 16,316 16,429 

Expenditure Committee Costs 893 882 891 909 

Cost of Sales 729 551 525 500 

Facilities 674 504 497 503 

Grants Payable 3,506 518 499 493 

Insurance 27 52 54 56 

Other Costs 2,939 3,108 2,996 2,961 

Salaries 6,698 9,144 9,213 9,448 

Stipends 1,838 1,534 1,489 1,529 

Total Expenditure 17,304 16,293 16,164 16,399 

MCF Net Deficit(-)/Surplus + (676) (169) 152 30 

14. This proposes a MCF net movement in funds as follows:- 

Target 

Proposal 

2012/13 £676k N/A 

2013/14 £400k £169k (deficit) 

2015/16 zero -£ 30k (surplus) 


291


15. The overall figures reflect a prudent 

predicted growth of income, primarily 

the MCF assessment, whilst costs 

within the team on staffing have 

been budgeted to rise with inflation. 

Year 3 is also shown largely as being 

‘steady state’ from Year 2 and it is 

therefore clear that further work 

will need to be done to keep us to a 

balanced budget given the uncertain 

financial outlook. It includes 

assumptions about cost savings by 

outsourcing the functions currently 

performed in Peterborough, which 

will be known more definitively in 12 

months time. 

16. All of this budget work needs to be 

set in the context of the uncertainty 

around the current case regarding 

the employment status of Methodist 

ministers. The Council received an 

appendix which indicated that the 

additional costs of a change to this 

status could be over £600k per 

annum on an ongoing basis. If this 

additional cost was to become a 

reality there would need to be further 

Income 

work done on how this cost would be 

met in the years to come. 

The Connexional Central Services Budget 

2013/14 and beyond 

17. Presented in this paper is a high level 

summary of the income estimates 

for 2014 and beyond. Each type of 

income is discussed in paragraphs 

T1.0 to T1.8 below. 

18. Overall the 2013/14 budget 

assumes a significant reduction 

of over £1.5m in income from the 

2012/13 budget. However, the SRC 

FSC agreed that these assumptions 

were prudent, given that the actual 

income for 2011/12 was significantly 

lower than anticipated. 

19. Paragraph T1.9 has a summary 

of the fund management charges 

included in this draft of the budget as 

well as the impact of an increase of 

1% to all funds, with an additional 1% 

on the World Mission Fund. (Table 4). 

Table 2 – Connexional Central Services Income Estimates 

Actual 

2011/12 

£000 

Budget 

2012/13 

£000 

Budget 

2013/14 

£000 

Budget 

2014/15 

£000 

Budget 

2015/16 

£000 

District Assessment 11,929 12,347 12,579 12,829 13,084 

Property Levies 7,671 8,800 7,480 7,225 7,037 

Donations 5,201 5,421 5,182 5,306 5,394 

Investment Income 2,998 2,233 2,977 3,127 3,170 

Management charges 2,430 1,447 1,535 1,519 1,511 

Trading Income 1,581 1,176 939 894 851 

292 



Miscellaneous Income 970 721 534 520 525 

Legacies 624 1,190 694 706 705 

Grants 406 102 40 514 987 

Rental income 326 332 277 281 174 

34,136 33,769 32,237 32,921 33,438 

T1.0 District Assessment 

2013/14 is as was agreed at the last 

District Treasurers forum and reflects 

the figures that have been circulated 

to all districts and will be proposed 

to the Conference for approval. 

The budget assumes a small fixed 

increase of 2% per annum, reflecting 

the 1.9% increase in 2013/14. 

The exact figures in 2014/15 and 

2015/16 depend on the decisions 

taken by the Conference in part one 

of the paper. 

T1.1 Property levies to the Connexional 

Priority Fund (CPF) 

There has been a gradual decline 

in property levies so the budget 

has been adjusted downwards 

accordingly. The projected outturn for 

2012/13 has been revised down to 

£6.5m; a fall of 26% from the original 

budget figure of £8.8m. 

T1.2 Donations 

The budget assumes a decline in 

line with current trends; however 

an improvement arising from the 

contributions of the fundraising team 

has been factored in. 

T1.3 Investment income 

The projected outturn for 2012/13 

is £2.3m compared to a budget 

of £2.2m, an increase of 3%. The 

budget assumes that the investment 

income will increase due to a more 

rigorous investment policy and 

that cash surplus to requirements 

will be invested in higher yielding 

investment portfolios. The budget 

is felt to be prudent based on the 

uncertain economic environment. 

T1.4 Legacies 

The budget is based on prudent 

estimates due to the huge variations 

in legacy income from one year to 

the next. The projected outturn for 

2012/13 is slightly better than we 

budgeted for however it would be 

imprudent to assume that these 

trends will hold up into the future. 

T1.5 Trading Income 

The budget is based on estimated 

sales revenues from the sale of 

the hymn book - Singing the Faith. 

However, the budgeted income for 

2014/15 and 2015/16 can only be 

realised if the expected demand for 

the hymn book holds up. 


293


T1.6 Miscellaneous income 

The miscellaneous income stream 

is primarily relating to income for 

services provided by the Team to 

other Methodist entities, including 

the bureau services to the wider 

Connexion. It also includes revenue 

from ticket sales for small events 

which the Children & Youth and the 

Youth Participation Scheme organise 

from time to time. 

T1.7 Rental income 

This is mainly income to the 

Centenary Hall Trust (MCH) and 

4JWR properties and the estimates 

are based on existing tenancy 

contracts. The decline in income 

in 2015/16 is due to loss of rental 

income because 4JWR would have 

been sold by then. 

T1.8 Grants 

This income streams represents 

income from other bodies to fund 

particular posts or activities. 

T1.9 MCF Management Charges 

The estimated cost of administering 

the main ring-fenced funds is 

covered by transferring a fixed 

proportion of the annual income 

to the MCF, from which they are 

met. The majority of these costs 

increase gradually with inflation; 

not least because they are largely 

staffing related. With an overall 

downward trend in donation income, 

the papers presented to the two 

previous meetings of the Council 

have introduced the idea that, with 

the combination of falling donations 

and rising costs, these management 

charges should be increased with 

effect from 1 September 2013. 

Table 3 - Proposed fund management charges before increase 

2013/14 

£000 

2013/15 

£000 

2013/16 

£000 

Existing formula 

CPF Fund 733 724 702 10% 

World Mission Fund 482 492 503 16% 

Mission in Britain Fund 78 77 75 10% 

Property Fund 49 50 51 10% 

FSPD 28 30 31 10% 

Total from all funds 1,370 1,373 1,362 

294 



Table 4 - Proposed increases in fund management charges 

2013/14 

£000 

2013/15 

£000 

2013/16 

£000 

Increase to 18%(WMF) and 11% (other funds) 

CPF Fund 823 795 774 11% 

World Mission Fund 542 554 565 18% 

Mission in Britain Fund 86 84 83 11% 

Property Fund 53 55 56 11% 

FSPD 31 31 33 11% 

Total from all funds 1,535 1,519 1,511 

Extra per annum 165 146 149 

20. The proposal is to increase the 

management charges on the income 

to the main ring-fenced funds by 1%, 

with an additional 1% applied on the 

income to the World Mission Fund 

(See table 4 above). This is proposed 

on the basis that voluntary income 

to these funds is generally falling. 

Although the assumption is that 

they will be fixed for the three years 

of this budget, the SRC has asked 

for a more detailed evaluation to be 

made over the next twelve months 

into the appropriateness of the levels. 

If the funds are going to continue to 

contribute an appropriate share to 

the costs of administering them, then 

either the charge needs to increase 

in percentage terms, or specific 

cost reductions will be necessary. 

This specifically applies to the World 

Church Relationships (WCR) team, 

which neither the SLG nor Council 

currently believe there is a desire 

within the Connexion to reduce in size. 

Expenditure 

Table 5 – Connexional Central Services Expenditure 

Costs 

Actual 

2011/12 

£000 

Budget 

2012/13 

£000 

Budget 

2013/14 

£000 

Budget 

2014/15 

£000 

Budget 

2015/16 

£000 

Committee Costs 1,583 1,001 906 909 948 

Cost of Sales 892 729 551 525 500 

Facilities 593 699 595 590 585 

Grants Payable 11,873 13,894 8,641 8,781 12,782 

Insurance 136 28 104 106 107 


295


Mission Partners 1,138 - 1,532 1,455 1,547 

Other Costs 3,173 3,726 4,979 3,513 3,278 

Salaries 8,495 8,044 10,901 10,989 11,140 

Stipends 1,953 2,913 2,691 2,649 2,632 

Internal Transfer 2,430 1,507 1,535 1,519 1,511 

32,266 32,541 32,435 31,036 35,030 

Overall expenditure summary 

●● 

Total expenditure in 2013/14 

to be £106k below that in the 

2012/13 budget – around 3% 

in real terms. 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

Budgeted increase in stipends 

of 2.15% in accordance with 

the recommendations of 

the Connexional Allowances 

Committee (CAC). 

Budgeted increase in lay 

salaries of 2.15% as the SRC 

agreed that the formula being 

used for stipend increases 

(the average in the increase of 

CPI inflation and the Average 

Weekly Earnings Index) was a 

suitable means of determining 

lay pay for this year. 

A number of non-staff costs 

have been budgeted on a zero 

inflation increase basis in 

years two and three since the 

newly appointed Procurement 

Manager has the target of 

offsetting inflationary increases 

with savings over that period. 

The proposed budget for the 

Discipleship & Ministries 

Learning Network (DMLN), 

reducing costs from £7.306m 

to £6.033m as set out in the 

Cluster summaries 

Fruitful Field report to the 2012 

Conference. 

Office of the General Secretary 

21. This budget contains the work of 

the Secretary of the Conference 

and the General Secretary, and the 

Connexional Secretary. It carries 

forward elements of the former 

Strategic Leaders budget, and a 

higher provision has been made for 

travel across the two posts to enable 

the post holders to fulfil the change 

in roles. 

22. The budget in these areas has fallen 

c50% from this year to the start 

of the three year budget. This is 

largely due to the ending of the three 

previous Connexional Secretary 

posts (Internal Relationships, 

External Relationships, and Team 

Operations) and replacing this with 

one post. 

23. Some £250k has been moved 

from the former Secretary of 

External Relationships budget to 

the Ecumenical budget where the 

relevant grants (or subscriptions) 

296 



have been consolidated for more 

coherent management. 

24. The SRC recommends that the 

budgets continue to include both the 

£100k contingency from the MCF for 

Team purposes as well as the £100k 

emergency grant from the Epworth 

Fund for non-team purposes which 

was agreed by the Conference in 

2012. 

Discipleship & Ministries (D&M) 

25. The purpose of the cluster is to 

develop the Church as a community 

of learning disciples, lay and 

ordained. It seeks to bring fresh 

insight into all aspects of this work. 

The role of the Cluster is to equip 

the Methodist Church’s ministries so 

that they, in turn, can equip the world 

changing discipleship of the people 

of God. It equips ministries which 

enable God-centered worship and 

prayer; ministries which help people 

to grow and learn as Christians; 

ministries which engage with the 

everyday acts of love, kindness, and 

service of the people of God in the 

world; ministries which encourage 

patterns of witness and evangelism. 

26. The D&M budget is a transitioning 

one, as it moves from the D&M 

Cluster budget containing several 

sub clusters to a budget that 

contains the new Discipleship & 

Ministries Learning Network and 

the few activities which will remain 

outside although linked with the 

network. It therefore remains a 

complex and extensive part of the 

church’s spend which will require 

both a detailed scrutiny and an 

ability to retain flexibility within the 

bottom line numbers for the next 

three years. 

27. It is proposed that D&M contains 

the learning network - which 

now includes Children & Youth, 

Chaplaincy, and Evangelism, 

Spirituality, and Discipleship-, and 

some remaining D&M functions 

-VentureFX and Fresh Expressions, 

The One Programme (YPS as was), 

the Education Commission, and 

the Diaconal Order. A more detailed 

budget is contained within the 

papers relating to the Learning 

Network, including details of the 

transitional costs of £2.7m over 

three years which will be met from 

the Fund for Training as agreed by 

the Conference in 2012. 

28. Education - £100k amount is placed 

into this line to cover staff and 

activity as the bringing together of 

the Methodist Independent Schools 

Trust (MIST) and Methodist Academy 

Schools Trust (MAST) develops 

and work on Free School and new 

Academies continues in line with 

decisions of the Conference. This is 

offset by a transfer of £50k pa from 

the Education and Youth Fund which 

will reduce the uncommitted funds at 

the end of 2015/16 to £168k. 

29. All the income and expenditure 

associated with Evangelism, 

Spirituality, and Discipleship is 


297


now contained within the network 

except monies for Fresh Expressions 

(grant from CPF detailed in table 6) 

and the Rural Officer (this is a joint 

appointment with the URC). 


associated with Youth Participation 

Strategy (YPS) finishes at the end 

of the 2012/13 year. The SRC has 

already specified that provision 

should be included at the rate 

of £100,000 per year for The 

One Programme to continue. It is 

proposed that this is funded for a 

further five years, with the Epworth 

Fund paying for the young people’s 

salaries - all on-costs (training, 

management etc) will come from the 

Learning Network budget. 


associated with Chaplaincy except 

the half stipend from the Forces 

Board and the two Chaplaincy 

development posts (funded from 

Connexional Grants Committee 

(CGC)) are now contained within the 

Learning Network. 

32. The implementation of the Learning 

Network. The Fruitful Field report to 

the Conference of 2012 showed the 

intention of reducing these costs 

from £7.306m to £6.033 [Page 755, 

Table F] and the proposed budget 

reflects these figures – as per the 

headline figures contained in the 

Fruitful Field report to Conference 

2012. It should be noted that while 

the headline figures for this are fixed, 

there may well be some movement 

between lines as the implementation 

develops. For example, as practised 

based formation becomes embedded, 

resources may need to be differently 

distributed across the network, and 

the head count of staff may change 

responsively to limitations of budget 

and levels of need. The following 

table shows the expenditure for the 

Network over the next three years: 

Table 6 – Discipleship and Ministries Learning Network Budget Nominal Category 

2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 

Income £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 

Methodist Church Fund £4,144 £3,906 £3,984 £4,064 

Connexional Priority Fund £1,116 £1,000 £1,000 £1,000 

World Mission Fund £ 372 £200 £200 £200 

Training Assessment Fund £1,674 £0 £0 £0 

Fund for Training £ - £927 £464 £0 

Discipleship and Ministries Learning 

Network Fund 

£ - £0 £464 £927 

Income TOTAL £7,306 £6,033 £6,111 £6,191 

298 



Expenditure Note 1 Note 2 

Total Practitioner Staff costs £4,431 £3,948 £3,318 £3,375 £3,433 

Costs at Centres (Note 3) £1,139 £651 £1,436 £1,160 £1,150 

Maintenance Payments to Student Ministers £1,116 £1,030 £666 £955 £978 

Programme costs £ 620 £204 £413 £421 £430 

Scholarship, Research and Innovation 

project costs 

£ - £200 £200 £200 £200 

Expenditure TOTAL £7,306 £6,033 £6,033 £6,111 £6,191 

Note 1 budget as presented in the Fruitful Field Project Report to the 2012 Conference 

Note 2 budget amended in the light of complexities outlined in SRC report (March 2013) 

Note 3 previously called non-staff costs at Centre, Institutions and Colleges 

33. As a result of the 2012 leadership 

review and associated changes, the 

VentureFX project is now located within 

D&M. The SRC has also endorsed the 

view of the SLG that VentureFX and the 

Methodist Church’s involvement with 

the wider Fresh Expressions initiative 

would be best undertaken as an 

integrated approach to fresh ways of 

being church. 

34. After an external evaluation of 

VentureFX in 2012, the SRC asked 

for an update at its March 2013 

meeting. As a result, it has approved 

continued funding for phase two of 

the project, subject to the annual 

budgetary process, from the CPF 

which will take the overall cost to 

£4.42m. 

35. The Conference of 2012 responded 

to a need to meet a gap in funding for 

Fresh Expressions by committing £90k 

for each of the 2012/13 and 2013/14 

years. As part of this three year budget 

round, the Council recommends to the 

Conference that this additional £90k 

per annum from the CPF be continued 

and that the Council recommends this 

as per table 7 below:- 

Table 7 – Fresh Expression & VentureFX Budgets 

Year 

Total 

VentureFX 

Cost (CPF) 

£000 

Fresh 

Expressions 

Costs (CPF) 

£000 

Total CPF 

Costs 

£000 

Core Fresh Total of 

Expression CPF & MCF 

Costs (MCF) Costs 

£000 £000 

2014/15 458 90 548 41 589 

2014/16 402 90 492 42 534 


299


2014/17 370 90 460 42 502 

2014/18 363 90 453 43 496 

2014/19 370 90 460 44 504 

Overall Total 1,963 450 2,413 212 2,625 

Governance Support 

36. The purpose of the Governance 

Support office is to: 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

support the Methodist Church 

in fulfilling its mission within 

the constitutional framework 

laid out in the foundational 

documents in Constitutional 

Practice and Discipline. 

assist the Methodist Church 

in continually developing its 

governance arrangements to 

enable the Methodist Church 

to live out Our Calling and 

Priorities in new and innovative 

ways. 

support the role of the 

Secretary of the Conference. 

draw on the services and 

expertise of the Team and 

the wider Church to uphold 

the theological identity and 

integrity of the Church while 

engaging in constructive 

ecumenical dialogue. 

oversee the provision of 

theological resources and 

advice in legal, constitutional 

and governance matters to a 

range of connexional bodies as 

well as to the Connexion as a 

whole. 

37. The overall budget reflects the 

responsibilities of the office in serving 

and maintaining the governance 

bodies of the Church. That the 

Methodist Council indicated that 

it did not see work on governance 

structures to be urgent means that 

the assumptions based on our current 

polity being in place for the duration 

of the three year cycle. 

38. The Audit fee line now includes 

the provision for an internal audit 

facility as approved by the Methodist 

Council. 

39. Disparate legal costs have been 

consolidated in one line and the 

overall figure is a more realistic total 

based on an increase in litigation. 

40. Since 2008 the Governance Support 

budget has paid for the post of 

Connexional Liaison Officer (CLO) in 

Scotland as well as a £10k grant for 

work to enable Scotland to engage 

as a nation. It is proposed in this 

budget that the Council move away 

from this kind of dedicated support 

for engagement in Scottish national 

affairs and therefore the post and 

the grant are removed going forward. 

Some of the rationale for this is as 

follows: 

300 



41. Examining the various tasks and focus 

for the CLO post the Council accepted 

the SRC’s view that these are areas for 

the Districts to come to a mind on how 

it undertakes this work. 

42. Scotland and Shetlands are the only 

Districts that have been in receipt 

of this kind of funding for the work 

covered by the post and the Council 

agreed such an anomaly should not 

continue. The development of working 

partnerships such as EMU (Episcopal, 

Methodist and URC) mean that new 

ways to represent the Methodist Church 

in Scotland need to be found in the 

future. Representation for Scotland 

and Shetland on Methodist governance 

bodies such as the Conference and 

the Council continue to be the most 

effective route for ensuring these 

important voices are heard. The Council 

therefore passed a resolution that this 

post be declared redundant from 31 

August 2013 and this is reflected in the 

proposed budget. 

43. Costs of the Conference: the 

difficulties presented by financial 

planning for an itinerant Conference 

are highlighted in any medium to 

long term budget planning. The 

2013 London Conference presents 

an unusually cheaper option than in 

recent years. The new Conference 

and Events Coordinator has 

begun work with the Procurement 

Manager on identifying venues 

that are interested in negotiating a 

two or three year contract for the 


44. The stipends of all separated Chairs 

of Districts are paid from within this 

budget. 

45. The Council has instructed the SLG 

to carry out within six months a 

review of the ecumenical budget and 

was encouraged by the progress 

made by combining all relevant 

items under a single cost centre. 

This ongoing process involves reevaluating 

the Church’s contribution 

to the costs of various ecumenical 

instruments and not reductions in 

support for grassroots ecumenism. 

Mission & Advocacy (M&A) 

46. Mission and Advocacy equips the 

Methodist people and the wider 

Christian Church as we listen to God 

and develop ways of speaking about 

God. Through resources and personal 

engagement the cluster helps the 

Methodist people to become lifelong, 

world-changing disciples. 

47. Our specific aims are to engage, 

inform and equip people at every 

part of their Christian journey and to 

communicate our beliefs and actions 

to a wider world. 

●● 

●● 

Engage – building effective 

relationships so that what we 

can do ‘uniquely or best’ for 

the wider Church responds to 

changing circumstances. 

Inform – encouraging two-way 

communication so that we both 

listen and speak to the Church, 

including our global Partner 


301


●● 

●● 

Churches and the wider world. 

Equip – providing resources 

that support the people called 

Methodists in their discipleship, 

worship, learning and sharing 

of the message of God’s grace 

with their communities. 

Communicate – making visible 

the views and beliefs of the 

Church within wider public 

discourse. 

48. Mission & Advocacy is leading 

the development of a connexional 

‘Living Generously’ strategy. This 

will equip the Methodist people to 

explore generosity in the context 

of their discipleship. The goal is 

to inspire and enable a generous 

lifestyle which enhances mission 

and ministry, as encompassed by 

the Covenant Prayer. The expected 

outcomes will include increased 

regular giving to local churches, with 

a follow on effect of increased giving 

to the Methodist Church connexional 

funds, as well as greater involvement 

in local missional activity. Alongside 

this we are developing responses 

to the Future Mission Together 

document which include developing a 

programme of mission with our World 

Church partners that is truly global 

and local; engaging with national 

decision-makers through the Joint 

Public Issues Team (JPIT), particularly 

on the issue of poverty and stigma; 

providing communications support to 

the developing Learning Network. 

49. Mission & Advocacy continues 

forward with very little change from 

the funded level of work at present 

with one exception outlined below. 

50. The most significant changes in the 

cluster budget result from the decision 

to outsource the Methodist Publishing 

operation. In March 2012 the Council 

adopted a resolution welcoming the 

SRC’s plans to radically review the 

services provided from the central 

budget, with a view to ending some 

activities and reducing the demands 

on the District Assessment. As part 

of this an external consultant was 

engaged to review the Methodist 

Publishing operation and the SRC has 

agreed with proposals to outsource the 

work. This will ensure that Methodists 

across the Connexion will continue to 

have access to publication materials 

via a dedicated website and phone 

line, whilst the Church significantly 

reduces the existing fixed costs of 

providing such a service. Minimal 

savings are expected in 2013/14 due 

to re-structuring costs, but annually 

recurring savings of around £130k are 

expected from 2014/15. 

51. The biggest potential for significant 

income comes from the various 

fundraising campaigns. It is proving 

difficult to quantify exactly how much 

has been raised by the team so far 

because the tracking of income from 

donors is not unified. Efficient online 

payments software will help that 

and also let us sell goods efficiently 

online. This will be the next step on 

from bedding in the new finance 

system. The target is still for the 

Fundraising team to more than 

302 



cover its own costs. In addition, 

the Fundraising Officer is already 

making a positive contribution to the 

fundraising of local churches; figures 

that will not show up as MCF income. 

Support Services 

52. The Support Services Cluster has 

evolved gradually through an ongoing 

process of review and redesign 

to ensure that it is most able to 

provide the services required by the 

Connexional Team and wider Church. 

It has adopted a strategy combining 

service with stewardship. The use 

of some of the tools and techniques 

found with Total Quality Management 

(TQM) has commenced as part of this. 

Although it is recognised that financial 

performance measures alone cannot 

be used within the Church, where 

mission and values are important, 

the focus on stewardship means 

that activities are being carefully 

evaluated in terms of value for money 

and effective use of time. 

53. The cluster provides a wide range of 

services within the Team, but also 

to local church officers and trustees 

across the Connexion as follows:- 

●● 

●● 

Full range of financial services 

on behalf of the Council, 

including management of all 

funds and production of its 

annual consolidated accounts; 

Payroll services for all ministers 

and lay employees of the 

Council and a wide range of 

other Methodist employers; 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

Professional development & 

personnel services, including 

Human Resource management, 

Wellbeing, Equality & Diversity 

and Safeguarding. During the 

2012/13 and 2013/14 years 

this includes the Conference’s 

Safeguarding Past Cases Review; 

Property management and 

development guidance, 

including operation of 

connexional processes for 

listed buildings and oversight of 

connexionally-held properties. 

For three years from September 

2012 this includes the Joint 

(with the URC) Property 

Strategy Group; 

Supporting the Connexional 

Grants Committee’s 

administration and monitoring 

of grants for mission and 

ministry within Britain and with 

partner churches worldwide; 

Research projects, including 

the Church’s statistics for 

mission work and web map; 

Provision of administrative 

and executive support across 

the whole Team, including IT 

systems and the connexional 

database; 

A range of web-based 

applications to assist local 

churches, circuits and districts 

in managing property and other 

resources for mission, such as 

the Consents and Statistics for 

Mission web applications. 

54. The SRC agreed in 2011 that, in the 

face of declining membership and 


303


the resultant pressure on the MCF 

assessment, the Support Services 

Cluster’s total budget should be 

capped in cash terms for an initial 

three years. This meant that the total 

budgeted for 2011/12, which was 

£4.743m, could not be exceeded in 

preparing the 2012/13, 2013/14 or 

2014/15 budgets. 

55. As part of the re-structuring of the 

Connexional Team from 1 September 

2012, the cluster gained three 

additional areas of work that were 

not included within its 2011/12 

budget, but were part of the Projects, 

Research & Development (PR&D) 

cluster. Hence they are outside of 

the capped target. One of them, the 

Belonging Together project, is due 

to finish at the end of the 2012/13 

year, but stripping out the other 

two, the cluster budget will remain 

below the original target of £4.743m 

to at least the end of the 2015-16 

connexional year – a period of five 

years, representing a significant real 

terms saving whilst offering a wider 

range of higher quality services. 

56. There will be a net increase in 

expenditure in 2015/16, primarily 

resulting from the end of the five year 

lease in 2015 on the former MPH 

office/warehouse at 4 John Wesley 

Road, Peterborough. This currently 

generates an annual net income of 

£102k and this budget assumes that 

at the end of the lease the property 

will be sold. It has been assumed 

that such a capital inflow would be 

added to MCF reserves – no account 

of it has been taken at all in these 

budget papers. 

57. The main reductions in Support 

Services staffing costs over the 

three years include one post with 

the conclusion of the Belonging 

Together project in August 2013 

and several finance office posts as 

a result of the investment in new 

systems. Two posts (1.5 FTE) have 

also been saved in admin support 

through natural wastage and this is 

reflected in the proposed budget. 

The amounts arising from the 

ending of two posts in the former 

PR&D cluster have been transferred 

into Support Services funding two 

new posts – one strengthening 

the cluster management and one 

Executive Support Officer deployed in 

the Office of the General Secretary. 

58. The 2015/16 budget assumes that 

the Joint Property Executive Officer 

post (half funded by the URC) will not 

continue beyond the agreed three year 

term which finishes in August 2015. 

59. The main changes to the 

Development & Personnel budget 

are bringing committee costs relating 

to candidating into line with actual 

spend and an increase in professional 

fees relating to the UK Border Agency 

(UKBA), pensions and general 

employment legislation advice. 

60. Although the Belonging Together 

project will end in August 2013, an 

amount of £10k has been added into 

the core Equality & Diversity budget 

304 



in order to enable that work to be 

taken forward as appropriate. 

61. In 2012 the SRC suggested that there 

should be an aim of reducing the 

administration budget by 20% over two 

years. The proposed budget assumes 

some savings in postage, print and 

stationery and committee/meeting 

costs within Methodist Church House 

(MCH). A number of initiatives are 

underway or planned to deliver these, 

including a more rigorous approach to 

charging other occupants of MCH for 

some non-service charged services. 

It is anticipated that the overall spend 

within the Team on certain items will 

benefit from the greater disciplines 

instilled by the new Access Dimensions 

finance database. Apart from the 

staff savings stated in paragraph 

45 no changes to admin staffing are 

budgeted. This is a conscious decision 

by the Senior Leadership Group (SLG) 

which feels that further reductions 

would be counter-productive in the 

effectiveness of the wider Team. The 

SRC has indicated that it supports this 

on the basis that further progress will 

be made over the next 12 months. 

Epworth Fund 

62. The Epworth Fund was set up following 

the sale of Epworth House, City Road, 

London in 1987 as a designated 

fund. It has been used mainly for 

grants to support a variety of ‘new 

and innovative’ work in areas of 

particular importance as defined by 

the Conference. The guidelines were 

developed over a period of years as the 

result of discussions in the Methodist 

Council and its predecessors. 

63. Responsibility for the Epworth Fund 

was previously divided between 

the Resourcing Mission Grants 

Committee (now the Connexional 

Grants Committee - CGC) and the 

Joint Secretaries Group, however 

when the CGC was formed in 2008 it 

took sole responsibility for the fund. 

64. The annual income from the 

Epworth Fund has been used since 

Conference’s decision in 2010 to 

allocate £230k per annum over a 

three year period from 2010-2013 to 

fund the Youth Participation Scheme 

(YPS). As a result of this decision 

these funds were no longer available 

to the CGC for other grants. 

65. The Epworth Fund has generally been 

treated as a fixed capital fund where 

the annual interest each year has 

been spent without eroding the total 

fixed value of the capital. Despite its 

use for the YPS, the fund balance 

has remained stable over the last 

five years, being just over £6.1m at 

the start of the current financial year. 

66. In 2012 the Conference agreed that 

two new items would be included 

in the use of the fund. These were: 

the Safeguarding Past Cases Review 

which began as a pilot in 2010, and 

was extended across the whole 

Connexion, over two years, at a cost 

of £300k, and the Emergency Fund, 

which was a limited budget of up to 

£100k per year to be made available 


305


to the Strategic Leaders (now SLG) 

for one-off grants outside of the 

Team in an emergency. 

67. In its paper to the January meeting 

of the Council, the SRC trailed the 

idea that part of this money could 

be invested further in infrastructure 

that supports the overall mission 

of the Church, given that the YPS 

agreement comes to an end on 31 

August 2013. After input from the 

FSC which had carefully considered 

the merits of deliberately using some 

of this capital, the Council therefore 

recommends to the Conference that 

part of the Epworth Fund be released 

as per the table below, with the 

proviso that the year-end balance not 

be allowed to fall below £5m. 

68. The Connexional Priority Fund (CPF) is 

unlikely to be available to the CGC for 

the foreseeable future and the Mission 

in Britain Fund is affected by falling 

donation income. Making £250k per 

annum available would enable the CGC 

to support further mission and ministry 

projects via its existing criteria and 

enhance the link between Connexional 

funds and local projects. The 

availability of this amount would need 

to be confirmed annually, subject to 

the requirement that the fund balance 

remains above £5m. 

Table 8 - Use of Epworth Funds’ 

Area of work 2013/14 

£000 

2014/15 

£000 

2015/16 

£000 

Total 

£000 

Existing commitments 

Non-Team emergencies 100 100 100 300 

Past Cases Review 120 120 

New commitments 

The One Programme* 1 100 102 105 307 

System developments* 2 100 140 20 260 

CGC grants* 3 250 250 250 750 

Totals: 670 592 475 1,737 

*1: This is part of a commitment for five years of £100k per annum adjusted upwards each year for wage 

inflation. 

*2: These would be web-based developments that would be for the benefit of the wider connexion; not 

for internal use by the Connexional Team. Included would be set up costs for electronic personnel files for 

ministers and a new method alongside the Consents Website of electronically recording annual property 

returns; providing a database for use by those overseeing the care and maintenance of property at circuit and 

district level. 

*3: The overall balance of the fund should not be allowed to drop below £5m. Therefore the amount available 

to the CGC each year should be confirmed once this criterion has been verified. The FSC noted that the 

non-Team emergency fund is unlikely to be used in full each year, so the £300k shown above represents a 

maximum drawdown anyway. 

306 



Overall Impact on Funds 

The overall predicted movement in funds resulting from the proposed budget is as follows: 

Fund Type Fund Name Fund 

Opening 

Bal 

2012/13 

Budget 

2012/13 

Budget 

2013/14 

Budget 

2014/15 

Budget 

2015/16 

Fund 

Closing 

Bal 

2016 

£000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 

General Fund MCF General 14,026 (676) (169) 152 30 13,363 

Designated 

Fund 

Connexional Priority Fund 10,357 1,177 257 208 387 12,386 

Epworth Fund 6,159 (437) (294) (322) (206) 4,900 

Pension Reserves Fund 10,156 3,025 2,591 2,507 2,439 20,718 

Training Assessment Fund 964 (964) - - - - 

Restricted Training Ring Fenced Fund 7,693 (334) (2,043) (184) 357 5,489 

Lay Mission Superannuation 2,537 - (200) (205) (212) 1,920 

World Mission Ring Fenced Fund 21,683 (102) (83) (48) (4,160) 17,290 

Long Term Renewal Fund 2,215 - 12 12 13 2,252 

Centenary Hall Trust 1,467 2 4 5 7 1,485 

Property Ring Fenced Fund 4,346 (56) 6 (1) (2) 4,293 

Diaconal Order 429 - (63) (65) (66) 235 

Education and Youth 899 (356) (125) (125) (125) 168 

Modern Christian Art- Development 21 - 4 4 4 33 

Forces Chaplaincy Revenue 963 23 (38) (39) (41) 868 

Methodist Heritage - - 11 38 45 94 

Mission in Britain Ring Fenced Fund 2,390 (132) 222 223 222 2,925 

Auxiliary Special Purposes 503 - (3) (3) (3) 494 

Trinity Hall Trust 619 27 1 - - 647 

Computers for Ministry (2) 133 - (5) (11) 115 

Connexional Travel Fund 239 6 4 4 4 257 

Sabbatical Fund 605 (35) (70) (70) (70) 360 

Fund for the Support of Presbyters 

& Deacons 

7,236 (118) (233) (220) (222) 6,443 

Medical Benevolent Fund 1,575 45 12 19 18 1,669 

Ministers Children's Relief 

50 - (1) - - 49 

Association 

Grand Total Net surplus/deficit (+/-) 97,130 1,228 (198) 1,885 (1,592) 98,453 


307



24/4. The Conference agrees a 1% increase in the management charge on ring-fenced 

funds, with an additional 1% on that to the World Mission Fund. 

24/5. The Conference agrees the next five years of funding for Fresh Expressions and 

VentureFX as per table 5. 

24/6. The Conference agrees that the Epworth Fund be utilised as described in 

paragraphs 62 to 68 of the report 

24/7. The Council adopts the Connexional Central Services Budget for 2013/14. 

308 



– District Allocations 


Nick Moore, 

Head of Support Services 

Email: mooren@methodistchurch.org.uk 

Summary of Content 

Subject and Aims 

Main Points 

This paper recommends to the Conference District 

Assessment figures approved by the Methodist Council 

under SO 212(2). 

●● 

At a meeting held on 18 August 2012, the District 

Treasurers agreed this total assessment and its 

apportionment. The 2013/14 assessment due to be 

paid by circuits to the MCF is £12,582,381. This figure 

is based on the June 2012 RPI of 2.4% applied to the 

2012/13 assessment for the Team portion; plus the 

2012/13 budget for the non-Team portion. It is this 

amount which will be apportioned among the Districts 

using stationing and staffing numbers (ie ministers/ 

deacons as equivalent to 1.5 times that of a lay 

worker), with the annual increase per District being 

restricted to a maximum of 5%. 

●● 

●● 

These figures were issued to Districts in late 2012 as 

the basis for local budgeting for 2013/14. 

These were approved by the Methodist Council April 

2013. 


and Relevant Documents 

(with function) 

The formula used was agreed by the 2010 Conference. 


309


– District Allocations 

Dist. 

Ref 

District Safeguarding Computer 

Levy 

Assessment 

Total 

1 Cymru 223 1,050 53,070 54,342 

2 Wales 3,318 9,600 422,767 435,685 

5 Birmingham 3,602 9,000 435,812 484,413 

6 Bolton and Rochdale 2,025 4,350 272,728 279,104 

7 Bristol 4,063 10,200 529,076 543,339 

9 Cumbria 1,554 4,050 180,146 185,751 

10 Channel Islands 695 1,500 78,618 80,813 

11 Chester and Stoke 3,362 7,800 419,500 430,663 

12 Cornwall 2,950 6,000 358,869 367,819 

13 Darlington 2,940 6,900 362,720 372,560 

14 East Anglia 3,637 9,750 459,472 472,859 

15 Isle of Man 418 1,350 51,927 53,694 

16 Leeds 3,129 7,800 383,452 394,381 

17 Lincoln and Grimsby 2,380 5,550 301,624 309,554 

18 Liverpool 3,164 6,450 335,257 344,871 

19 Manchester and 

3,696 9,750 442,641 456,087 

Stockport 

20 Newcastle 3,406 8,850 425,557 437,813 

21 Lancashire 3,224 7,950 399,183 410,357 

22 Nottingham and Derby 4,040 9,600 508,619 522,259 

23 Northampton 4,450 11,550 562,769 578,769 

24 Plymouth and Exeter 3,660 8,850 460,375 472,885 

25 Sheffield 3,715 7,500 472,303 483,518 

26 Southampton 4,408 9,900 564,316 578,624 

27 West Yorkshire 3,170 7,200 417,102 427,472 

28 Wolverhampton 

3,586 9,300 471,934 484,820 

and Shrewsbury 

29 York and Hull 3,932 9,000 498,743 511,675 

31 Scotland 987 2,700 144,654 148,341 

32 Shetland 146 300 17,198 17,645 

34 Bedfordshire, Essex 

3,294 8,550 512,269 524,113 

& Hertfordshire 

35 London 8,051 19,050 1,057,750 1,084,850 

36 South East 5,149 11,550 652,608 669,306 

TOTAL 96,371 232,950 12,253,060 12,582,381 

***RESOLUTION 

25/1. The Conference approves the District allocations of the assessment to the 

Methodist Church Fund set out in the paper. 

310 


26. Unified Statement of Connexional Finances 

Contact Name 

and Details 

Maureen Sebanakitta 

Director of Financial Operations 

sebanakittam@methodistchurch.org.uk 

Summary of Content 


Main Points 


and Relevant 

Documents 

Summary extracts of the full consolidated accounts of the 

Methodist Church in Great Britain for 2011/12 adopted by the 

Methodist Council and presented to the Conference as the 

unified statement of connexional finances required by Standing 

Order 360. 

These accounts consolidate figures for a wide variety of 

Methodist activities and entities; together they had income of 

£46m and expenditure of £37m. 

At the end of the year, the Church recorded net incoming 

resources before transfers and revaluations of £7.8 million 

(2011: £1.4 million). Total incoming resources for the year 

were £46 million, up 4% on the previous year. Total resources 

expended fell by 10% to £37.8 million (£42.2 million in 2011). 

One entity, Southlands Methodist Trust was incorporated into 

these consolidated accounts for the first time. 

When the Methodist Church in Great Britain was registered with 

the Charity Commission it was agreed that the accounts of the 

registered charity would be those of the Methodist Council. The full 

consolidated accounts were presented to the Council and adopted 

by the Council under SO 212 (1) on 22 January 2013. They are 

available for scrutiny on the Methodist Church website and in 

printed form from the contacts named at the head of this Report. 

Under SO 360 the Council has to present to the Conference a 

“unified statement of connexional finances.... so as to give an 

overall view of those moneys and other assets for which the 

council is responsible”. 

This Report consists of extracts from the full consolidated 

accounts which provide a summary of them to meet that 

requirement. It is submitted to the Conference as the trustee 

body of the registered charity. 


311


1. Financial Review 

The activities covered in these 

consolidated accounts are those 

under the oversight of the Methodist 

Council. The Methodist Church is the 

registered charity and the Charity 

Commission have agreed that these 

accounts can properly serve as the 

accounts of the charity. 

At the end of the year, the Church 

recorded net incoming resources 

before transfers and revaluations 

of £7.8 million (2011: £1.4 million). 

Total incoming resources for the 

year were £46 million, up 4% on 

the previous year. Total resources 

expended fell by 10% to £37.8 million 

(£42.2 million in 2011). 

2. Charitable income 

The main sources of charitable 

income are donations (including 

legacies) and the district assessment. 

Together these accounted for 50% of 

all incoming resources. 

The increase in income of 4% to 

£46 million (2011: £44 million) 

is mainly due to the impact of 

the first time consolidation of 

Southlands Methodist Trust 

(£4m). Sales of the hymn book, 

Singing the Faith account for the 

increase in fundraising trading of 

38%. Investment income rose by 

13%. Against this there was a fall 

in voluntary income of 9%. Current 

year income includes the “donation” 

of the net assets of Southlands 

Methodist Trust upon consolidation, 

(2011 included £4million worth 

of the net assets of Westminster 

College Oxford Trust). If these oneoff 

charges are excluded, the net 

year-on-year reduction in voluntary 

income is 17%. 

312 



3. Charitable Expenditure 

Overall expenditure fell by 10%. The 

biggest reduction has been in the 

area of grant giving, which fell by 33% 

to £13 million (2011: £19 million). 

Property grants saw the biggest fall 

(91%) reflecting one-off adjustments 

made in the previous year, whilst 

resourcing overseas mission grants 

fell by 22% and the other types of 

grants fell by 28%. This trend reflects 

an overall decline in the level of 

grant commitments, but in the case 

of overseas mission grants will be 

reversed in 2012/13 as some are 

now being committed on a threeyearly 

cycle rather than annually. The 

overseas mission grants include a 

grant commitment write back of £1.7 

million due to a change in accounting 

convention. Non charitable 

expenditure increased by 32%, with 

the biggest increase attributed to 

fundraising trading, an area which 

has grown significantly in the past 12 

months due to hymn book sales. 

4. Strategic objectives, aims and 

purposes of the Methodist Church 

in Great Britain 

The activities covered in these 

accounts falls within the work of the 

Methodist Church. The strategic 

objectives of The Methodist Church 

are directly linked to its aims. They are: 

1. Worship – to increase 

awareness of God’s presence 

and to celebrate God’s love; 

2. Learning and Caring – to help 

people to learn and grow as 

Christians, through mutual 

support and care; 

3. Service – supporting 

community development and 

action for justice, especially 

among the most deprived and 

poor - in Britain and worldwide; 

and 

4. Evangelism – developing 

confidence in evangelism and 

in the capacity to speak of God 

and faith in ways that make 

sense to all involved. 


313


4. Public Benefit Requirement 

The trustees of The Methodist 

Church had due regard to the public 

benefit guidance published by the 

Charity Commission in compliance 

with its duties under section 17 of 

the Charities Act 2011. 

This guidance sets out two key 

principles: 

1. The organisation must have an 

identifiable benefit. 

2. The benefit must be to the 

public or a section of the public. 

The Church exists, inter alia, to: 

1. increase awareness of God’s 

presence and to celebrate 

God’s love; 

2. help people to learn and grow 

as Christians, through mutual 

support and care; 

3. be a good neighbour to people 

in need and challenge injustice; 

4. make more followers of Jesus 

Christ. 

The trustees consider that for these 

reasons the charity meets these 

public benefit requirements. 

314 



Consolidated Statement of Financial Activities for the year ended 31 August 2012 

Unrestricted Restricted 

Funds Funds 

Endowment 

Funds 

2012 2011 

£000 £000 £000 £000 £000 

Incoming resources: 

Incoming resources from generated funds 

District Assessment 11,929 - - 11,929 11,316 

Voluntary income 871 10,875 - 11,746 12,924 

Investment income and interest 1,186 2,484 - 3,670 3,260 

Activities for generating funds 

Fundraising trading 1,718 4,817 - 6,535 4,726 

Incoming resources from charitable activities 

Grants and capital levies 7,738 749 - 8,487 9,628 

Other income 1,044 699 - 1,743 1,874 

Other income resources 

Net gain on disposal of tangible fixed assets 934 541 - 1,475 (92) 

Total incoming resources 25,420 20,165 - 45,585 43,636 

Resources expended 

Cost of generating funds 

Costs of generating voluntary income 380 - - 380 365 

Fundraising trading 742 2,155 - 2,897 2,124 

Investment Management 107 120 - 227 169 

Charitable activities 

Equipping the church to engage society 7,153 6,718 - 13,871 18,224 

Formation, Training Development & Resourcing 7,342 2,321 - 9,663 9,656 

Empowering the Ministry of Overseas Partners 1,513 5,105 - 6,618 7,514 

Advocacy & Education 1,117 - - 1,117 1,058 

Governance costs 3,031 - - 3,031 3,126 

Total resources expended 21,385 16,419 - 37,804 42,236 

Net incoming/(outgoing) resources before transfers 4,035 3,746 - 7,781 1,400 

Gross transfers between funds (2,725) 1,427 1,298 - - 

Net incoming/(outgoing) resources after transfers 

and before other recognised gains 

Total 

Total 

1,310 5,173 1,298 7,781 1,400 

(Losses)/Gains on revaluations and disposal 

of investment assets 

2,009 5,034 94 7,137 1,612 

Net movement in funds 3,319 10,207 1,392 14,918 3,012 

Total funds brought forward 

Total funds brought forward at 1 September 40,786 85,680 12,632 139,098 136,086 

Total funds carried forward at 31 August 44,105 95,887 14,024 154,016 139,098 


315


Consolidated balance sheets as at 31 August 2012 

2012 2011 

£000 £000 

Fixed Assets 

Tangible assets 25,031 22,871 

Investments 130,402 116,266 

155,433 139,137 

Current Assets 

Stock 165 167 

Asset held for sale 700 - 

Debtors 5,813 8,366 

Short term deposits 8,607 12,426 

Cash at bank and in hand 3,609 1,787 

18,894 22,746 

Creditors 

Amounts falling due within 1 year (10,942) (13,093) 

Net current assets 7,952 9,653 

Total Assets less current liabilities 163,385 148,790 

Creditors 

Amounts falling due after more than 1 year (9,369) (9,692) 

Net Assets 154,016 139,098 

The funds of the Methodist Church in Great Britain 

Endowment funds 14,024 12,632 

Restricted income funds 95,888 85,680 

Unrestricted income funds 44,104 40,786 

Total funds 154,016 139,098 

The Methodist Church 

Notes to the consolidated Financial Statements for the year ended 31 August 2012 

1. Accounting policies 

a) Basis of accounting 

The consolidated accounts of The Methodist Church have been prepared under the 

historical cost convention, except for investments which are stated at market value 

and hotel properties are held at valuation, and are in accordance with the Statement 

316 



of Recommended Practice: Accounting and Reporting by Charities (SORP 2005), UK 

Accounting Standards and the Charities Act 2011. 

b) Basis of preparation 

The entities included in these accounts have been consolidated based on the view 

of the Council of the degree of control which it exercises over the entities concerned, 

which is constantly under review. 

c) Basis of consolidation 

The consolidation principles applied are based on Financial Reporting Standard 

(FRS) 2 and SORP 2005 which require consolidation of subsidiary undertakings as 

identified by the measure of control exercised. Control can be determined in the 

context of voting rights and/or the exercise of dominant influence over the Board or 

activities of the subsidiary undertaking. 

All of the entities listed below are consolidated on the grounds that the Methodist 

Conference has the right to exercise dominant influence, and this influence is 

demonstrated in a number of ways, but mainly through the selection of the trustees 

on the boards of these entities. 

All the entities which are separately registered as charities, together with their wholly 

owned trading subsidiaries, have been consolidated as subsidiaries on a line by line 

basis in accordance with FRS2 and SORP 2005. 

Activities managed or administered by the Connexional Team (hereafter referred to 

as the Connexional Funds) 

Cliff College 

Cliff College Outreach Limited 

Cliff (Methodist) Developments Limited 

Methodist International Centre Limited 

Methodist Relief and Development Fund 

Southlands Methodist Trust 

T Beckett (Saddler) Limited 

Westminster College Oxford Trust 

(a separately registered charity) 

(a separately registered company) 







For the purposes of these accounts these entities are referred to as The Methodist Church 

in Great Britain. During the year Trinity Hall Trust was dissolved as a separately registered 

charity and transferred into the Connexional Funds, where it continues to be administered 

by the Connexional Allowances Committee. 


317


Accounting Policies (continued) 

d) The accounting / reporting structure 

318 



1. Accounting Policies (continued) 

e) Excluded entities - grounds for exclusion under paragraph 384 of SORP 2005 

A number of entities have been excluded from the consolidation. These are: 

Local Churches, Circuits and Districts 

Methodist Independent Schools 

Trustees for the Methodist Church Purposes (TMCP) 

The Central Finance Board (CFB) 

Methodist Ministers Housing Society 

Whilst these entities might form part of the overall picture of the Methodist Church, 

the Methodist Council does not control their activities. 

(f) 

Incoming resources 

District assessment 

The District Assessment is accounted for on a receivable basis. 

Voluntary income 

Donations, contributions and legacies are accounted for when entitlement has 

been confirmed, the amount can be measured accurately and receipt is certain. In 

accordance with this policy, legacies are included when advice has been received 

from the personal representative of an estate that payment will be made or property 

transferred and the amount involved can be quantified with reasonable certainty. 

Capital levies 

Capital levies are due on the disposal of property by churches, circuits and districts 

under Standing Order 970 of the Constitutional Practice and Discipline of the 

Methodist Church and are accounted for on a receipts basis. 

Grants receivable 

Grants receivable are included when the relevant conditions for the grant have been 

met. 

Rental income 

Rental income is accounted for on a receivable basis. Rental income is included 

within fundraising trading within the Statement of Financial Activities 

All other incoming resources 

All other incoming resources are accounted for on an accruals basis. 


319


(g) 

Resources expended 

All resources expended are accounted for on an accruals basis. Any ensuing 

liabilities are recognised as soon as a legal or constructive obligation arises. 

Costs of generating funds 

Costs of generating funds include the direct costs of fundraising trading, investment 

management, custody fees and a proportion of shared and indirect support costs. 

Charitable activities 

Charitable activities: These include the direct costs of the activities. Where such 

costs relate to more than one functional cost category, they have been apportioned 

based on the relative size of the direct costs of the relevant service units. 

Support costs: Support costs include the central functions and have been allocated 

to fundraising, charitable activities and governance in proportion to the directly 

attributable staff costs of these activities. 

Governance costs: These are the costs associated with constitutional and statutory 

requirements and include external audit, legal advice on governance issues, district 

chairs, trustees’ expenses and a proportion of shared and indirect support costs. 

Grants payable: Grants payable have been accounted for in full to the extent that 

past events have created a legal and constructive expectation in other parties that 

the Church will honour commitments, both legal and implied and any attaching 

conditions are outside the Church’s control. All grants are denominated in sterling. 

h) Funds 

Unrestricted funds are funds which are available for use at the discretion of the 

trustees in furtherance of the general objectives of the Charity. 

Designated funds comprise unrestricted funds that have been set aside by the 

trustees for particular purposes. The aim and use of each designated fund is set out 

in the notes to the financial statements. 

Restricted funds are funds which are to be used in accordance with specific 

restrictions imposed by donors or which have been raised by the trustees’ particular 

purposes. The cost of raising and administering such funds are charged against the 

specific fund. The aim and use of the major restricted funds is set out in the notes to 

the financial statements. 

Endowment funds represent monies received from donors where there is some 

restriction on the use of the initial capital. 

320 



Investment income is allocated to the appropriate fund in the case of restricted funds 

and in accordance with the terms of the endowment in the case of endowment funds 

i) Gains/(losses) on investments 

Realised and unrealised gains and losses on investments are dealt with in the 

Statement of Financial Activities in the year in which they arise. 

j) Pension costs 

The Church’s defined benefit pension schemes are treated for accounting purposes 

as though they are defined contribution schemes on the grounds that both are 

multi-employer schemes and that the Church is unable to identify its share of the 

underlying assets and liabilities in the schemes on a consistent and reasonable 

basis. For defined contribution schemes the amount charged to the Statement of 

Financial Activities in respect of pension costs and other post retirement benefits is 

the contributions payable in the year. 

k) Tangible fixed assets 

Properties are stated at cost. The Trustees consider that the age of the properties 

are such and their residual values so high based on prices prevailing at the time of 

acquisition) that the annual depreciation charge and accumulated depreciation is 

not material. Accordingly, no depreciation is provided on freehold properties used for 

charitable activities. An annual impairment review is undertaken for assets which are 

not depreciated. Any material impairment in the value of such properties, following 

an annual review, would be chargeable to the Statement of Financial Activities. Hotel 

properties are held at valuation. 

In line with SORP 276 requirements, the managing trustees of the various entities 

have reassessed the market value of their existing land and buildings and are of the 

opinion that it significantly exceeds the book value of the assets. 

Assets having an initial cost of £1,000 or less are written off on acquisition. Furniture 

& fittings, computer equipment, computer software and motor vehicles having an 

initial cost greater than £1,000 are stated at cost less depreciation which is charged 

on a straight line basis. Computer equipment and software are depreciated at the 

rate of 33 1/3% per annum. 

Furniture & fittings and motor vehicles are depreciated at the rate of 20% per annum. 

l) Heritage assets 

Heritage assets are defined as assets which have historical, artistic, scientific, 

technological, geographical or environmental qualities that are held and maintained 

principally for their contribution to knowledge and culture. 


321


Where the Church has information on the cost or value of a heritage asset then it will 

account for it at that cost or valuation. Where this information is not available and 

the historical cost information cannot be obtained the assets have been excluded 

from the balance sheet. 

There are four Methodist Heritage sites under a certain amount of jurisdiction of 

the Conference which fit into this definition. These are: The Old Rectory, Epworth, 

Lincolnshire; The New Room (John Wesley's Chapel), Bristol; Wesley's Chapel, House 

and The Museum of Methodism, London, and Englesea Brook Chapel & Museum of 

Primitive Methodism, near Crewe. 

m) Investments 

Investment properties are revalued by firms of professional valuers triennially, and in 

between by the trustees. 

The market value of quoted securities is based on the middle market quotation on 

the relevant Stock Exchange. Investments, which are held in units in the Central 

Finance Board, are stated at the Board’s published valuations. Investments in 

William Leech (Investments) Ltd are stated at the underlying value of the net assets 

based on the company’s audited Balance Sheet at 31 March 2012, updated by the 

value of any share acquisitions (at cost) up to 31 August 2012. 

Assets held for sale where the proceeds will not be reinvested in investments are 

included in current asset investments. 

n) Stocks 

Stocks are valued at the lower of cost and net realisable value after making due 

allowance for obsolete or slow moving items. 

o) Operating Leases 

Annual rentals are charged to the Statement of Financial Activities on a straight line 

basis over the lease term. 

p) Foreign Currencies 

Monetary assets and liabilities denominated in foreign currencies are translated 

at the rate of exchange ruling at the balance sheet date. Transactions in foreign 

currencies are recorded at the rate ruling at the date of the transaction. All 

differences are taken to the Statement of Financial Activities. 

q) Irrecoverable VAT 

Irrecoverable VAT has been charged to the expenditure to which it relates to within 

the Statement of Financial Activities. 

322 



***RESOLUTION 

26/1. The Conference receives the Report as the Unified Statement of Connexional 

Finances required by SO 360. 

Independent Auditor’s Report to the Trustees of The Methodist Church in Great Britain 

We have audited the financial statements of The Methodist Church in Great Britain for 

the year ended 31 August 2012. The financial reporting framework that has been applied 

in their preparation is applicable law and United Kingdom Accounting Standards (United 

Kingdom Generally Accepted Accounting Practice). 

This report is made solely to the charity’s trustees as a body, in accordance with the 

Charities Act 2011. Our audit work has been undertaken so that we might state to the 

charity’s trustees those matters we are required to state to them in an auditor’s report and 

for no other purpose. To the fullest extent permitted by law, we do not accept or assume 

responsibility to anyone other than the charity and the charity’s trustees as a body, for our 

audit work, for this report, or for the opinions we have formed. 

Respective responsibilities of trustees and auditor 

The trustees are responsible for the preparation of the financial statements and for being 

satisfied that they give a true and fair view. 

We have been appointed as auditors under section 151 of the Charities Act 2011 and report 

in accordance with regulations made under section 154 of that Act. Our responsibility is to 

audit and express an opinion on the financial statements in accordance with applicable law 

and International Standards on Auditing (UK and Ireland). Those standards require us to 

comply with the Auditing Practices Board’s (APB’s) Ethical Standards for Auditors. 

Scope of the audit of the financial statements 

A description of the scope of an audit of financial statements is provided on the APB’s 

website at www.frc.org.uk/apb/scope/private.cfm 

Opinion on financial statements 

In our opinion the financial statements: 

– give a true and fair view of the state of the group’s and charity’s affairs as at 31 

August 2012 and of their incoming resources and application of resources for 

the year then ended; 

– have been properly prepared in accordance with United Kingdom Generally 

Accepted Accounting Practice; and 


323


– have been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Charities Act 

2011. 

Matters on which we are required to report by exception 

We have nothing to report in respect of the following matters where the Charities Act 2011 

requires us to report to you if, in our opinion: 

– the information given in the Trustees’ Report is inconsistent in any material 

respect with the financial statements; or 

– the parent charity has not kept sufficient accounting records; or 

– the parent charity financial statements are not in agreement with the 

accounting records and returns; or 

– we have not received all the information and explanations we require for our 

audit. 

BAKER TILLY UK AUDIT LLP 

Statutory Auditor 

Hartwell House, 55 – 61 Victoria Street 

Bristol, BS1 6AD 

Date: 13 March 2013 

324 


27. Relief & Extension Fund for Methodism in Scotland 


1. Legal 

E A L Wallace 

General Secretary and Trustee 

Email: Ted.wallace@blueyonder.co.uk 

2.0 Administration 

1.1 The fund is governed by a Deed of 

Trust registered in the books of the 

Lords and Council and Session at 

Edinburgh on 4 November 1869. 

The Deed narrates resolutions of the 

Conference of 1869 as to the raising, 

administration and purposes of the 

Fund. 

The purposes of the said Relief and 

Extension Fund for Methodism in 

Scotland should be as follows: - 

(1) The liquidation of debts yet 

remaining on Methodist 

churches, chapels or manses in 

Scotland or debts that may yet 

be contracted with the sanction 

of the connexional property 

committee, 

(2) The purchase or erection of 

new or additional places of 

worship and of sites for such 

objects, and 

(3) The acquisition of manses or 

investment of money to meet 

house rents thus making 

provision for the residences of 

ordained ministers where at 

present only Probationers are 

stationed and from time to time 

in other places as occasion may 

arise. 

2.1 The means of aid is by way of Grants 

and/or interest free loans but no 

funds can be allocated unless the 

Project requires approval under the 

Methodist Church Property Consents 

Procedure, sanctioned and approved 

by the District Consents Panel and, 

where appropriate, the Connexional 

Conservation Officer. Where a grant 

has been made it remains refundable 

if the property is subsequently sold. 

There appear to be a number of such 

refunds outstanding at the present 

time and research into this will carry 

on. 

2.2 The Trustees are: 

The Revd Lily Twist – Synod Chair 

The Revd T Alan Anderson – 

Ministerial Synod Secretary 

The Revd Michael Hill – District 

Ministerial Property Secretary 

Dr Alan Hayes 

Mr David Easson 

Mr Edward A L Wallace 

Secretary: Miss Maureen G 

Anderson. 

The General Committee consists of 

the Trustees, General Treasurer, the 

Superintendent Ministers of every 

Circuit and Mrs Margaret Brown, Mrs 

Jenny Easson and Mr Sandy Laurie 

as Synod nominated lay members. 


325


The General Treasurer of the Fund for 

2012 was Mrs Ann Bradley. 

3.0 Financial 

3.1 The incoming resources of the Fund 

for the year ended 31 December 

2012 was £17,485 (2011 £21,783). 

The decrease over the previous year 

was mainly due to lower income 

from grant repayments. The net of 

incoming resources for the year after 

deducting grants paid and expenses 

was an increase of £9,511 (2011 

Shortfall £8,723). The increase over 

the previous year was mainly due 

delays on completion of projects 

approved and the resultant reduced 

call on monies. 

3.2 During the year Aid totalling £50,400 

were considered by the General 

Committee. 

3.3 Grants previously approved paid out 

totalling £6,500 (2011 £22,500). 

3.4 Loans previously approved paid out 

totalling £1,000 (2011 £7,500). 

3.5 The General Fund balance at 31 

December 2011 (£10,079.44) was 

allocated to the Loan Account as 

agreed by Synod and consented to by 

Conference 2012. 

3.6 Investments in the Central Finance 

Board (CFB) Mixed Managed Fund 

have been stated in the accounts 

under review at 31 December 2012 

market value £155,395 (2011 

£146,122). Thus for the 2012 year 

there was an unrealised gain of 

£9,273 (2011 loss of £5,447).The 

accumulated unrealised gain at 31 

December 2012 was £108,825. 

3.7 Balances at 31 December 2012 

were General Fund £10,107, Grant 

Fund £69,757 and Loan Account 

£22,231 (outstanding loans at 

31 December 2012 amounted to 

£7,425). The overall Fund balance at 

31 December 2012 was £257,490 

(2011 £238,705). 

4.0 Grants 

4.1 The following grants, approved in 

previous years, have been paid: 

Granton Church £ 2,500 

Perth Church £1,000 

Montrose Church £ 3,000 

4.2 No grants have been approved and 

paid during the year. 

4.3 The following grants have been 

considered by the General 

Committee and approved in principle 

but not paid during the year: 

Kilsyth Church £ 20,000 

Netherton Church £ 2,500 

Rosyth Church £2,175 

5.0 Loans 

5.1 The following loan approved in 

previous years has been paid: 

Montrose Church £1,000 

326 



5.2 No loans has been considered by the 

General Committee, approved and 

paid during the year. 

5.3 The following loans has been 

considered by the General 

Committee, approved in principle but 

not paid during the year: 

Kilsyth Church £20,000 

Netherton Church £1,000 & £4,000 

Rosyth Church £725 

6.0 General 

6.1 After due consideration of the 

General Committee, Notice of 

Subscriptions for the connexional 

year 2012/13 were despatched to 

Circuit Treasurers on 5 April 2012. 

6.2 Loan instalments are collected halfyearly 

in May and November. 

6.3 After much consideration it was 

agreed that all future applications 

for Aid would be approved only as 

a mixture of Grant (75%) and Loan 

(25%), except where Aid is being 

sought for the installation of solar 

panels when only Loans will be 

offered. 

6.4 A proposal that the allocation of the 

General Fund balance (£10,106.94) 

as at 31 December 2012 be wholly 

allocated to the Loan Account was 

agreed by Synod after consideration 

by the Trustees and General 

Committee but requires Conference 

consent. 

6.5 A copy of the Final Annual Report and 

Accounts for 2012 were tabled and 

accepted during Synod. 


27/1. The Conference receives the report 

27/2. The Conference approves the actions proposed in the Report. 


327

28. Methodist Ministers Housing Society 


Mr Peter Shearer 

Chief Executive 

email: pshearer@mmhs.org.uk 

1 Introduction 

1.1 Since 2008, when the banking 

crisis occurred, the Society has 

changed the way it provides homes 

to applicants. We no longer buy 

properties (with a few exceptions) 

but offer applicants a choice of 

properties from a list of some 70 

homes on an ‘available list’ – the 

system works well and all applicants 

retiring in August 2013 and most of 

those retiring in 2014 have already 

identified a suitable property in an 

area in which they wish to live. 

1.2 In total the Society owns more than 

970 properties with a total asset 

value of £150 million which are 

scattered throughout the the UK. 

There is a steady turnover of about 

40 properties every year. Those not 

immediately required, and which 

do not need vast sums spending on 

them, are let commercially on short 

term tenancies and this produces 

a good return on capital in the 

current economic climate. By not 

buying or selling properties we save 

a great deal on transaction costs, 

and renting them commercially also 

saves on council tax bills, gardening 

and other empty property costs. 

2. Provision in 2012/13 

2.1 During the year 40 properties 

were provided for new retirees 

and 14 tenants transferred to 

accommodation more suitable for 

their current needs. 

2.2 A number of properties have been 

purchased, often for transferring 

tenants or medical retirees. The 

Society has ceased to purchase 

sheltered accommodation for its 

tenants because, when no longer 

required they are difficult to sell, and 

for the period they are unoccupied 

(sometimes years) both Council Tax 

and Service Charges are payable. 

It is also true to say that there is a 

national oversupply of sheltered 

accommodation in the social rented 

sector and with rent increases there is 

no difference to the resident in terms 

of the cost. In moving into social 

rented sheltered housing and leaving 

the Society any equity share is repaid 

giving residents access to finances 

previously tied up in their house. 

2.3 All those who retired in 2012 were 

allocated a property of their choice. 

Not all properties are suitable for 

reuse and during the course of the 

year we have sold 25 properties. At 

the end of March 2013 there were 

64 available properties for retirees. 

Of these 59 were commercially let 

and 5 were occupied by tenants 

awaiting transfer. The Society had 

seven properties bequeathed to it 



during the course of the year and 

we are grateful to all those who 

remembered us in this way. 

3. Rent Increases 

3.1 The big issue of the year was the rent 

increase policy which has now been 

decided following nine consultation 

meetings. This resulted in the 

Board deciding to increase rent for 

existing tenants from September 

2013 by £13.50 per week from 

the £32, currently charged, (our 

stock is mostly three bedroomed 

semi- detached properties and 

bungalows), and by RPI plus 0.5% for 

the next three years. This increase 

will be rebated by half the amount 

of donations and legacies in the 

previous 12 months and this year 

that will reduce the increase by £5 

per week. New and transferring 

tenants will be subject to the 

maximum new rent which is £72 per 

week from August 2013. 

3.2 The two principles which the Board 

were determined to ensure were kept 

in reaching this decision were; that 

none of our tenants will be in poverty 

as a result of the changes, and that 

the Society should be financially 

viable for the foreseeable future. 

3.3 The further result of our policy is 

that the planned maintenance 

programme has been put on hold 

and will recommence in a different 

form in 2016 when the Society is 

expected to be financially stable. 

3.4 During the year 21 vacant properties 

were refurbished and allocated to 

new and transferring ministerial 

applicants and 25 properties were 

purchased. 

4. Planned Maintenance Programme 

4.1 Even though we have suspended the 

planned maintenance programme 

(cyclical replacement of kitchens 

bathrooms and external painting) a 

number of kitchens and bathrooms, 

which had reached the end of their 

useful life, have been replaced 

where it was prudent so to do. In the 

course of the year we have replaced 

4 kitchens and 10 bathrooms and 

we have replaced 46 boilers in our 

properties. We have also re-laid four 

driveways where they presented a 

health and safety risk. 

5. Repairs and Maintenance 

5.1 In the course of our consultation 

meetings regarding the rent issue it 

became evident that our repairs and 

maintenance service was falling well 

short of our tenants expectations. 

The Board therefore committed itself 

to reviewing the whole service and 

introducing significant improvements 

over the next 12 months. The object 

of this exercise will be to reduce 

expenditure, increase efficiency, and 

enhance tenant satisfaction with our 

services. Work is already underway 

in this area. 


329


6. Looking to the Future 

6.1 The Strategic Plan for 2012/2017 

was published last year and the aims 

and aspirations of that plan are being 

fulfilled. Good progress has been 

made in fulfilling our objectives. 

7. Membership 

7.1 In 2012 the Revd Ian White resigned 

from the Chairmanship of the Board. 

His contribution to the Society and 

the Board is much appreciated. The 

Revd Pat Billsborrow was elected 

by the Board to fulfill the role of 

Chairman until the Annual General 

Meeting in February 2013 when she 

was unanimously elected. 

7.2 We are also sad to report the death 

of Lord Archer of Sandwell QC, a 

Patron of the Society who extended 

considerable support and interest to 

the Society over many years. 

7.3 At the AGM in February 2013, 

four members of the Board, Mrs D 

Faulkner, the Revd Dr J Harrod, 

Mr R Lolley and Mr B Roberts were 

re-elected for a further three- year 

term. 

7.4 Mr Trevor Williams, Board Member 

and Chair of the Property Committee, 

stood down having served his 

maximum two three- year terms. We 

are very grateful for his dedicated 

service to the Society. 

7.5 After an extensive recruitment 

campaign two new Board members 

were elected at the AGM – Dr John 

Lander and Mr David Millington. 

8. The Staff Team 

8.1 During the course of the year we 

have said goodbye to the following 

members of staff: Alice Kentish 

(Conveyancer), Anna Butterfield 

(Housing Management Officer), 

Correlle Hinkson (Project Officer) 

and Rumina Khatun (Gas Contracts 

Coordinator) and welcomed Tazneem 

Hussain (Head of Legal Services) and 

Maureen Chrebelski (Administrative 

Assistant). 

***RESOLUTION 

28/1. The Conference receives the report. 

330 


29. Education Project – Progress Report 


The Revd David Gamble 

Email: education@methodistchurch.org.uk 

Introduction 

The 2012 Conference adopted eight 

resolutions relating to the Education 

Commission’s Report and its Recommendations. 

Some Recommendations were dealt 

with immediately by the Conference itself, 

while others were referred to various bodies, 

including the Methodist Council. (Resolution 

24/7(2012)), The Council was instructed to 

consider those proposals, take any action 

that it deemed appropriate, and report on 

such consideration and action to the Conference 

of 2013. 

The Commission had recommended 

(Recommendation 14) subject to funding 

being available, a two year ‘transitionary 

project’ to deal with much of what was 

referred to the Council. Funding was 

made available by the Connexional Grants 

Committee and the Revd David Gamble was 

appointed to the post of Education Project 

Officer on 26 September 2013. 

The Project Officer is responsible to a 

Steering Group chaired by the Revd Dr John 

Barrett (Chair of the Education Commission), 

along with the Head of Discipleship and 

Ministries (Jude Levermore) and the Revd 

Dr David Deeks (the Chair of The Methodist 

Independent Schools Trust (MIST) and the 

Methodist Academies and Schools Trust 

(MAST)). At a later stage it was agreed to 

add a Chair of District to the Group. The 

Revd Stephen Burgess, Chair of the York 

and Hull District, was appointed by the 

Chairs Meeting. 

The project has responsibilities, either 

explicit or implicit, relating to some but not 

all of the Commission’s Recommendations. 

Five were explicitly linked to the project. 

Three others were directed elsewhere, 

but with implications for the project. Two 

were for Districts and Circuits to review in 

their own context and then report to MIST 

and MAST by 2014. The project is offering 

support to the Districts in enabling this to 

happen, identifying what needs reporting 

and how, etc. Recommendation 9a was 

addressed to Methodist independent 

schools and the project has a role in 

advocacy and relationship-strengthening. 

Recommendation 9b related to bringing 

together the two Methodist educational 

trusts, MIST and MAST, by 2017 at the 

latest and work on this has begun. 

In April the Methodist Council received 

an Interim Report of the Education 

Project, describing progress on the 

Recommendations for which it and the 

Project has some responsibility. 

Recommendation 1 

(Regional gatherings) 

The Commission recommended that 

Districts explore the possibility of annual 

regional gatherings for Methodist people 

involved in education to offer advice and 

support, and the opportunity for networking 

and personal development. The Project 

Officer has contacted all Chairs of Districts 

regarding possible ways forward in response 

to this recommendation and is currently in 


331


discussion with several Districts about setting 

up regional or District gatherings. We expect 

to share what we learn from the experience of 

early gatherings with other Districts. 

Recommendation 4 

(Educational chaplaincy) 

The Conference affirmed and recognised 

the tremendous opportunities offered 

by engaging in Education Chaplaincy 

and affirmed existing plans within the 

Connexional Team regarding developments 

in educational chaplaincy. The Steering 

Group has included matters relating to 

chaplaincy and churches’ relationships with 

their local schools (both Methodist schools 

and community schools) in its contact with 

all Districts throughout the Connexion. 

There is already some very good experience 

in this area to learn from and share 

throughout the Connexion. This will remain 

an important area for development. 

Recommendation 8 (Districts to report to 

MAST on increased number of Methodist 

schools) 

The Commission recommended that the 

Conference should seek to increase the 

number of Methodist state-funded schools 

over the next ten years as opportunity arises, 

with a priority for areas of socio-economic 

deprivation. To this end, the Commission 

recommended that Districts should assess 

the need and opportunity in their local 

communities and report to MAST no later 

than 2014. Such schools should have an 

ecumenical foundation wherever possible. 

The Steering Group has contacted all 

the English Districts regarding this 

recommendation, suggesting how to respond 

to it and report back to MAST. There are 

already discussions taking place regarding a 

number of likely new schools. Work is being 

done (see below, Recommendation 9) to 

ensure that the Methodist Church is able 

to respond to appropriate opportunities as 

they arise. On 20 March a meeting of District 

Schools’ Officers was held, to explore what 

further support such Officers need to help 

them respond to local opportunities. Not 

all Districts have such Officers, and the 

Project Officer has met with District Chairs 

to discuss how to recruit – and subsequently 

support - people with the right expertise and 

experience for this significant role. 

Recommendation 9 (Affirmation of 

MIST, encouragement of participation of 

independent schools, merger of MIST and 

MAST within five years) 

The Conference (Resolution 24/4(2012)) 

urged all Methodist independent schools to 

participate in the continuing development 

of MIST and the Project is working to 

encourage this. 

The Conference (Resolution 24/5(2012)) 

directed MIST and MAST to work together 

wherever possible with a view to becoming 

a single trust no later than 2017. Already the 

Connexional Team and MIST staff are working 

on particular matters and the Steering Group 

has seconded two Heads from Methodist 

Schools (one MIST and one MAST) part-time 

for a period of six months (April to October) to 

oversee and coordinate the work of a small 

group of staff and accredited volunteers to 

develop collaborative and flexible ways of 

working among those staff and volunteers; 

and to empower this cluster of staff/ 

332 



volunteers to identify, release and coordinate 

skilled and experienced educational resource 

people in the Methodist Church to help 

processes of change. 

Some District Schools Officers have already 

raised the question of whether and how they 

relate to MIST schools in their District (which 

has not generally happened in the past). 

The Project Steering Group believes District 

Schools Officers should relate to both MAST 

and MIST schools. 

In addition, a meeting of representatives 

of both trust bodies is envisaged within the 

next few months. 

Thought is currently being given, in consultation 

with members of the Law and Polity 

Committee, to possible models for eventually 

bringing the Trusts together. This group of 

people is also considering what amendments 

to Standing Orders will be needed. 

Recommendation 10 (Review and report of 

District/Circuit engagement with MIST and 

MAST schools) 

The Commission recommended that 

Districts and Circuits review their 

engagement with Methodist schools and 

those who work in them, reporting to MIST/ 

MAST no later than June 2014. The Steering 

Group has contacted the Wales Synod 

and the 21 English Districts in which there 

are currently Methodist or joint schools 

regarding their response. 

Recommendation 11 (Senior educational 

post) 

The Commission recommended that a 

senior officer within the Connexional 

Team be appointed to take responsibility 

for overseeing all of the Methodist 

Church’s involvement in formal education. 

Consideration is being given to precisely 

what shape such a post will take. 

Recommendation 12 (Appointment of 

Education Forum) 

The Commission recommended that an 

Education Forum be appointed to advise 

and assist officers of the Connexional 

Team in respect of educational policies and 

practices. The Steering Group has already 

made progress on this and agreed to the 

setting up of a Forum made up as 

follows: 

Chair – Senior Education Officer (when appointed. In the meantime, the Project Officer) 

Secretary – a member of the Education staff 

Chair of MIST and MAST 

2 Representatives of MAST – one officer and one serving Head 

2 Representatives of MIST – one officer and one serving Head 

1 Representative of Chaplaincy to education 

1 Representative of Higher Education 

1 Representative of Further Education 

1 District Chair 

1 Representative of the Connexional Team 


333


Representatives for the Forum are currently 

being identified by those responsible for 

doing so and the Forum’s first meeting 

is scheduled for June or July of this 

connexional year. Consideration is being 

given to appropriate ways in which the 

student ‘voice’ can be included. 

Recommendation 13 (Budget provision) 

In the early stages of joint working between 

the staffs of MIST and MAST and responding 

to requests for involvement relating to 

possible new schools or conversions to 

academies, consideration is being given to 

how to assess the opportunities, different 

possible ways of working, precisely what 

staffing and other resources would be 

required and what would be the budgetary 

implications. 

***RESOLUTION 


334 


30. Methodist Academies and Schools Trust 


Lisa Nolan 

Education & Development Improvement Officer 

nolanl@methodistchurch.org.uk 020 7467 5249 

1. The Methodist Academies and 

Schools Trust (MAST) was formed on 

23 January 2012 and meets termly. 

The Chair is the Revd Dr David 

Deeks who also is the Chair of the 

Methodist Independent Schools Trust 

(MIST). 

2. The goal of MAST is to provide 

world class ecumenical education 

standards to all Methodist, 

ecumenical, community and 

Free Schools. MAST aims to 

be the educational provider of 

choice; providing high quality 

educational services and support 

by using its network of schools or by 

commissioning trusted partners. 

3. MAST has had to respond to the 

rapidly changing education climate. 

These changes have meant that the 

Methodist Church as a provider of 

education is now held to account for 

education standards in its schools 

and must also address the ‘value 

added’ of the services provided to its 

schools, particularly when a school 

is in difficulty and identified for 

academy conversion. 

4. The strategic direction of MAST 

has been articulated with a clear 

business plan presented to the 

Department for Education (DfE) in 

January 2012. This led to the award 

of a ‘Sponsor Capacity Grant’ from 

the DfE to further develop the work 

of MAST in the short-term. 

5. MAST is now a recognised and 

approved sponsor by the DfE. 

6. MAST and its officers are actively 

engaged in establishing a closer 

working relationship with the 

Methodist Independent Schools Trust 

(MIST). 

7. School Improvement 

7.1 MAST has established a peer to peer 

support network led and managed 

by its newly formed Effective Schools 

Development Team (ESDT) to meet 

the growing demand for trusted 

education providers and partners, 

this includes a HMI (Her Majesty’s 

Inspector). It is developing a regional 

network, where schools work together 

in clusters, led by a head teacher. 

7.2 MAST has agreed and implemented 

a process to appoint foundation 

governors to schools and company 

directors to academy trusts. It has 

invested in a training programme 

for governors and directors. This is 

a combination of online and face 

to face training sessions and will 

be made available to all schools 

and churches, circuits and districts 

wishing to buy into the training from 

September 2013. 


335


7.3 MAST has commissioned a Data 

Dashboard to track the performance 

of each of its schools. This 

information is being used by the 

ESDT to identify areas of strength 

and weakness in schools and to 

implement programmes where 

necessary. 

7.4 A partnership with Roehampton 

University is being developed 

to ensure quality continued 

professional development can be 

offered to schools. 

7.5 MAST is in discussion with a number 

of ‘learning providers’ to further 

develop its support to schools 

including Oxford Brookes University, 

CfBT Education Trust, the DRB 

Group, BDO and Edison Learning. 

7.6 A number of schools have and are 

facing expansion issues, including 

large building projects which MAST is 

supporting. 

7.7 Head teacher recruitment and 

appointment continues to be a 

significant issue. A number of 

successful appointments have 

been made and the process has 

been supported by the Education 

Development and Improvement 

Officers. 

8. Academy Conversions and 

Developments 

8.1 Any school that converts either as a 

sponsored academy or as a good or 

outstanding school will be held under 

the umbrella of MAST. 

8.2 Hawkesley Church Primary is the 

first sponsored academy, in a single 

academy trust, sponsored by the 

Birmingham Diocese and MAST. 

It will be launched officially in 


8.3 MAST is leading the development of 

a number of Multi Academy Trusts 

(MATs) with diocesan partners to 

support schools in difficulty. These 

include a South Yorkshire MAT with 

Sheffield Diocese and a Lincoln MAT 

with Lincoln diocese. Two schools will 

then become sponsored academies 

and be the first schools into the 

respective MAT. 

8.4 MAST is supporting two outstanding 

schools in the Bolton and Rochdale 

District to establish a MAT as they 

convert to academy status. 

8.5 MAST has agreed a Memorandum of 

understanding with Oxford Brookes 

University. This was originally agreed 

as part of a support package offered 

to a community school in Oxford. MAST 

was chosen as the preferred sponsors 

by the governors of the school 

following a competitive process. The 

school was then inspected by Ofsted 

and received a good judgement, 

thus removing the threat of academy 

conversion. MAST continues to 

develop its relationship both with the 

school and the University. 

8.6 It is predicted that more schools 

will convert to academy status 

336 



over the coming year. This will 

either be a conversion as a good or 

outstanding school or as the result 

of DfE intervention and a sponsored 

solution. Schools may choose to 

convert for a number of reasons: 

these may include the decline 

in local authority services, the 

implementation of the new National 

Curriculum or the threat locally from 

larger academy chains. 

8.7 MAST is developing a number of 

services to support schools both 

pre and post academy conversion, 

by working with a number of trusted 

partners. 

9. Religious Education and Church 

School Inspections 

9.1 The Methodist Church is now a 

formal member of the Religious 

Education Council, with voting 

representation. 

9.2 MAST has welcomed the support 

of the Connexional Team in 

commissioning Religious Education 

resources to support the teaching 

of Christianity from a Methodist 

perspective. These resources have 

been written in association with 

RE Today and will be launched 

in September 2013. A one day 

conference to introduce the resource 

is planned, with workshops for 

teachers. The units of work give 

good examples of RE teaching and 

learning to non specialist teachers 

from early primary through to GCSE. 

The units have been piloted in a 

number of Methodist schools and 

have been well received. 

9.3 In collaboration with the Connexional 

Team a further project has been 

secured with Farmington Trust 

to produce support materials to 

supplement the units of work. 

9.4 All schools with a religious 

designation are subject to a Section 

48 Inspection in addition to a 

Section 5 (Ofsted) Inspection. In 

Methodist schools this has been 

conducted by the Church of England 

following the retirement of the 

previous education officer. A new 

protocol has been agreed and a new 

inspection framework introduced, 

working in partnership with the 

National Society. This framework 

has been renamed SIAMS (Statutory 

Inspection in Anglican & Methodist 

Schools) and includes the Methodist 

distinctiveness of a school. An 

emphasis has been placed on the 

educational standards and progress 

in the school, a distinct difference 

from the previous framework. It 

continues to address the following 

key questions:- 

●● 

●● 

●● 

How well does the school, 

through its distinctive Christian 

character, meet the needs of all 

learners? 

What is the impact of collective 

worship on the school 

community? 

How effective is the Religious 

Education? (Only in Voluntary 

Aided schools) 


337


●● 

How effective are the 

leadership and management of 

the school as a Church school? 

10.3 MAST is working in partnership with a 

number of dioceses to establish new 

schools in the South East District. 

9.5 Further training for inspectors is 

currently being written and will be 

implemented in autumn 2013. 

Critical readers have been identified 

to ensure a consistent approach to 

all inspections. A full report will then 

be commissioned in 2014 to analyse 

the effectiveness of the inspection 

process. 

10. New Schools and Free Schools 

10.1 In order to establish a new school, 

potential sponsors face a rigorous 

process to become the sponsor 

of choice. Each process is unique 

to the local authority in which the 

proposed school is situated and is 

often subject to the whims of the 

particular councillor leading the 

process. Working with diocesan 

colleagues, MAST bid for two schools 

(East Chesterton, Cambridgeshire 

and Portishead, Bristol) but was 

unsuccessful. 

10.2 MAST has submitted an expression 

of interest in a new school in 

Bridgwater, Somerset, with full 

support of the circuit. 

10.4 Free Schools are a Coalition 

Government initiative to provide 

parental choice in school 

placements. A variety of groups 

have established a Free School, 

including ‘faith groups’, parental 

groups and large academy chains. A 

group of churches came together in 

Sevenoaks to establish a Free School 

of Christian nature. MAST is providing 

support to ensure minimal risk to 

the Methodist Church, both actual 

and reputational and to ensure due 

process is followed leading to the 

opening of a successful school. 

10.5 MAST is establishing due process 

and procedure to ensure that when 

districts report in 2014 on the 

potential to establish new schools it 

has capacity to meet demand. 

11. Conclusion 

The world of education continues 

to change rapidly and MAST will 

continue to meet that radically 

changing environment on behalf of 

the Conference. 

*** RESOLUTION 


338 


31. Safeguarding 


Elizabeth Hall 

Safeguarding Adviser (child and adult protection) 

for the Church of England and the Methodist Church 

halle@methodistchurch.org.uk 

1. Governance 

1.1 The Methodist Conference is 

reminded that safeguarding 

responsibility at a national level is 

shared with the Church of England. 

The safeguarding adviser post is a 

shared post, as is the role of team 

coordinator. There are two main 

bodies charged with oversight: 

- the Joint Safeguarding Liaison 

Group (JSLG) is co-chaired by 

the Revd David Gamble and the 

Right Revd Paul Butler, Bishop of 

Southwell & Nottingham. The JSLG 

has representatives from around 

the regions for both Churches, who 

cover between them responsibility 

for safeguarding work with children 

and young people and adults 

who are vulnerable. It scrutinises 

the strategic development of 

safeguarding policy and practice and 

identifies areas of work which can be 

developed jointly. 

- the Safeguarding Advisory Panel 

is a Methodist body whose role is 

set out in Standing Order 232. It 

meets twice each year as a full body 

for review of the work done through 

risk assessment. At other times 

members meet in small teams for 

review of individual cases. 

1.2 The Diocesan Safeguarding Advisers 

and District Safeguarding Officers 

meet for a two-day conference each 

year. This enables the successful 

joint working at national level to be 

replicated through good working 

relationships more locally. This 

year’s conference was voted ‘the 

best yet’ with presentations from 

leaders in the field of child and 

adult safeguarding. These speakers 

were willing to attend because of 

the growing profile of the Church’s 

safeguarding work, which in turn 

arises from an increased general 

recognition of risks within churches. 

2. Workload 

2.1 The workload of the connexional 

safeguarding team grew significantly 

during 2012, with a rise of 50% since 

2011. The impetus for growth seems 

to be the growing awareness of 

safeguarding within churches. There 

are a number of reasons for this: 

the successful implementation of 

safeguarding training; the increasing 

success of the Church in reaching out 

to people from troubled backgrounds, 

of whom some raise safeguarding 

concerns; and wider societal issues 

such as the Jimmy Savile case which 

prompted many people to come 

forward to report past abuse, some of 

which was within the Church. 


339


2.2 Those matters which took place 

years ago are complex and 

challenging. Whilst the pain remains 

fresh for the victim and so the abuse 

is in some ways a continuing fact, 

it can be difficult to unravel the 

details of what happened when, 

how it was dealt with, and whether 

anything more still needs to be done. 

The Methodist Church has been 

fortunate to be in a position to learn 

important lessons from the Church 

of England experiences, especially in 

the Dioceses of Chichester (sexual 

abuse of children) and Winchester 

(abuse of a vulnerable adult). 

2.3 The 2012 Conference approved the 

appointment of a full-time additional 

post, arising from the President’s 

Inquiry recommendations. This has 

been allocated as two half-time 

appointments: the first, Hilary Walker, 

continues on from her temporary 

appointment with a focus on the 

training and risk assessments. The 

second has been allocated as half of 

a joint post, shared with Governance 

Support. Brendan Stephens started 

work in January 2013 and is already 

demonstrating the value of a closer 

working arrangement between 

safeguarding and the Complaints and 

Discipline procedures. 

3. Creating Safer Space (CSS) – the 

safeguarding training programme 

3.1 Both the 2011 and the 2012 

Conferences supported the 

development and implementation of 

the CSS programme. The Foundation 

Module reached over 23,000 people 

in the Methodist year 2011/12, 

as a result of the sterling efforts 

by local safeguarding people (at 

District, Circuit or Local Church level) 

and trainers working together. The 

combination of high quality material 

and the mandatory requirement 

for people in core roles to have 

attended before August 2012 

seems to have worked together to 

create a successful environment 

for widespread learning. There 

have been a limited number of 

resignations from people who do 

not wish to undergo the training, but 

there have been many more who 

have said, following the training, that 

they now appreciate its importance. 

The Foundation Module material is 

now under review based on feedback 

from last year’s experience, and to 

keep it as up-to-date and effective 

as possible so that it can continue 

to be delivered to new people who 

move into a core role within the 

church. 

3.2 The Leadership Module was 

launched in September 2012 after 

seven introductory events across 

the Connexion. This Module is also 

being used by other denominations, 

with reported success in translating 

it into different environments. Work 

is continuing with the colleagues 

tasked with implementing the 

Discipleship & Ministries Learning 

Network, to ensure that safeguarding 

is embedded within learning 

programmes across the Connexion 

as well as for ministers in training. 

340 



4. Standing Order changes. 

4.1 The 2012 Conference approved 

in outline the proposal that there 

should be changes made to a range 

of Standing Orders, to ensure a) 

that where there are safeguarding 

elements in any given situation, 

there is cross-reference to those 

with safeguarding expertise, and 

b) that where other processes (ie 

Complaints and Discipline) are 

required for safeguarding cases, 

the Safeguarding Advisory Panel 

should be able to transfer cases 

across in a way that ensures that 

both processes can be respected. 

This work is being undertaken by the 

Law and Polity Committee and a final 

recommendation will be brought to 

the 2014 Conference. In practice, 

the need for closer working together 

between processes has been 

helped by the appointment of a joint 

complaints and safeguarding worker 

(see 2.3 above). 

5. Past Safeguarding Cases Review 

(PCR) 

5.1 Endorsing the findings of the pilot, 

the 2012 Conference resolved that 

this be implemented across the 

whole Connexion. The Connexional 

Team has been extremely fortunate 

to engage the services of Jane 

Stacey as project manager. Jane was 

formerly deputy chief executive of 

Barnardos and brings the necessary 

experience, vision and external 

rigour to the process. Full details of 

the process, including the Districts’ 

timetable, are available on the PCR 

page of the Methodist website. 

5.2 Although staffing needs and 

budgets have been based on the 

experience of the pilot, the nature 

of a review of past events makes it 

difficult to predict what the actual 

resource requirements will be. 

The safeguarding team has been 

strengthened by a full-time team 

coordinator and a permanent fulltime 

post (filled by two half-time 

appointments) as a response to the 

President’s Inquiry (reported to the 

Conference 2012). This increased 

provision relates to the demands 

of ongoing work as identified by the 

President’s Inquiry. The demands of 

the PCR are being closely monitored, 

since there has been no ‘up-front’ 

provision of additional safeguarding 

practitioner resource for this review. 

6. Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. 

6.1 This Act revises the processes for 

criminal record checks and for the 

barring of people who pose a risk, 

from ‘regulated activity’. The former 

Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) and 

Independent Safeguarding Authority 

(ISA) are now joined as the Disclosure 

and Barring Service. Three phases of 

implementation have occurred and 

the Government’s timetable for the 

fourth is awaited, this is expected to 

be the final stage. The fourth stage 

will bring into force two huge changes: 

the creation of an online updating 

service and the provision of only one 

disclosure for the applicant. 


341


6.2 The Methodist Church and the 

Church of England provided interim 

guidance in September 2012, 

to complement four detailed 

information sheets about the key 

changes. Civil servants confirmed in 

December that this was compliant 

and could be depended upon until 

the final shape of all provisions is 

clarified. The latest news is that the 

Government timetable has slipped 

from ‘Spring’ to ‘Summer’ 2013. At 

that the Recruiting Safely policy will 

need to be updated and brought to 

the Methodist Council for approval. 

Resources for dissemination, 

explaining the changes and 

clarifying the new policy will also be 

needed to support local training as 

requested. (It is not proposed that 

any such training be mandatory.) The 

timetable, as explained above, rests 

with the Government. 

7. Churches Agency for Safeguarding 

(CAS). 

7.1 CAS acts as the registered body 

for Methodist Church criminal 

record checks. It acts as an 

important ecumenical resource 

for many small churches as well 

as the larger denominations. The 

Methodist Church Safeguarding 

Adviser sits as a trustee of CAS, 

alongside colleagues from a range 

of denominations. The decision was 

made to invest in an on-line process 

for criminal record checks. This 

was introduced in April 2013 and 

guidance/training is being provided 

via CAS. It significantly speeds up 

the process so that most responses 

can be received within a week. 

The traditional paper application 

route will continue to be available, 

alongside the new on-line process. 

This has been a major investment for 

CAS, supported by the trustees. 

8. President’s Safeguarding Inquiry 

2011 

8.1 The 2012 Conference accepted 

the recommendations of the 

Inquiry, particularly in relation to 

resourcing at connexional and 

District levels. The benefits of this 

support are now being noted across 

the Connexion as the strengthened 

District Safeguarding Officer role is 

implemented. The Implementation 

Group, chaired by the Revd Alison 

Tomlin, held its final meeting in 

March 2013. The Group was satisfied 

that all recommendations have 

either been achieved or, in the case 

of more long-term recommendations, 

allocated to the relevant body 

for oversight. The role of District 

Safeguarding Officers will be crucial 

in maintaining this progress since 

there is a risk of losing the focus as 

time moves on. 

9. Safeguarding work with the 

Belonging Together Project 

9.1 It is particularly important to enable 

members of the Church family 

from other parts of the world to 

understand the requirements of 

both state and Church around 

safeguarding. There has been 

342 



growing cooperation with the 

Belonging Together project which has 

enabled work to be undertaken with 

the Fijian and other communities. 

This is a good example of ensuring 

that safeguarding considerations are 

embedded throughout the Church’s 

activities. 

10. Wider societal developments 

with an impact on the Methodist 

Church. 

10.1 Since the 2012 Conference, there 

have been important safeguarding 

developments within wider society: 

- the Church of England Diocese 

of Chichester has been subject 

to a visitation ordered by the 

Archbishop of Canterbury, in 

relation to serious safeguarding 

concerns. The Visitation 

Commissaries’ interim report 

(August 2012) had major 

implications across the Church 

of England as well as important 

lessons for other Churches. 

The JSLG (see 1 above) has 

led a ‘national safeguarding 

conversation’ based on the 

report and the results are 

being taken to the House of 

Bishops in May. The strength 

of the working relationship 

between the Methodist Church 

and the Church of England 

means that many constructive 

developments can be shared 

between the Churches. In 

particular, the importance of 

improving the listening, and 

support provided to victims 

of Church abuse has been 

highlighted. 

- the Jimmy Savile case has 

led to a general rise in people 

reporting previous experiences 

of abuse. The Director of Public 

Prosecutions has announced 

a review of cases known to 

the police, which have not 

previously been prosecuted. 

At the time of writing, it is 

unclear what this will mean for 

the faith sector but it appears 

to represent an important 

opportunity for review of 

some cases, and confirms the 

appropriateness of the Church’s 

own PCR (see 5 above). 

- the arrest of a retired Church 

of England Bishop in November 

2012 was an important event 

as he is the most senior Church 

figure of any denomination 

to have been arrested on 

suspicion of abuse, within 

England. Significant lessons 

have been learned about 

how to work constructively 

with the police and the 

close ecumenical working 

arrangement has meant that 

these have been put into place 

for Methodist cases since 

November 2012. 

- the StopChurchChildAbuse! 

Campaign is a coalition of 

survivor groups and their legal 

supporters, who are pressing 


343


the Churches to address what 

they see as systemic difficulties 

in responding properly to 

reports of previous sexual 

abuse. Their website provides 

some powerful examples of 

why they hold that view. They 

seek the support of the Church 

of England and the Methodist 

Church, in their call for a public 

inquiry. At the time of writing, 

these discussions are still 

underway. 


31/1. The Council receives the report. 

31/2. The Conference directs and authorises the Methodist Council to finalise, and 

take all necessary steps to implement, the Recruiting Safely policy. 

344 


32. Joint Implementation Commission 


Professor Peter D Howdle, 

(Co-Chair of the JIC) 

Email: p.d.howdle@leeds.ac.uk 

1. Introduction 

1.1. An Anglican-Methodist Covenant 

was signed in 2003. The Joint 

Implementation Commission (JIC) 

was, therefore, due to produce its 

second quinquennial report in the 

summer of 2013. It is intended that 

this report contains an assessment 

of progress in the first ten years of 

the Covenant. In order to provide 

an accessible overview whilst at 

the same time doing justice to the 

necessary detail, the JIC discussed 

at its meeting in October 2012 the 

merits of publishing a long report, 

probably electronically, with a short 

report alongside it. The former would 

present material at length and 

would set out the reasoning and the 

parameters for the short report. The 

latter would focus on an assessment 

of how far the Covenant journey had 

come, and on the challenges and 

next steps for the two Churches. 

1.2. Such a way of proceeding would 

require a lot of extra work. At the 

same meeting, therefore, the JIC 

discussed the possibility of seeking 

permission to delay the publication 

of the reports. Discussions with the 

then Clerk to the General Synod 

and the Assistant Secretary of the 

Conference about this and about 

how the Conference and the General 

Synod might best deal with the 

material led to the recognition that 

the short report should be the one 

debated in those bodies, but that 

this should be in the context of the 

long report having been placed 

in the public domain and in the 

light of detailed consultations with 

various bodies in both Churches 

about it. That in turn led to the 

recommendation that the long report 

be published by the end of August 

2013, and that the short report be 

brought to the General Synod and 

the Conference in July 2014. 

2. Proposed Way of Proceeding 

2.1. The JIC aims to publish the long 

report electronically in early 

September. An approved draft 

version of the short report will be 

signed off at the same time. The 

period from publication to January 

2014 is available for interested 

persons and bodies to respond to 

the long report, and for the JIC to 

consult with a number of relevant 

bodies and groups in our churches, 

and in partner churches, about both 

the long and the short report, prior 

to debates in the General Synod and 

the Conference in July 2014. The 

Table below sets out the proposed 

timetable of consultation with bodies 

of the Church of England and the 

Methodist Church and with other 

Partner Churches. 


345


2.2. All responses to both reports will 

be expected by the end of January 

2014. The JIC will meet before the 

end of February 2014 in order to 

consider those responses. Parts of 

the long report may be lightly revised 

in the light of these comments, but 

major revision will be resisted. The 

key task for this meeting will be to 

consider a revised version of the 

short report. Following this meeting 

the final version of the short report 

will be signed off electronically by the 

JIC before the end of March 2014. 

This version will be presented to the 

General Synod and the Methodist 

Conference in July 2014. 

JIC Report: Consultation - September 2013 to January 2014 

Church of England Bodies 

Methodist Church Bodies 

The Faith and Order Commission 

The Faith and Order Commission (meeting 

December 2013) will be asked to respond to 

the long report by the end of January 2014. 

The Council for Christian Unity 

The Council for Christian Unity will be 

asked to consider 

●● 

the long report at its meeting on 7 

and 8 October and 

●● 

the short report at its meeting on 27 

November, 

and to respond to both by the end of 

January 2014. 

The Council’s comments will help to shape 

the final draft of the short report and 

the resolutions which will be the focus 

of debates in the General Synod and the 


Faith and Order Committee 

The Faith and Order Committee (meeting 

July 2013) may wish to agree how to 

respond to the long report by the end of 

January 2014. 

The Methodist Ecumenical Stakeholders’ 

Forum (ESF) 

The ESF will consider at its Autumn 

meeting 

●● 

the long report and 

●● 

the short report, 

and respond to both by the end of January 

2014. 

The Forum’s comments will help to shape 

the final draft of the short report and 

the resolutions which will be the focus 

of debates in the General Synod and the 


346 



The House of Bishops 

The House of Bishops will be asked to 

comment on the short report with the 

long report as a resource for the debate 

(meeting in December). The normal pattern 

is for documents to be accompanied by a 

short covering paper. The Co-Chairs and 

Co-Conveners will take responsibility for 

drafting the covering paper. 

The comments from the House of Bishops 

will help to shape the final draft of the 

Short Report and the resolution which will 

be the focus of debates in the General 

Synod and the Conference. 

The Methodist Council and Connexional 

Leaders’ Forum 

The JIC recommends that the Conference 

directs the Methodist Council and 

requests the Connexional Leaders’ Forum 

to consider the short report with the long 

report as a resource for the debate. The 

Co-Chairs and Co-Conveners will take 

responsibility for drafting a covering paper. 

The comments from the Methodist Council 

and the Connexional Leaders’ Forum will 

help to shape the final draft of the Short 

Report and the resolution which will be the 

focus of debates in the General Synod and 


Joint Anglican Methodist meetings 

The Joint Faith and Order Meeting (September 2013) 

The JIC recommends that the long report should be considered at the joint meeting of 

the Faith and Order Commission and the Faith and Order Committee in September. 

The Ecumenical Officers Consultation 

The Ecumenical Officers of the Church of England, the Methodist Church and the United 

Reformed Church will be meeting in December for their annual consultation. The main 

focus for this consultation will be the long report. 

Consultation with other Churches 

The JIC will request comments on the long report from the faith and order bodies 

of the United Reformed Church, the Church in Wales and the Scottish Episcopal Church, 

as they directly relate to aspects of the proposed report. 


347




32/2. The Conference appoints the current Methodist members of the JIC for a further 

period of one year from 1 September 2013, namely Professor Peter D Howdle (Co- 

Chair), the Revd Kenneth G Howcroft (Co-Convener), Mr Steven Cooper, Deacon 

Susan Culver, Mrs Jenny Easson, the Revds Catherine Gale, Ruth M Gee, and Neil 

A Stubbens. 

32/3. The Conference directs the Faith and Order Committee to consider the Joint 

Implementation Commission’s long report and to respond to the Commission by 

the end of January 2014. 

32/4. The Conference directs the Methodist Council to consider the Joint 

Implementation Commission’s short report and to respond to the Commission by 

the end of January 2014. 

32/5. The Conference requests the Connexional Leaders’ Forum to consider the Joint 

Implementation Commission’s short report and to respond to the JIC by the end 

of January 2014. 

32/6. The Conference encourages the Methodist people to study the long report as 

individuals and also in appropriate local church, circuit, district and connexional 

bodies, whenever possible with ecumenical partners, and to send any responses 

to the Commission by the end of January 2014. 

348 


33. Central Finance Board: 

Review of the year ended 28 February 2013 


Roger Smith 

Chair 

admin@cfbmethodistchurch.org.uk 

1. Déjà Vu 

In our previous two annual 

statements we questioned whether 

investors had become complacent 

about security markets. In both the 

years that followed UK equity prices 

experienced a sharp fall, but ended 

strongly. In the latest period under 

review the FTSE All Share Index fell 

12% between March and June but 

then surged higher ending February 

at 14% above the level it began a 

year earlier. This was the fourth 

successive year of rising prices over 

which time a return of close to 20% 

pa has been achieved. In contrast 

the economy has done little more 

than move sideways as an extended 

period of austerity has been initiated 

in a, so far, unsuccessful attempt 

to reduce government debt levels. 

Despite extremely low interest rates, 

mortgages and business loans 

seem difficult to obtain, whilst the 

European Union, our largest trading 

partner, seems to lurch from one 

financial crisis to another. This is 

far from an ideal background and 

equity valuations can no longer be 

described as cheap. Bond investors 

may be encouraged by weak 

economic prospects but gilt returns, 

although positive in absolute terms 

last year, failed to match the rate of 

inflation. Once again we are tempted 

to ask whether investors have again 

been overcome by complacency. 

2. Overseas Equities Lead the Way 

Helped by a fall in the trade weighted 

value of sterling of just under 3%, it 

was the Overseas Fund (+16.7%) that 

produced the best returns for Central 

Finance Board (CFB) investors. This 

was followed by the UK Equity Fund 

(+14.4%); the Corporate Bond Fund 

(+9.0%) and the Inflation Linked Fund 

(+6.5%). The Short Fixed Interest 

Fund (+3.4%) matched the rise in 

the Consumer Price Index, but the 

others all failed to do so: Property 

Fund (+3.2%); Gilt Fund (+2.6%) 

and the Deposit Fund (+1.3%). 

CFB returns relative to benchmark 

were mainly positive, with the best 

performance from the Property 

Fund (+3.0%). The return on the 

Overseas Fund was also very good 

relative to its benchmark (+0.7%) 

in spite of external fees and taxes 

of approx 0.7%pa. Unfortunately, 

the UK Equity Fund lagged behind 

its ethically adjusted benchmark 

(-0.3%) although it matched the 

unconstrained index following a year 

that for once did not penalise our 

ethical approach. The Short Fixed 

and Inflation Linked Funds were both 

boosted by exposure to corporate 

bonds and outperformed their gilt 

only benchmarks (by 1.1% and 0.7%, 

respectively). Relative to benchmark 

the Corporate Bond Fund also 

outperformed (+0.2%), whilst the Gilt 

Fund was in-line. 


349



3. The Income Dilemma 

Traditionally, trustees have held 

fixed interest securities to provide a 

high and stable income. This is no 

longer possible. An extended period 

of low base rates and quantitative 

easing has brought bond yields to 

very low levels. This has resulted in 

a steady fall in distributions by the 

CFB Short Fixed, Gilt and Corporate 

Bond funds down by 40%, 33% and 

16% respectively over the past five 

years. Investors have of course 

benefitted from an increase in 

values, but money invested today 

would receive a yield of only 2.5% 

on the Short Fixed and Gilt funds, 

with a slightly more attractive 3.8% 

on the Corporate Bond Fund. Index 

linked security coupons rise with 

inflation, but this has not prevented 

the Inflation Linked Fund distribution 

falling by 29% over the past five 

years to leave a yield of not much 

above 1% for new investors. Equity 

investors have always been aware 

that dividends can fall, but expect 

the trend to be upwards. However, 

the cuts in 2009 and 2010 led by BP 

and the banks means that the UK 

Equity Fund distribution is up less 

than 1% over the past five years, with 

the distribution last year still 14% 

below its peak level of four years ago 

with a yield for new investors of just 

under 3.1%. Only the Overseas Fund 

has seen a significant increase in 

distributions, up 66% over the past 

five years, although the yield to new 

investors remains a modest 1.7%. 

Many trustees have been tempted 

to move from bonds to equities to 

increase income, but need to be 

aware that this increases the risk 

of falling prices. The Deposit Fund 

averaged a rate of 5.1% five years 

ago, but this was down to 1.3% in 

the past year. Although, capital 

values are as secure as possible, the 

rate payable continues to decline 

and the current rate of 0.99%, 

whilst attractive compared to many 

alternative homes for cash, is 

scarcely enticing. 

4. Ethics 

In the past year scrutiny of the 

ethics of the business world has 

intensified. The banking industry 

continues to be the main focus, 

with systemic failures such as the 

fixing of LIBOR and the mis-selling 

of payment protection insurance 

and interest rate swaps continuing 

to emerge. Regulatory breaches 

have led to massive fines being 

imposed and there is widespread 

disgust of continued payment of 

excessive bonuses. Unsurprisingly, 

this has been a major focus of our 

ethical work in the past year. In 

addition to extensive engagement 

with Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds and 

Standard Chartered, we published 

a paper outlining the main ethical 

issues facing the industry, Ethical 

Issues Arising from Banking, on our 

website. A new policy relating to 

alcohol was adopted and there was 

considerable engagement on climate 

change in general and resource 

companies in particular. Our UK 

Strategist and Senior Fund Manager, 

Stephen Beer, went to Nigeria to see 

350 




the Shell operation at first hand. A 

report of his visit was published in 

both the Methodist Recorder and 

the Financial Times, neatly bridging 

the gap between the two worlds 

inhabited by the CFB. It was also 

good to see other subjects being 

tackled. This included international 

ecumenical efforts centred on the 

London Olympics to raise awareness 

of human trafficking and encouraging 

hotel groups to minimise the risk that 

their premises could be involved. It 

was pleasing to see the change in 

attitudes of the UK companies that 

moved from a position of indifference 

to one of active engagement 

particularly through improved staff 

training. We also became involved 

in investor coalitions seeking 

to encourage pharmaceutical 

companies to improve global access 

to medicines and food companies to 

improve their policies, practices and 

performance in relation to nutrition. 

5. Looking to the Future 

It is good to be able to report that 

total funds under management are 

once again in excess of £1 billion, 

having increased by over £60 

million last year, although all but 

£1 million was due to increased 

security prices. Although welcome, 

this cannot be relied upon in any 

plans for the long term future of the 

CFB. It therefore seems prudent 

to build up our reserves in order to 

withstand sudden shocks, such as 

from the withdrawal of substantial 

funds as occurred two years ago 

or a sharp fall in security prices as 

happens with frightening regularity. 

We also need to consider our office 

requirements for the next five years 

as the lease on our current premises 

expires in the Spring of 2014. In all 

likelihood it will mean a higher rent 

as well as moving costs. We have 

also given considerable attention 

to what is required to run an 

appropriately resourced professional 

investment operation to meet the 

needs of Methodism both now and 

in the future. It has become clear 

that current staff resources are 

stretched too thinly and we need to 

take action to relieve the pressure. 

This will involve additional staff and 

investment in new technology, which 

will inevitably involve some increase 

in charges. However, we believe 

that there is potential demand for 

our low risk ethical approach to 

investment management which we 

can use to build up our funds under 

management, particularly through 

our sister organisation Epworth 

Investment Management. By 

investing modestly in our capacity, 

we will boost our ability to continue 

providing a relatively low cost, high 

quality ethical investment service 

for Methodism and the wider charity 

sector. 

6. Governance 

The governance of the CFB is unique, 

based as it is on the Methodist 

Church Funds Act, 1960. This does 

not necessarily correlate well with 

standard practices in either the 

charity or financial world. We have 

given considerable thought to how 


351



these differences can be reconciled 

and in what is still work in progress, 

we would like to thank Board 

member, Alan Pimlott, for assisting 

us in tackling the matter. 

7. Farewells and Thanks 

Two long standing members of the 

CFB Council are standing down 

having completed the maximum 

term of nine years. Richard Reeves 

served as Vice-Chair between 2005 

and 2012 as well as sitting on the 

Audit and Remuneration Committees 

and representing the CFB on the 

Epworth Board. His wise counsel 

will be sorely missed as will his witty 

and thought provoking contributions 

when leading devotions at the 

beginning of Council meetings. 

Ted Awty has also served the CFB 

with distinction and whilst we say 

farewell to him as a colleague, we will 

continue to work closely with him as 

a client in his continuing role as one 

of the Connexional Treasurers. We 

are very grateful for the hard work 

and considered judgement of all the 

Council. The Methodist Church is 

extremely fortunate to have such 

well qualified individuals serving it 

through the CFB. We would also 

like to pay tribute to Bill Seddon 

and all the staff. They have worked 

tirelessly and efficiently on behalf 

of the Church. Our long-standing 

Secretary and Chief Financial Officer, 

Peter Forward retired last June and 

was replaced by Marina Philips. Our 

thanks go to Peter, Marina and all 

the staff in making the transition as 

smooth as possible. 

8. Perseverance 

The past year has in many ways 

been a tough one for the CFB. There 

may have been no big operational 

changes, markets may have been 

relatively strong and no new high 

profile ethical issue may have 

arisen. However, it has as always 

been a year of a great deal of hard 

unspectacular work, which enables 

the CFB to provide the service 

required by Methodism. 

352 




Performance Report - Year to 28 February 2013 

External Assessment (Source: Portfolio Evaluation, except where stated) 

Index 1 year to 5 years 10 years 

to to to 

28.02.13 28.02.13 28.02.13 

% % p.a. %p.a. 

Equity 

CFB UK Equity Fund +14.1 +5.7 +9.8 

FTSE All Share Index +14.1 +6.0 +10.4 

FTSE All Share Index (ethically adjusted) +14.4 +5.8 +9.9 

CFB Overseas Fund +16.7 +8.0 +10.4 

FTSE All World ex U.K Index +16.0 +7.9 +10.3 

CFB Managed Equity Fund 1 +14.4 +6.1 +9.9 

Managed Equity Fund Composite Index +14.4 +6.3 +10.4 

Managed Equity Fund Composite Index (ethically adjusted) +14.7 +6.1 n/a 

CFB Managed Mixed Fund 1 +11.6 +6.4 +9.0 

Managed Mixed Composite Index +10.9 +6.5 +9.3 

Managed Mixed Composite Index (ethically adjusted) +11.1 +6.3 n/a 

Fixed Interest 

CFB Managed Fixed Interest Fund 1 +3.8 +6.9 +5.6 

Managed Fixed Interest Composite +3.2 +6.5 +5.4 

CFB Short Fixed Interest Fund +3.4 +6.3 +5.3 

Short Gilt Composite Index (gilt only) +2.3 +6.1 +5.2 

Short Fixed Interest Composite Index +3.8 +6.2 +5.2 

CFB Gilt Fund +2.6 +7.0 +5.5 

FTSE All Stock Gilt Index +2.6 +6.9 +5.6 

CFB Corporate Bond Fund 1 +9.0 +8.3 n/a 

iBoxx Non Gilts Index +10.1 +7.3 +5.6 

Corporate Bond Composite Index +8.8 +6.7 +5.2 

Inflation Linked 

CFB Inflation Linked Fund +6.5 +8.2 +7.5 

FTSE All Stock Index Linked Index (gilt only) +5.8 +8.1 +7.5 

Inflation Linked Composite Index +6.5 +8.3 +7.6 

Property 

CFB Property Fund 1,3 +3.2 -2.4 n/a 

IPD All Balanced Funds Index 2,3 +0.2 -2.3 n/a 

Cash (AERs) 

CFB Deposit Fund 1 +1.3 +2.0 +3.3 

Higher Rate Bank Deposits (over £10,000) +0.1 +0.4 +1.0 

1 Week LIBID +0.4 +1.2 n/a 

1 

Source: CFB | 2 Source: IPD | 3 Performance to 31 December 2012 


353



Summary statement of change in unit holders’ net assets 

Year to 28 February 2013 

CFB Funds 

Net Assets at 

29/02/2012 

Net Creations/ 

Cancellations 

Changes in net 

assets 

Net Assets at 

28/02/2013 

£’000s £’000s £’000s £’000s 

UK Equity Fund 308,347 4,165 33,113 345,625 

Overseas Fund 129,522 11,390 20,248 161,160 

Gilt Fund 32,328 840 74 33,242 

Corporate Bond Fund 87,784 (3,891) 4,261 88,154 

Short Fixed Interest Fund 16,832 (7,109) 227 9,950 

Inflation Linked Fund 23,041 1,904 1,551 26,496 

Property Fund 9,373 4,248 (572) 13,049 

Deposit Fund 346,245 (10,385) 0 335,860 

Less: CFB Deposit Fund balances 

held in other CFB funds 

(2,152) (3,469) 

Total 951,320 1,162 58,902 1,010,067 


33/1. The Conference adopts the Report of the Central Finance Board. 

33/2. The Conference elects the following persons to the Central Finance Board for 

one year from 1 September 2013 

Keith Aldred, Ruby Beech, Graham Boyd, Ronald Calver, Peter Cussons, Christopher 

Daws, Ralph Dransfield, John Gibbon, Anne Goodman, Hazel Griffiths, Alan Groves, 

Frank Guaschi, Sue Haworth, Karen L’Esperance, Mervin Liversidge, Theophilus 

Mensah, Nick Moore, John O’ Brien, Sir Michael Partridge, Colin Pearson, Alan 

Pimlott, the Revd Jennifer Potter, John Reynolds, John Sandford, Maureen 

Sebanakitta, Gordon Slater, Andrew Slim, Eleanor Smith, Roger Smith, the Revd 

Kenneth Street, Anthea Sully, Paula Thomas, the Revd Graham Thompson, Geoffrey 

Wilcox, Michael Willett, Terry Wynn, Garry Young. 

Reasoned Statements 

Mr Graham Boyd 

Mr John O’Brien 

354 

Visiting Lecturer at Warwick University and recent Policy Strategist 

and Fund Manager at Gemini Structured Carbon. 

Chairman Action for Children 


34. The Future of Wesley House, Cambridge 

Contact Name and 

Details 


Main Points 


and Relevant 

Documents 

Impact 

Professor Judith Lieu 

Chair of Wesley House Trustees 

Email: jml68@cam.ac.uk 

The report outlines the current steps being taken by the Wesley 

House Trustees in the light of the Fruitful Field report and sets 

out the respects in which the assistance of the Conference is 

requested. 

Section A: Introduction 

Section B: The legal context 

Section C: The relevant recommendations in the Fruitful Field 

report 

Section D: A possible way forward 

Section E: The role of the Conference 

The Fruitful Field report to the 2012 Conference; Notices of 

Motion 102 and 106 (2012) 

The possible way forward explored in this report, if realised, would: 

(a) enable the Methodist Church, through the Wesley House 

Trustees, to continue its relationship with the University of 

Cambridge for the purpose of theological education as envisaged 

by the founders of Wesley House; 

(b) enable the Methodist Church, through the Wesley House 

Trustees, to continue its involvement in the Cambridge Theological 

Federation with its broad ecumenical links; 

(c) constitute a particular expression of the relationship between 

the Methodist Church in Britain and world Methodism for their 

mutual benefit; 

(d) offer opportunities for the Wesley House Trustees to work in 

conjunction with the Discipleship and Ministries Learning Network 

in carrying out its responsibilities in relation to scholarship, 

research and innovation. 

There are no financial implications for the Methodist Church. 


355


SECTION A: INTRODUCTION 

1. The Trustees of Wesley House are 

a body of trustees appointed by 

the President of the Conference 

pursuant to a resolution of the 

Conference to give effect to the 

trusts declared by the Foundation 

Deed of Wesley House dated 24 

February 1919, as amended on 29 

June 1976 (“the Trust Deed”). 

2. The principal activity of Wesley 

House since its foundation, 

consistently with the terms of the 

Trust Deed, has been the initial 

training of ministerial students 

who have been allocated to Wesley 

House by the connexional body with 

responsibility from time to time 

for such allocation. In the light of 

the Conference’s decision in 2012 

to accept the recommendation of 

The Fruitful Field Project report 

(“The Fruitful Field”) that Wesley 

House should not be one of the two 

proposed connexional centres and 

that the Methodist Church should 

move to end its activities there (see 

para.242 of the report), the Trustees 

have spent substantial time over 

the past nine months (at the date of 

writing) considering how they should 

now execute their trusts. 

3. In their consideration, the Trustees 

have been guided by three principles: 

(1) their concern to maintain 

a Methodist presence in 

theological education in 

Cambridge and specifically 

in the ecumenical and 

highly respected Cambridge 

Theological Federation; 

(2) the need to find a way forward 

which does not involve a cost to 

the Connexion; and 

(3) their desire both to carry 

out faithfully their duties as 

trustees of the Wesley House 

trusts under the Trust Deed 

and to contribute constructively 

to the implementation of the 

Fruitful Field proposals. 

4. In formulating those principles, the 

Trustees have borne in mind the 

legal advice they have received 

about their duties as trustees given 

that they can no longer continue 

with their previous principal activity. 

This will require changes to the 

Trust Deed by means of a scheme 

made by the Charity Commission, as 

discussed further in Section B below. 

Also as explained in that Section, 

the Trustees seek the Conference’s 

approval of the principles of the 

changes that they are asking the 

Charity Commission to make. 

5. The Trustees wish to make clear at 

the outset their understanding that 

they cannot look to the Connexion 

for any future funding beyond 

(i) that agreed in July 2011 for 

planned preventative maintenance 

work (some of which has yet to be 

received) and (ii) that required in 

connection with the completion of 

the training of the presbyteral and 

diaconal students already allocated. 

356 



6. The remainder of this report 

discusses: 

(1) the legal framework within 

which the Trustees have to 

operate in discharging their 

duties as trustees (Section B); 

(2) the recommendations in 

The Fruitful Field which have 

guided the Trustees in their 

conversations (Section C); 

(3) the steps which the Trustees 

are now taking as a result 

(Section D); 

(4) the matters in relation to 

which the Trustees seek the 

assistance of the Conference 

(Section E). 

SECTION B: THE LEGAL CONTEXT 

7. The Trust Deed provides that the 

Wesley House trust assets are to be 

held: 

“Upon trust to apply the 

same for the establishment 

equipment maintenance and 

endowment in accordance 

with and subject to the powers 

and provisions hereinafter 

contained of a college hostel or 

institution within the precincts 

of the University of Cambridge 

for the training in theology and 

the pastoral office of accepted 

candidates for the ministry 

of the Wesleyan Methodist 

Church.” 

8. The Trustees have power with 

the approval of the Conference 

expressed under the hand of the 

President and with the consent of the 

Chancery Division of the High Court 

of Justice or the Board of Education 

to amend the trusts declared by the 

Trust Deed: 

“but so that any such 

revocation alteration or 

addition shall be consistent 

with a purpose conducive 

to the education in theology 

and the pastoral office of 

students for the ministry of the 

Wesleyan Methodist Church 

or of any body with which it 

may hereafter be united as 

aforesaid within the precincts 

of the University of Cambridge.” 

9. It follows that the decision of the 

Conference not to send accepted 

candidates to Wesley House after 

those so allocated in 2012 means 

that the Trustees cannot carry out in 

full the trusts on which they currently 

hold the trust assets. Moreover, the 

Trustees cannot themselves, even 

with the approval of the Conference, 

amend those trusts in a way which 

would make them available to the 


Network (”the Network”) for its 

general purposes. In particular, the 

location of initial training within 

the precincts of the University of 

Cambridge is one of the essential 

elements of the current trusts, as 

shown by the protection given to 

it through the words quoted in the 

preceding paragraph. 


357


10. The Trustees have taken advice 

from their solicitors, Messrs Taylor 

Vinters, on their duties now that 

it will soon become impossible to 

carry out their trusts in full. They 

have been advised that by virtue 

of the Charities Act 2011 they are 

under a duty to apply to the Charity 

Commission for a scheme which will 

enable them to apply the trust assets 

“cy‐près” (as near as possible to the 

original purposes). The Trustees have 

also been advised that when the 

Charity Commission makes a cy-près 

scheme, it must have regard to the 

following matters: 

(1) the spirit of the original gift; 

(2) the desirability of securing 

that the property is applied for 

charitable purposes which are 

close to the original purposes; 

and 

(3) the need for the relevant 

charity to have purposes which 

are suitable and effective in 

the light of current social and 

economic circumstances. 

“The relevant charity” means the 

charity by or on behalf of which the 

property is to be applied under the 

scheme. 

11. The Trustees’ solicitors have 

identified five elements in the 

intention recorded in the Trust Deed: 

(i) a college, hostel or institution (ii) 

in the University of Cambridge (iii) for 

theological and pastoral education 

(iv) of accepted candidates for 

ordained ministry (v) of the Wesleyan 

Methodist Church or its successor. 

According to the Trust Deed the 

purpose was that students might 

have the full benefit of University life 

and tuition alongside those elements 

distinctive to a Methodist formation. 

(The Appendix to this report gives a 

little more detail about the founder’s 

original intention.) In exploring 

proposals for new ways of using the 

trust assets which could form the 

basis of an application to the Charity 

Commission for a cy-près scheme, 

the Trustees are bearing in mind 

their solicitors’ advice that element 

(iv) is the one which at present 

requires amendment, because that 

is the element which clearly can 

no longer be satisfied as matters 

currently stand. As explained further 

in Section C, the Trustees believe 

that there are significant elements of 

the Fruitful Field proposals to which 

Wesley House can contribute while 

giving effect to the other elements 

of the founder’s intention. It will also 

be appreciated that any modification 

of element (iv) could take the form 

of widening it so that the charitable 

purposes extend to the further 

theological and pastoral education of 

ministers who are already ordained 

and, if thought appropriate, the 

theological and pastoral education 

of lay persons who are not accepted 

candidates. 

12. The broad outlines of the legal 

context were before the Conference 

of 2012. The Fruitful Field rightly 

describes Wesley House as an 

“independent Methodist entity 

358 



where the Conference appoints the 

governing body” (para 82.2). It is 

the Trustees who are responsible 

for the future of the Wesley House 

Trusts. This point was also made in 

the further information put before 

the Conference, and accepted by 

the Conference, in Notice of Motion 

106. Nevertheless the Trustees 

wish to act collaboratively with the 

Conference and in due course with 

the Network. They therefore seek 

the Conference’s approval of the 

principles of the changes they wish 

to make. Those principles are set out 

in Section E. 

SECTION C: THE RELEVANT 

RECOMMENDATIONS IN 

THE FRUITFUL FIELD 

13. As explained in paragraph 3 above, 

the Trustees, as a group of people 

appointed by the Conference, are 

eager to find ways of discharging 

their legal duties as explained to 

them by their solicitors while at 

the same time contributing to the 

implementation of The Fruitful Field. 

They have therefore looked carefully 

at The Fruitful Field with those 

considerations in mind. 

14. Consistently with the independent 

status of the Trustees and their 

duty to observe the terms of the 

Trust Deed, the recommendations 

and resolutions adopted by the 

Conference are not directed 

to the Trustees. The primary 

recommendation relating to Wesley 

House is that “the Methodist 

Church” should, in an organised 

and structured manner, move 

to end its activities there (para 

242). The Conference could not 

properly direct the Trustees to act 

in breach of trust (ie, to apply the 

trust assets to purposes falling 

outside the scope of the purposes 

set out in the Trust Deed) and did 

not seek to do so. Nevertheless, 

the Trustees clearly have a role to 

play in the organised and structured 

ending of the activities in which 

the Methodist Church is currently 

engaged at Wesley House and 

are wholeheartedly committed to 

working to ensure that existing 

student ministers can complete their 

training with full support. 

15. The present report, however, 

looks to the future. In April 2013 

the Methodist Council received 

a report giving an update on the 

establishment of the Network, from 

which it appears that the single 

unified structure originally intended 

will not be fully achieved. In the 

view of the Trustees, this looser 

structure may offer a welcome 

flexibility as far as Wesley House is 

concerned and may make it easier 

for Wesley House to contribute to 

the Network, although the trusts on 

which its assets are held will be the 

separate trusts set out in the terms 

of any cy-près scheme which may be 

made by the Charity Commission. 

The Trustees have had in mind in 

exploring the options open to them 

the desirability that the Wesley 

House assets should contribute 


359


to the Network, for example by the 

provision of learning opportunities 

and facilities to the Connexion 

without cost or at reduced cost, or 

in any other way consistent with 

the terms of the amended Trust 

Deed which may emerge in future 

discussions with the Network. 

16. The Trustees have asked themselves 

the question which proposed 

activities of the Network would 

best reflect the elements of the 

intention set out in the Trust Deed, 

as identified in paragraph 11 above. 

They have particularly noted the 

following: 

(1) the repeated affirmation of 

research and scholarship 

in paras 4, 29 and 125 of 

The Fruitful Field, and the 

identification of these as 

a priority to be nurtured in 

partnership with the Higher 

Education sector in paras 

114.5, 125 and 126; 

(2) the explicit direction of the 

Conference to the Methodist 

Council in Notice of Motion 

102 (2012) that it oversee 

processes to promote and 

maintain relationships 

with university theological 

departments and the 

opportunities already available 

to further the Methodist 

scholarship whose past was 

celebrated in para 126; 

(3) the proposal in para 166.2 

that there should be capacity 

for engaging in academic study 

projects, research projects 

or innovative and creative 

thinking; 

(4) the support in para 166.4 for 

nurturing links with ecumenical 

partners and other partner 

organisations; 

(5) the proposal in para 163 for 

regional teams, which includes 

in para 164.2 reference to 

a post the responsibilities 

of which would include 

supporting the continuing 

development of ministers 

serving in Circuit appointments 

and accompanying those 

candidating for ordained 

ministry; 

(6) the recommendation explored 

at some length in Section I for 

the identification of appropriate 

gathering spaces for formation, 

learning and development 

across the Connexion, which: 

(a) recognises in para 187 the 

distinction between the 

move to two centres and 

seeing those two centres 

as the only gathering and 

learning spaces offered by 

the Network and sets as 

a task the identification 

and, where necessary, 

the creation of the right 

sort of spaces across the 

Connexion for a range of 

learners and participants 

to gather for formation, 

learning and development, 

not necessarily in a fullyfledged 

institution, college 

360 



or centre; 

(b) approves in para 188 the 

need for places in the 

regions where learning 

can take place in person 

and for quiet restful places 

where space and time can 

be offered for theological 

reflection; 

(c) affirms in para 189 the 

proposals being explored 

by the trustees of the New 

Room, Bristol, for creating 

intentionally appropriate 

space for study and 

sharing, with appropriate 

ancillary facilities; 

(d) notes in para 192 the 

importance of size, form, 

location, accessibility, 

technological facilities, 

acoustics and furniture; 

(e) envisages in para 193 

that spaces will be able 

to provide flexible and 

appropriately configured 

resources which will 

complement the regional 

teams. 

17. That vision in The Fruitful Field 

has much in common with the 

intention in the Trust Deed that 

the trust assets should be used to 

provide a physical space (a college, 

hostel or institution), in a particular 

place and so as to make available 

the resources of the university (in 

the precincts of the University of 

Cambridge) for theological and 

pastoral education for the benefit of 

the Methodist Church (the successor 

to the Wesleyan Methodist Church). 

The vision also clearly extends to the 

development of ministers throughout 

their ministry. 

18. Further, the vision is largely 

consistent with contemporary 

correspondence from the time at 

which the Trust Deed was executed, 

which again makes clear the 

importance attached by the founders 

of Wesley House to its particular 

location in the precincts of the 

University of Cambridge. 

19. That vision, if given substance at 

Wesley House, would also make 

possible work to maintain, develop 

and promote relationships with 

university theological departments, 

in accordance with Notice of Motion 

102(2012). 

SECTION D: A POSSIBLE WAY FORWARD 

20. The similarities between most 

elements of the intention set out in 

the Trust Deed and the aspirations 

in The Fruitful Field, considered in 

paragraph 17 above, caused the 

Trustees to conclude that the proper 

performance of their duties requires 

them to explore whether a viable 

business case exists for Wesley 

House to continue to operate in 

conjunction with the Discipleship 

and Ministries Learning Network. 

As already stated in paragraph 

5, any such business case would 

need to make provision to raise the 

necessary funds without assistance 

from the Connexion. 


361


21. The Trustees received a grant 

from the Laing Trust to support a 

feasibility study of a possible way 

forward designed to establish 

whether such a business case 

does exist. That was an expression 

of the Trust's appreciation of the 

integral part played by a Methodist 

presence in the Federation, and their 

confidence in the long-term future of 

Cambridge on the theological map. 

22. The work done to date has enabled 

the Trustees to establish the 

outlines of a business plan under 

which Wesley House would operate 

as an international centre for 

scholarship, research and prayer 

for Methodist people across the 

world, in association with its current 

ecumenical and University partners 

in Cambridge. This would be made 

possible by the disposal of part of 

the site to fund building works to 

the remainder which would provide 

accommodation and other resources 

of suitable quality for the proposed 

activities. Further exploration of 

the proposal is required before 

any final commitment is made, but 

the Trustees have been advised by 

their consultant that the business 

structure is sufficiently sound to 

justify the time and costs of such 

exploration. 

23. In addition, the Trustees intend: 

(1) to seek to raise bursary funds 

to enable applicants from the 

Methodist tradition, either 

from Britain or overseas (in 

particular the global south) 

to study at Wesley House 

for University of Cambridge 

degrees; 

(2) to work with the proposed 

Network Committee and other 

relevant bodies to explore 

how the resources which will 

be available at Wesley House 

might be used to benefit the 

Network; 

(3) specifically, to work with 

interested parties in the East of 

England Region of the Network 

to explore how Wesley House 

might be a resource for the 

region. 

24. In deciding to explore this particular 

proposal, the Trustees have 

had in mind, among many other 

considerations, that: 

(1) Wesley House’s position 

as a continuing member of 

the Cambridge Theological 

Federation would enable it to 

maintain the links with other 

institutions representing the 

Anglican, Orthodox, Reformed 

and Roman Catholic traditions 

(as recognised in para 235 

of Fruitful Field) and the 

consequent bilateral and 

broad giving and receiving 

from ecumenical partners. 

It is clearly recognised in 

para 240.4 of Fruitful Field 

that the ending of Methodist 

involvement in the Federation 

would be a loss to Methodism, 

and the reactions of our 

362 



partners in the Federation 

make clear that the loss of the 

Methodist contribution would 

be felt as a serious loss to 

those partners also; 

(2) the international element 

will constitute a particular 

expression of the way in which 

the Methodist Church in Britain 

both receives from and gives 

to our global partners in the 

World Church. When Wesley 

House was founded, the 

Wesleyan Methodist Church 

had a significant international 

dimension, which was of course 

retained following the Deed 

of Union by the Methodist 

Church in Britain. It is only very 

recently that the last overseas 

district, The Gambia, became 

an autonomous Methodist 

Conference. The Trustees will 

hope to build on this legacy and 

on the newer understanding 

of relationships within world 

Methodism and our global 

partners if the proposal comes 

to fruition. 

25. It is the Trustees’ view that such a 

centre and such activities would 

be consistent with elements (i), 

(ii), (iii) and (v) of the founders’ 

intention as identified in paragraph 

11 above, although clearly such a 

method of operation would go very 

substantially beyond element (iv). 

The Trustees recognise that it could 

not fairly be said that the purpose of 

carrying on such activities would be 

conducive to the training in theology 

and the pastoral office of accepted 

candidates in the way envisaged by 

the Trust Deed. The purpose would 

be significantly wider, although such 

training would not be excluded. 

Adopting this way forward would 

therefore not do away with the need 

to apply to the Charity Commission 

for a cy-près scheme. 

SECTION E: THE ROLE OF THE 

CONFERENCE 

Terms of the scheme 

26. At the time of writing, the Trustees’ 

solicitors are still in the process 

of preparing the application to the 

Charity Commission. They have been 

instructed to do so on the basis of 

the following principles: 

(1) the purposes for which the 

trust assets are to be held for 

the future should continue 

to include the purpose of 

initial training of accepted 

candidates. This will not only 

respect the history of the 

trust but also ensure that if 

appropriate cases arise Wesley 

House will be able to offer 

some aspects of initial training 

to candidates who have been 

allocated to another institution, 

working in collaboration with 

that institution; 

(2) the core elements (i), (ii), (iii) 

and (v) identified in paragraph 

11 above should remain 

unchanged; 

(3) additional elements should be 


363


introduced which would permit 

the Trustees: 

(a) to carry on the activity of 

providing at Wesley House 

an international centre 

for scholarship, research 

and prayer for Methodist 

people throughout the 

world; 

(b) to raise funds for and to 

award bursaries to enable 

British and overseas 

applicants from the 

Methodist tradition to 

study at Wesley House for 

degrees awarded by the 

University of Cambridge; 

(c) having regard to the other 

charitable purposes and 

on such terms as the 

Trustees think appropriate, 

to make the resources of 

Wesley House available 

for use in conjunction 

with the bodies carrying 

out the responsibilities of 

the Network in relation to 

scholarship, research and 

innovation. 

(4) the administrative provisions 

of the Trust Deed should be 

revised so that a modern 

administrative framework is 

in place in accordance with 

current Charity Commission 

expectations; 

(5) the current rights and powers 

of the Conference and the 

President should be retained 

in a form consistent with 

current Methodist polity 

(including appropriate powers 

of delegation); 

The Trustees have been 

advised by their solicitors that 

they expect that an application 

embodying those principles 

of amendment will be legally 

acceptable to the Charity 

Commission. 

27. It is hoped that by the time this 

report comes to the Conference the 

application will be in final form. The 

Conference will be informed of the 

current position when it meets. The 

Trustees invite the Conference to 

express its approval of the principles 

set out in paragraph 26 above. 

The Trustees will also report to the 

Methodist Council as appropriate on 

developments after the Conference. 

Sale or lease of the whole or part of the 

Wesley House site 

28. As explained in paragraph 22 above, 

the proposals being considered by 

the Trustees involve the disposal 

of a part of the Wesley House 

site in order to finance necessary 

building works. The Trustees are still 

exploring whether their proposals 

would best be achieved by a sale 

or lease of part of the site or a sale 

of the whole and leaseback of part. 

The Trust Deed gives the Trustees 

power to sell or lease the property 

“with the consent in writing of the 

Conference expressed under the 

hand of the President”. Any sale or 

364 



lease would of course have to comply 

with the relevant requirements of 

the Charities Act 2011, including 

the requirement that the price 

should be the best price reasonably 

obtainable. The site is subject to a 

restrictive covenant to the effect that 

no buildings may be erected on the 

site other than a theological college 

and ancillary buildings or buildings 

for such University educational or 

other purposes as may be approved 

by the vendors of the site, and the 

Trustees have been advised by their 

solicitors that the covenant is likely 

to be enforceable. 

29. It is not expected that the Trustees 

will be in a position to seek the 

consent of the Conference to a 

specific sale or lease. The Trustees 

therefore request the Conference 

to approve the principle of a sale 

or lease on terms complying with 

the requirements of the Charities 

Act 2011 and to delegate to the 

Methodist Council the power to 

consent to a particular transaction. 

The Trust Deed does not currently 

contain a provision permitting the 

Conference to delegate its powers, 

but it is intended that one of the 

administrative provisions in the 

new scheme will enable it to do so. 

It is therefore proposed that the 

delegation should be conditional on 

the making of the new scheme. 

Staff at Wesley House 

30. The current staff at Wesley House 

include three presbyters (the 

Principal, the Vice Principal and the 

Director of Studies), two of whom 

are oversight tutors and one of 

whom is a chaplain. The Trustees 

understand that the effect of the 

new arrangements flowing from The 

Fruitful Field is that oversight tutors 

will not continue to be appointed to 

Wesley House after August 2014. 

31. Although the relationship between 

the Conference and Wesley 

House will inevitably be changed 

under the new arrangements, it 

will be clear that the Trustees’ 

vision for the future outlined in 

Section D includes a continuing 

relationship with the Conference 

and a continuing contribution to 

theological scholarship, research 

and education for the benefit of the 

Methodist Church in Britain. The 

Trustees are therefore consulting 

with the appropriate bodies within 

the Connexion to establish how 

such a continuing relationship and 

contribution might best be expressed 

in a manner consistent with 

connexional stationing policies and 

the polity of the Church generally. 


365




34/2. The Conference approves the principles set out in paragraph 26 of the report as 

the principles by reference to which a scheme amending the trusts set out in the 

Foundation Deed of Wesley House dated 24 February 1919 should be framed. 

34/3. The Conference: 

(i) 

(ii) 

approves the principle that the whole (subject to a leaseback) or a part of 

the present Wesley House site should be sold or leased to provide funds 

for works associated with the implementation of the proposal explained in 

Section D of the report; 

delegates to the Methodist Council the exercise of its power of consent to 

such a sale or lease (such delegation being conditional upon the making of 

a scheme pursuant to which it has power to enter into such a delegation). 

APPENDIX 

Extracts from formal letter dated 12 December 1912 from Michael Gutteridge to the 

original Trustees 

“With a view to securing the better education of candidates for the Ministry of the Wesleyan 

Methodist Church and in the hope that in addition to my donation a sum of £20,000 at least 

will be subscribed for the foundation and maintenance of a Hostel within the University of 

Cambridge for the use and training of candidates who are likely to profit by education at that 

University, I have this day transferred the undermentioned Stocks into your joint names ...” 

“If and when and as soon as the additional sum of £20,000 has been subscribed ... I wish 

you to use or apply both the capital and income of the investments then representing my 

donation for such purposes in connection with the foundation equipment and maintenance 

of a Hostel within the University of Cambridge for the use and training of candidates for 

the Ministry (including the adequate remuneration and maintenance allowances for a tutor 

or tutors, resident or otherwise) as you or the survivor of you after consultation with the 

Wesleyan Methodist Conference or any person or committee authorised by such Conference 

shall think fit ...” 

“In the event of the said additional sum of £20,000 not having been collected for the 

purposes of such Hostel by the First day of January 1916 I desire you to apply both the 

366 



capital and income then representing my donation either for immediate expenditure or as 

an endowment or partly for one and partly for the other but in either case for or towards 

education at the University of Cambridge of candidates for the Wesleyan Methodist Ministry 

and in such manner generally as you or the survivor of you may in your absolute discretion 

think fit ..” 

“Having regard to the legal restrictions on accumulation of income I direct that if I should die 

before the 1 st January 1916 and before the scheme has matured the income accruing after 

my death is to be paid from time to time to the Theological Institution Fund for or towards 

education at Cambridge of candidates for the Ministry.” 

Further extracts from Trust Deed 

“WHEREAS in the month of December One thousand nine hundred and twelve the said 

Michael Gutteridge (hereinafter called “the Founder”) transferred and delivered certain 

securities into the names and hands of the said Harold Cooke Gutteridge and Samuel 

Cooke (hereinafter called “the Original Trustees”) in order that with the addition of further 

donations a fund might be created to enable the establishment of a college or hostel within 

the precincts of the University of Cambridge for the theological and pastoral education 

of accepted candidates for the ministry of the Wesleyan Methodist Church the intention 

being to provide a post graduate course in which students should have the full benefit 

of University life and tuition side by side with such distinctive teaching of the history 

constitution theology and polity of that church as would enable them to maintain in the 

Church Universal those doctrines of experimental religion and especially spiritual holiness 

upon which John Wesley laid emphasis ...” 

“5. The Trustees or Trustee shall permit the said college or hostel when established to be 

used as a theological institution for the purpose of residence and tuition or tuition without 

residence for such students as have taken a degree at some university ... and are accepted 

candidates for the Ministry of the Wesleyan Methodist Church ...” 


367

35. Larger than Circuit 

Contact Name and 

Details 

Susan Howdle, Chair of the Larger than Circuit Working Party 

SRHowdle@ukgateway.net 

Summary of Content and Impact 


Main Points 


and Relevant 

Documents 

Consultations 

Impact 

Risk 

This report offers the Conference a full outline of the work of 

the Methodist Council Working Party, that was established ‘to 

oversee the process(es) by which the Regrouping for Mission 

initiative proceeded in respect of ‘larger than circuit’ entities, 

and proposes a way forward. 

A. Report and main proposals 

Introduction 

A constitutional perspective 

A review of a changing context for districts: why now? 

Larger than Circuit: why anything? 

Some common themes 

The proposal 

B. What flows from the proposal? 

The Larger than Circuit Working Party Methodist Council Report 

in March 2012 – MC 12/37, 

January 2013 – MC 13/11 

April 2013 – MC13/34 

The Ministries Committee, The Chairs’ Meeting, Connexional 

Leaders’ Forum, District Development Enablers, various 

district groups upon invitation (Appendix 2 provides a more 

comprehensive list). 

This could have a high impact upon district and circuit life, 

depending upon consultations and outcomes. 

Risk of proceeding: requirement of considerable time and 

energy; emergence of ‘piecemeal’ solutions. 

Risk of not proceeding: continuing concerns as to ‘sustainability’ 

and its impact on mission. 



PART A – THE REPORT AND MAIN 

PROPOSAL 

SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 

Background 

1. The Report of the (then) General 

Secretary to the 2007 Conference 

launched Mapping a Way Forward: 

Regrouping for Mission, a process 

of circuit review, refocusing and 

realignment supported by District 

Development Enablers (DDEs). 

The report concluded by reflecting 

on the impact of this process on 

districts and indicated that, “in five 

years’ time or so, the Conference will 

be invited by the Council radically 

to review the district pattern and 

structures, to discern what is needed 

for the following decades.” 1 However, 

it also envisaged that some review 

and development of district patterns 

and structures would take place 

during this time and encouraged 

“ongoing cross-district co-operation 

and sharing of resources wherever 

possible”. 2 

2. Over the ensuing years a number of 

cross-district discussions have been 

taking place across the connexion, 

both formally and informally, as 

detailed below, not least the report 

of the North West Districts Review 

Group which was brought to the 

1 . General Secretary’s Report, Conference Agenda 

2007, p. 21, para. 9.1. 

2 . Ibid, para. 9.2 


2011 Conference. It was in this 

context that the Methodist Council 

decided to bring forward a review 

of district patterns and structures 

and accordingly appointed a working 

party to undertake this work. 

‘Larger than Circuit’ Working Party 

3. The constitution for the working 

party was agreed by the Methodist 

Council in January 2011 (MC/11/10) 

and the following were appointed 

(nature of representation shown in 

brackets): Deacon Eunice Attwood 

(Connexional Leaders’ Forum); the 

Revd Ian Bell (Fresh Ways Working 

Group); Rachael Fletcher (Strategy 

and Resources Committee); the Revd 

Carla Hall (Methodist Council); Susan 

Howdle (Law & Polity Committee); 

the Revd Rodney Hill (North West 

Districts Review Group); Rachel 

McCallam (DDE); Doug Swanney or 

Siôn Rhys Evans (Connexional Team); 

the Revd Dr Andrew Wood (Ministries 

Committee); the Revd Dr Mark 

Wakelin (the General Secretary’s 

designate). The group was supported 

by Paul Taylor (Connexional Team). 

4. Subsequently, Susan Howdle became 

the chair of the working party, as a 

result of the Revd Dr Mark Wakelin’s 

designation as President of the 

Conference, and the working party 

was joined by two further District 

Chairs: the Revd Loraine Mellor 

(Nottingham and Derby) and the Revd 

David Hinchliffe (Channel Islands). 

Siôn Rhys Evans ceased to be a 

member of the working party upon 

369


370 

his resignation from the Connexional 

Team in January 2013. 

Purpose and process 

5. The working party was established 

to “oversee the process(es) by which 

the Regrouping for Mission initiative 

proceeded in respect of ‘larger than 

circuit’ entities.” 3 The phrase ‘larger 

than circuit’ is explored further 

below, but effectively it is being 

used to refer to that area of life (its 

activities and related bodies and 

office-holders) which operates in a 

broader context than the circuit 

but not on a connexion-wide 

basis. 

6. The working party has met ten times. 

It has reviewed a large number of 

relevant Conference and Council 

reports, the notes from a number 

of circuit and district Regrouping 

for Mission consultations and a 

variety of other papers, created as 

part of the Regrouping for Mission 

process. These reports, notes and 

papers are listed in Appendix 1. The 

working party has had the benefit of 

discussions with a variety of people 

involved, both at its own meetings 

and where members have been 

pleased to be invited to a number 

of meetings of a connexional, 

regional or district nature; these are 

listed in Appendix 2. In particular, 

the chair of the working party has 

been grateful for the opportunity to 

3 . Methodist Council paper MC/11/10, January 2011 

take part in discussions at several 

meetings of the Chairs’ Meeting and 

the Connexional Leaders’ Forum, 

where the direction of travel was 

broadly welcomed. As directed 

by the Conference of 2012, the 

working party has also sought to 

work in conjunction with those 

responsible for the implementation 

of the proposals in The Fruitful Field 

about the creation of a learning 

network based upon a regional 

model. Finally, the working party has 

reported on three occasions to the 

Methodist Council. Most recently, a 

full report was brought to the April 

2013 Council, substantially as it 

appears below. 

7. It may be helpful to indicate the 

general shape of this report. Part 

A, after this introductory section, 

begins by providing an overview of 

the present formal place of districts 

within our polity. It is important 

to understand this constitutional 

perspective in order to root any 

future developments within an 

understanding of our tradition, and 

in order to understand the degree of 

constraint and flexibility which our 

polity permits in this regard. The 

report then explores the changing 

context in which districts now 

operate, leading to the perceived 

need for this review. It explores the 

reasons for some ‘larger than circuit’ 

provision continuing to be made 

in our structures. It then sets out 

some of the common themes which 

have emerged in consultations. This 

leads to the basic proposal for a 



two-year connexion-wide process of 

exploration and report. Part B deals 

with some of the points which need 

to be addressed if the basic proposal 

is accepted. 

8. The April 2013 Methodist Council 

directed that Part A (with such 

minor amendments as were to be 

approved by three Council members) 

be brought to the Conference in its 

name with the recommendation 

that the Conference adopt the basic 

proposal contained in paragraph 85. 

The Council also adopted some, but 

not all, of the proposals in Part B of 

the working party’s report, and this 

final version of Part B below reflects 

those decisions. 

SECTION 2 A CONSTITUTIONAL 

PERSPECTIVE 

9. Reference was made above to the 

importance of an understanding 

of our tradition. Any work of this 

kind needs to be underpinned 

by the theological foundations 

which have already been laid by 

the Conference in the adoption of 

certain key reports, and particularly 

the Conference Statement on the 

Church, Called to Love and Praise. 4 

4 . Methodist Publishing House, Peterborough, 1999. 

A ‘Conference Statement’ is one which, after due 

consultation, has been adopted by the Conference 

as “a considered Statement of the judgment of 

the Conference on some major issue of faith and 

practice, and framed with a view to standing as such 

for some years” (SO 129(1)) 


10. In that report, one distinctive 

emphasis of Methodist ecclesiology 

identifies ‘relatedness’ as it finds 

expression in the ‘connexional 

principle’ as enshrining a vital truth 

about the nature of the Church, 

witnessing to a mutuality and 

interdependence which derive from 

the participation of all Christians 

through Christ in the very life of God, 

and reflected in New Testament 

teaching and practice. 

5 . Ibid para. 4.6.2 

“How is this ‘connexional 

principle’ effected? First, 

at all levels of the Church, 

the structures of fellowship, 

consultation, government 

and oversight express the 

interdependence of all churches, 

and help to point up, at all levels, 

necessary priorities in mission 

and service. Second, alongside 

this, as the natural corollary of 

connexionalism, local churches, 

Circuits and Districts exercise 

the greatest possible degree of 

autonomy. This is necessary 

if they are to express their own 

cultural identity and to respond 

to local calls of mission and 

service in an appropriate way. 

But their dependence on the 

larger whole is also necessary for 

their own continuing vitality and 

well-being. Such local autonomy 

may also need to be limited from 

time to time in the light of the 

needs of the whole Church.” 5 

371


11. If we then turn to a consideration of 

our foundational rules, as expressed 

in the Deed of Union and the 

Standing Orders based upon them, 

we see that they both inform and are 

informed by this description of our 

self-understanding as a church. 

12. It should be stressed at the outset 

that in this section districts are 

considered, not primarily from the 

angle of ‘life as we know it’ but from 

the constitutional perspective: what 

provisions appear in the rules? 

What would need to be changed 

or removed if there was a different 

pattern? It should also be stressed 

that there is no provision here 

which could not legally be changed 

(although any changes to the Deed 

of Union would require the ‘special 

resolution’ procedure 6 ). 

The development of districts 

13. The grouping of circuits into 

districts with Chairmen dates from 

the period immediately after John 

Wesley’s death. The development 

was intended to provide a means 

for dealing with problems, disputes 

and disciplinary matters, and for 

offering support and advice to the 

Circuit Assistants [Superintendents] 

between meetings of the 

Conference. Gradually the ‘District 

Committee’ or ‘District Meeting’ 

[later, Synod], became a significant 

6. ie a 75% majority at two successive Conferences, 

with appropriate consultation (no doubt with the 

districts) during the intervening year. 

part of connexional life. Organisation 

into districts continued into the 

various Methodist traditions and 

at Methodist Union in 1932 the 

connexion consisted of 46 districts 

in the home work and 36 overseas. 

14. A later review of the role of District 

Chairman [now Chair], with increased 

emphasis on their being a ‘District 

Missioner’ as well as pastor to the 

ministers, led to the decision that 

in most cases they needed to be 

‘separated’, ie not to hold a circuit 

appointment. To enable this to be 

afforded, in 1957 the number of 

home districts was reduced to 34, 

on the basis of roughly 30,000 

members per separated Chairman. 

15. There are now 31 home (and no 

overseas) districts, many with largely 

the same configuration as in 1957. 

All but four have separated Chairs. 

Three of those four operate as single 

circuit districts. 

16. Since 2006, co-Chairs can be 

appointed; currently London has 

three. Also in 2006, the possibility 

of appointing a permanent deputy 

Chair for a district was put on a more 

formal basis, together with provisions 

for appointing temporary deputies 

and assistants to Chairs (SO 426). A 

range of patterns of leadership has 

therefore emerged. 

The basis and purpose of districts 

17. Do we currently have to have 

districts? Yes, we do. Clause 38 of 

372 



the Deed of Union contains the basic 

provision: 

The Local Churches in Great 

Britain, the Channel Islands, 

the Isle of Man, Malta and 

Gibraltar forming part of 

the Methodist Church shall 

be formed into Circuits for 

mutual encouragement and 

help (especially in meeting 

their financial obligations) in 

accordance with directions 

from time to time made by the 

Conference, and the Circuits shall 

be arranged by the Conference 

in Districts in like manner, but 

the Conference shall not direct 

the division or combination of 

existing Circuits or Districts or the 

formation of new Circuits unless 

and until the Synod or Synods of 

the District or Districts involved 

have been consulted. 

18. Note that the concepts here are not 

primarily territorial, boundary-based. 

They reflect a relational, indeed 

‘connexional’, approach. 

19. Although there is some indication 

within Clause 38 of the Deed of 

Union of the purpose of circuits, any 

explicit reference to the purpose of 

districts only appears in Standing 

Orders, in particular SO 400A(1): 

The primary purpose for which 

the District is constituted is 

to advance the mission of the 

Church in a region, by providing 

opportunities for Circuits to 

work together and support 

each other, by offering them 

resources of finance, personnel 

and expertise which may not 

be available locally and by 

enabling them to engage with 

the wider society of the region 

as a whole and address its 

concerns. The District serves 

the Local Churches and 

Circuits and the Conference 

in the support, deployment 

and oversight of the various 

ministries of the Church, and 

in programmes of training. 

It has responsibility for the 

evaluation of applications by 

Local Churches and Circuits for 

approval of or consent to their 

proposals, when required, or 

for assistance from district or 

connexional bodies or funds. 

Wherever possible the work 

of the District is carried out 

ecumenically. The District is 

thus an expression, over a 

wider geographical area than 

the Circuit, of the connexional 

character of the Church. 

The basis and purpose of Synods 

20. Similarly, whilst proceeding on 

the basis that the Synod is to be 

constituted as the principal meeting 

responsible for the affairs of a 

district (clause 1(xxxiv) and 40), 

the Deed of Union does not, with 

one significant exception below, 

elaborate on what it is to do. SO 

412(1) states this: 


373


Subject in Wales to Standing 

Order 491 the Synod is the 

policy-making court of the 

District, serving as a link 

between the Conference and 

the Connexional Team on the 

one hand and the Circuits 

and Local Churches on the 

other. It shall have oversight 

of all district affairs. It shall 

formulate and promote policies, 

through its various officers 

and committees, to assist the 

mission of the Church, to give 

inspiration to the leaders in 

the circuits and to ensure the 

interrelation of all aspects of 

the Church’s life throughout 

the District. It is a forum in 

which issues of public concern 

relevant to the witness of the 

Church may be addressed. The 

Synod’s business is the work of 

God in the District, expressed 

in worship, conversation, 

formal business, the 

communication of Conference 

matters to the Circuits and the 

submission of memorials to the 


21. There is also the important provision 

for the Presbyteral Session of the 

Synod, in SO 481(1): 

The members of the 

Presbyteral Session meet to 

recall and reflect upon their 

ministerial vocation, to watch 

over one another in love, to 

make recommendations to 

the Conference concerning 

presbyteral probationers and to 

consider the work of God in the 

District ... 

22. Finally, the one significant aspect 

in the Deed of Union about what 

the Synods do is the provision in 

clause 14 that the membership of 

the Conference itself consists of 

representatives who, apart from 

certain specified categories, are all 

to be elected by the Synods. 

The role of District Chairs 

23. The Deed of Union lays down 

in some detail the provisions 

for the appointment of District 

Chairs (clause 42), making clear 

the connexional nature of this 

appointment, which is reinforced by 

their inclusion in the membership of 

the Conference (clause 14). Again it 

is the Standing Order (SO 424) which 

offers a general description of the 

Chair’s responsibilities: 

(1) The prime duty of a Chair is 

to further the work of God in 

the District; to this end he or 

she will use all the gifts and 

graces he or she has received, 

being especially diligent to be 

a pastor to the ministers and 

probationers and to lead all 

the people of the District in the 

work of preaching and worship, 

evangelism, pastoral care, 

teaching and administration. 

(2) The Chair, in conjunction with 

the members of the Synod in 

its respective sessions, shall be 

374 



responsible to the Conference 

for the observance within the 

District of Methodist order and 

discipline. 

(3) It is the duty of the Chair 

to exercise oversight of the 

character and fidelity of the 

presbyters and presbyteral 

probationers in the District. 

Exercising functions and responsibilities 

24. Obviously, there are many more 

Standing Orders which, over the 

years, have provided for how these 

various functions and responsibilities 

are to be exercised. (Although there 

is now provision in Section 48A 

for a district to adopt a ‘modified 

constitution’, there are limits to this 

flexibility, and it would appear that 

not much use has yet been made 

of this provision.) Some aspects of 

these Standing Orders are identified 

in the following paragraphs. This is 

not an exhaustive list, but illustrates 

the range of constitutional areas 

which need to be considered during 

any future developments. 

Some district functions and 

responsibilities 

25. The checklist for meetings of the 

District Policy Committee (in CPD 

Book VII, Part 6) best indicates 

the wide range of functions now 

exercised under the aegis of the 

district – financial, ecumenical, 

lay employment, city centre work, 

chaplaincies, formal education, 

manses. 

26. There are also the significant district 

functions relating to presbyteral 

candidates and probationers. 

27. In two particular aspects the district 

has assumed a much greater 

role in recent years: the giving of 

consents to property projects and 

the significant grant-making powers 

through the District Advance Fund. 

Some functions and responsibilities of 

District Chairs 

28. District Chairs have an increasingly 

complex range of responsibilities. 

The Conference-facing nature of the 

District Chair’s office is reflected 

in membership of various bodies, 

including the Conference itself 

and the Connexional Leaders’ 

Forum. There are also the key 

responsibilities laid upon the Chair in 

upholding Methodist discipline and 

good order, including, for example, 

powers of suspension. At the same 

time, there is the circuit-facing 

aspect: the ministry of ‘visitation’ 

and supervision and support of 

Superintendents (SO 425). 

29. Straddling the two is the aspect 

perhaps least spelt out in Standing 

Orders but of great significance: 

the Chair’s pivotal role, in 

partnership with the Lay Stationing 

Representative, in the stationing 

‘matching’ process. 

30. This last instance is one example of 

the changing patterns of leadership, 

referred to above, within which these 


375


functions and responsibilities now 

operate, through various forms of 

collaborative ministry within the 

District. 

SECTION 3 A REVIEW OF A CHANGING 

CONTEXT FOR DISTRICTS: WHY NOW? 

31. One of the points which a report such 

as this has to address is whether 

there is a need to review the current 

district system at all. There is a wide 

range of views about this, from those 

who see this as something long 

overdue and who question why it is 

taking so long to carry out, to those 

who see no need for any such review 

because the system is working well 

where they are. 

32. There is undoubtedly room for a wide 

spectrum of views as to what the 

conclusion of any such review might 

be, from the varying experience of 

those involved. But the Methodist 

Council in appointing the working 

party took the view, which it has 

now affirmed, that many factors 

point towards embarking upon a 

consideration of the issues, and some 

of those factors are explored here. 

33. First, though, an introductory 

comment. The issue has, for a 

number of years, been expressed 

quite simply thus: “we cannot sustain 

thirty-one districts for very long.” 

“Sustainability” is a concept capable 

of various interpretations. The 

working party’s work has not been 

based upon a single understanding 

of sustainability, financial or 

otherwise, as a key driver for change, 

but in this section aspects of the 

‘sustainability’ issue will naturally 

emerge, and the section concludes 

by gathering together some key 

points. 

34. To return, then, to exploring the 

context for this review, it is relevant 

to take both a longer term view and 

also one more directly related to 

recent connexional developments. 

35. What are the long term trends which 

have brought about a very different 

picture from that of the mid-1950s 

when our current system largely took 

shape? 

36. First, the demographic picture 

cannot be ignored. As indicated 

above, the present configuration was 

based largely upon an assumption 

that a membership of around 30,000 

was the appropriate size to sustain 

the life of the district and an effective 

exercise of the Chair’s ministry. The 

reduction in membership and the 

change in the age profile of that 

membership, together with the 

reduction in the number of ministers 

in circuit appointments, need not 

be laboured here. We include in 

Appendix 3 a table which includes 

the current membership figures, 

and the comparative total figure for 

1957. Obviously membership figures 

do not tell the whole story but the 

working party took the view that it 

was at least a relevant indicator in 

providing a comparison between the 

two dates. 

376 



37. Then, whilst it would be a great 

exaggeration to suggest that in the 

middle of the last century the typical 

Methodist member was fully aware 

of and involved in the life of the 

district, a constant theme today is 

the sense that our local churches 

are increasingly ‘congregational’ 

in nature, with even the Circuit 

being regarded as an unfamiliar, 

sometimes intrusive, entity. 

38. At the same time growing formal 

and informal ecumenical activity, 

whether locally or on a wider basis, 

has led to natural links being 

formed which were unthought-of 

in previous generations. In some 

parts of the connexion, these are 

seen to create groupings which are 

more appropriate and effective in 

missional terms than the traditional 

Methodist links. 

39. Meanwhile, patterns of leadership 

have changed in many ways, not 

least the expectation of more 

collaborative working, as referred 

to above. This is seen in the more 

explicit partnership of ordained and 

lay ministry in the life of the Church, 

for instance through the involvement 

of lay people in the stationing 

process and the formation of district 

leadership teams, and also in the 

way that in various districts the 

appointment of Co-chairs, or Deputy 

or Assistant Chairs, has been found 

helpful. A further element is the 

increasing use of a mix of people 

working on a voluntary and paid 

basis (as amplified below). 

40. These evolving patterns of leadership 

are closely bound up with the 

changing nature of the Chair’s role. 

Despite the missional emphasis 

in the 1950s reports, increasing 

demands and expectations have 

developed in other directions, 

created both by the Church and by 

societal changes. The need for the 

exercise of proper authority and 

oversight has, if anything, increased, 

so as to try to ensure responsible 

and appropriate conduct by all those 

involved in Church life, particularly 

where that conduct affects people 

(whether in the Church or not) who 

are nowadays far more likely to 

challenge instances of bad practice 

than in the past. But at the same 

time there is often an erosion of 

respect for authority and a lack of 

understanding of the need for such 

oversight. As a result, District 

Chairs are frequently describing 

their role, so far as the district is 

concerned, as predominantly one 

of ‘fire-fighting’. Alongside these 

demands come those arising from 

stationing shortages over a number 

of years: many so-called separated 

Chairs are carrying the responsibility 

of superintendency of one or more 

circuits for much of the time, whilst 

the non-separated Chairs already 

serve as Superintendents and have 

pastoral charge of local churches. 

41. At the same time as having these 

different district roles, the Chairs 

are connexional leaders, and there 

is a more explicit recognition of this 

leadership being exercised collegially 


377


through the regular Chairs’ Meetings, 

stationing matching meetings and 

membership of the Connexional 

Leaders’ Forum. 

42. Against that background, this 

report now turns to some of the 

more recent developments which 

have created new and emerging 

challenges. 

a. Increased areas of responsibility 

43. Certain functions which would 

previously have been dealt with by 

connexional bodies and staff have 

been devolved, on the principle 

of subsidiarity. These include the 

giving of consents for property 

projects, and the making of grants 

from District Advance Funds (largely 

created from levies retained from 

what would otherwise go to the 

Connexional Priority Fund for grantmaking 

on a connexion-wide basis). 

44. Coupled with this are the various 

areas in which the Conference has 

judged that, because of their crucial 

significance in ensuring compliance 

with legal requirements and best 

practice, the district should play a 

key part in providing training and 

support. So, for instance, there are 

significant responsibilities for lay 

employment within the district and 

for safeguarding functions. 

45. These factors combine to increase 

the pressure on districts to find 

personnel to discharge these 

mandatory functions, let alone to 

fill the other roles which the district 

needs in order to support its primary 

purposes. In many districts the way 

forward has been to support this 

work (other than for the roles which 

are connexionally funded ie DDEs 

and Training Officers) by ‘buying in’, 

through either direct employment 

or consultancy, people with the 

appropriate gifts and expertise, 

whether in direct involvement in 

taking forward the mission 

strategy of the district or in the 

functions supporting this eg 

administration, finance, property, 

human resources. 

46. One of the implications of these 

changes, for a connexional church, 

is that districts have responded to 

these challenges in quite different 

and divergent ways – often related 

to their financial ability to support 

paid staffing, depending on the size 

of their District Advance Funds. 

This raises questions both about 

the nature and character of our 

connexional life, returned to below, 

but also about the means of sharing 

good practice between districts and 

reflecting together on different ways 

of working in order to nurture best 

practice across the connexion. 

b. A sense of identity 

47. Despite what was said above about 

the lack of district awareness more 

generally in the connexion, it would 

be true to say that there is perhaps 

an increased sense of identity 

and focus amongst those who are 

378 



actually involved in district life. The 

reports the working party receives 

- of district strategy documents, 

district reviews, district-wide 

inspirational events - indicate that 

there is in many places a developing 

awareness of the key role which the 

district can play in enabling local 

churches and circuits to fulfil their 

calling to mission. 

c. Working with other Districts 

48. Alongside this focus upon the role 

and strategy of the district, there is 

the increasing practice for districts 

not to ‘go it alone’, but to work with 

neighbouring districts in making key 

appointments, some of which are 

described below. Where necessary, 

this has been encouraged by Standing 

Orders permitting, for instance, the 

joint appointment of Reconciliation 

and Support Groups for the 

complaints and discipline processes. 

49. In some aspects, the need not to ‘go 

it alone’ has been recognised and 

actually become formalised over 

the years onto a regional basis. The 

grouping of districts in stationing 

regions dates back over many 

years, and has become increasingly 

significant in the stationing process. 

The current regional training 

networks, each with its forum, are a 

more recent example, and now we 

have the proposed regional groupings 

for the emerging Discipleship and 

Ministries Learning Network. It 

should be said that greater value has 

been placed on regionalism in some 

parts of the connexion than others. 

Some regional groupings of districts 

have been able for various reasons 

to develop more effective ways of 

working together than others, for 

instance the covenant relationship 

which came about as a result of 

the North West Districts’ Review 

Group 7 . 

d. Regrouping for Mission 

50. As was explained at the outset, 

this report has its genesis in the 

process of Regrouping for Mission 

which, within and across our circuits 

over recent years, has amounted to 

an intense period of engagement 

with the patterns and structures 

of church life and significant 

change. Key reflections from the 

work of Regrouping for Mission 

include the importance of having 

a clear understanding of the aims 

and purposes of the patterns and 

structures of church life, and the 

importance of being willing to 

change these patterns and structures 

if existing patterns and structures no 

longer match our aims and purposes. 

51. It was always envisaged that the 

process would raise significant 

7 . Note that although the review refers to the ‘North 

West Districts’, the report encompassed also the Isle 

of Man as well as the districts in the North West of 

England, ie Bolton & Rochdale, Chester & Stoke-on- 

Trent, Cumbria, Lancashire, Liverpool, Manchester & 

Stockport. 


379


380 

questions for districts. Initially 

these were about how to facilitate 

and support the circuits in their 

development, and a focused 

and funded role to support and 

encourage this process of change 

(ie through District Development 

Enablers (DDEs)) was offered. Now, 

the issues are about the challenges 

being experienced by circuits which 

have been substantially reconfigured. 

Not surprisingly, questions arise as 

to how a district’s structures and 

functions can appropriately support 

the increased variety of types of 

circuit, from those which are and 

are likely to remain small to those 

which contain very large numbers of 

churches and ministers spread over 

a wide geographical area. But these 

reconfigured circuits also offer some 

very helpful thinking which we do well 

to remember: the fact that often they 

require some form of sub-grouping 

of local churches, into eg sections 

or mission areas, means that work 

is done at the most appropriate 

level, based not on formal structures 

but upon relationships – a truly 

connexional approach. 

e. Belonging together 

52. Going deeper than the organisational 

developments just described, there 

is a more profound question. 

53. It is perhaps posed more acutely 

when we look at two more obviously 

diverse groupings within the church. 

First, how do we ‘belong together’ 

and reflect the aspirations and 

connexional understanding of 

Methodist congregations in our midst 

whose first language is not English 

and whose church culture developed 

elsewhere in the world Methodist 

family? And secondly, how do we 

relate our traditional ways of ordering 

our life to the abundant growth of 

ventures such as Fresh Expressions 

or VentureFX activity? 

54. However, it is a question for the 

whole church. As explained above, 

and implicit in this whole report, 

in its explorations the working 

party has worked within the 

ecclesiological understandings about 

connexionalism expressed in the 

various major reports brought to the 

Conference over recent years and 

most particularly the foundational 

document Called to Love and Praise. 

There is another important strand 

which that document also identifies 

in Methodist ecclesiology: “the 

conviction that the Church should 

be structured for mission, and able 

to respond pragmatically, when new 

needs or opportunities arise”. 8 Or, 

as the present General Secretary 

expressed it in his report to the 

Conference in 2011: “We are a 

connexional Church and from time 

to time we revisit how we embody 

and expound the nature of our 

connexionalism.” 9 

8 . Ibid. para. 4.7.1 

9 General Secretary’s Report: Contemporary 

Methodism: a discipleship movement shaped for 

mission, Conference Agenda 2011, p. 29,.para. 18, 



55. Some of the trends described in this 

part of the report lead the group to 

welcome the suggestion that the 

time has come to explore more fully 

what it means to be an authentically 

connexional church in the twenty first 

century. 

56. Looking at the whole picture then, 

these are some of the developments 

which lead to the conclusion that 

the time is due, if not overdue, 

for a review of our current district 

structures. 

57. As indicated above, this section now 

concludes by returning to some key 

points which have emerged about 

“sustainability”. 

Sustainability 

Introduction 

58. What do people mean when they 

say that our current structure of 

districts is unsustainable? This 

could be seen as simply a narrow 

financial issue – that we are reaching 

a point where the costs exceed 

the capacity of those whose giving 

supports the circuit assessment (out 

of which the district is sustained). 

But in the present context it is 

usually intended to mean something 

broader than that: that the system 

cannot continue as it is, or at least 

should not, because it is not ‘fit for 

purpose’, in supporting the Church 

to fulfil its calling. What is implied is 

that the demands being made upon 

the resources of time and energy 

and commitment of people who are 

involved in (currently) district-based 

activities are too great to be met, 

or at least are disproportionate – 

diverting too much from the primary 

focus and locus of mission in the 

circuit and local church. 

59. The narrow and broader aspects 

cannot be separated though. If 

we ask what seems to be a fairly 

simple question, ‘how much money 

do districts cost?’, the response of 

‘well, it depends what you mean by 

…’ is not an attempt at evasion or 

obfuscation. 

‘Core costs’ 

60. It is possible to elicit from the annual 

accounts of the districts and the 

Methodist Church Fund certain ‘core 

figures’ for the connexion as a whole. 

‘Core figures’ is not a term of art, but 

used here to provide some indicative 

costs. 

Note: 

●● 

●● 

when we speak below of 

costs which are borne by the 

Methodist Church Fund, it 

hardly needs emphasising that 

generally the money which 

is available for this purpose 

has been raised via the circuit 

assessment in the first place; 

it needs to be remembered 

that there are districts where 

there are ‘non-separated’ 

District Chairs who also have 

a circuit appointment. The 

costs of these Chairs’ stipends 


381


●● 

fall almost entirely upon the 

relevant circuit and district; 

in some districts there are 

other presbyters who are 

undertaking some of the 

Chair’s duties, as deputy or 

assistant Chairs, whilst being 

appointed primarily to a circuit. 

The stipend attributable to the 

district role does not appear 

here but is referred to in 

paragraph 66 below. 

We might include in these core 

figures: 

District Chairs’ stipends 

Costs related to district manses [no account 

is here being taken of the loss of any revenue 

on capital tied up in the manses] 

Cost of staff funded by the district (ie not 

Chair, DDE, TO) 

Methodist Church 

Fund 

£1,050,000 

District £205,000 

District £1,125,000 

Accommodation and travel expenses for 

Methodist 

£65,000 

District Chairs in relation to Chairs’ Meetings, 

CLF, Conference 

Church Fund 

Administration and travel costs for district District £625,000 

61. There is one important comment to 

be made at this point. Sometimes 

the throw-away line is heard that we 

could save £x on the connexional 

and district budgets if we had no, or 

a reduced number of, District Chairs. 

Even in financial terms this is not so 

simple. We are talking about a group 

of presbyters in Full Connexion, 

hence in the covenant relationship 

with the Conference which imports 

a responsibility on the Conference’s 

part for their continued support, not 

least their stipend and housing. For 

the connexion as a whole, therefore, 

there would only be the marginal cost 

of the District Chairs’ extra allowance 

over, say, that of the Superintendent. 

62. But looked at in much more 

meaningful terms, the main body 

of this report points out the wide 

range of responsibilities which lie 

on District Chairs. These are not, in 

the main, ‘optional extras’. A group 

of gifted and experienced people 

would continue to be needed to deal 

with many of the difficult corporate 

and personal issues that arise and 

to offer connexional leadership in 

many different ways. Or, to put it 

another way, without them what 

would be the risk of increased 

connexional costs in dealing at 

a later stage with the aftermath 

of such situations? There may, of 

course, be a balance to be struck 

about how many of them should be 

382 



set apart for this task, in relation to 

the equally significant needs of filling 

key circuit appointments, and that 

perhaps raises a different type of 

sustainability issue. 

Paid and voluntary staff 

63. Here we return to the link between 

finance and wider questions of 

sustainability. Several trends have 

been at work in recent years, as 

explored above, and these are drawn 

together here. 

64. Reference has already been made 

to the increased role for districts, in 

order to achieve greater subsidiarity, 

and to ensure that important legal 

and compliance issues are dealt 

with. This has put pressure on 

resources in terms of finding people 

with the necessary time and skills for 

certain roles. Whilst in some places 

there have been people willing 

and able to fulfil these functions 

voluntarily, that is decreasingly so. 

In some instances, the district has 

decided to employ somebody to do 

these tasks; in others the expertise 

is provided on a consultancy basis. 

65. Meanwhile, there has been a 

welcome focusing in many areas on 

the areas of mission and evangelism, 

and the conscious decision by 

districts to embark on a great variety 

of initiatives using dedicated paid 

people (whether through the District 

Advance Fund, increased circuit 

assessments, approaches to grantmaking 

bodies, appeals for direct 

donations or use of permissible trust 

funds). 

66. Mention was also made above of the 

recognised need in some districts 

to support the District Chair’s core 

role by ‘buying’ time from a particular 

circuit for a presbyter to be able to 

act for part of his or her time as a 

deputy or assistant Chair. 

67. To add into the equation, there is the 

activity – current and planned – which 

is in effect delivered by staff based 

in a region or district and resourced 

financially from the Methodist Church 

Fund. At present this constitutes 

in England, a half-time District 

Development Enabler in each district 

and two full-time Training Officers 

in each Methodist Training Region 

(in some regions these have been 

augmented with extra staff funded by 

the districts). In Scotland and Wales 

a hybrid model of regional staff who 

share these roles has developed. The 

effect of The Fruitful Field resolutions 

is to create a body of dispersed 

connexional staff in the Network 

regions, the cost of which will, as to 

a substantial proportion, be borne by 

circuit assessments for the Methodist 

Church Fund. Whilst this does not 

directly impact upon the question 

of whether districts as such are 

sustainable, it needs to be seen that 

this is also ‘larger than circuit’ work 

which is largely funded ultimately 

through the assessment. 

68. We are therefore paying directly or 

indirectly for much more activity to 


383


be done on a ‘larger than circuit’ 

basis than a generation ago, and this 

trend is likely to increase. Not all of it 

is new, and some represents a move 

from staff being based centrally 

(which may itself raise the question 

whether there comes a point when 

a move back in the other direction 

might be the most efficient way 

of handling certain matters). But 

the main point is that the ultimate 

effect upon a local church or circuit’s 

finances needs to be acknowledged. 

(It is a separate question, not for 

this report, whether there are in fact 

ample capital resources held by local 

churches and circuits to fund all 

that we would aspire to do, and 

more!) 

69. But to return to the question of 

district sustainability: it is also – 

indeed perhaps primarily - about the 

sorts of work that district life entails 

and which would traditionally have 

always had a willing volunteer who 

would feel called, even privileged, 

to do eg representing the district 

on a connexional body, being 

treasurer of a fund, organising the 

tea at Synod... If there are in many 

parts of the connexion difficulties 

in filling what many would see as 

essential roles in local church and 

circuit life, it is hardly surprising that 

there are problems in doing so in 

district appointments. That is not, 

of course, to say that ‘districts are 

not sustainable’ as such. But it does 

still mean that the questions of what 

work can and should be sustained, 

and what is the best pattern or 

patterns for doing so, are ones which 

are rightly asked now. 

SECTION 4 ‘LARGER THAN CIRCUIT’: 

WHY ANYTHING? 

70. In setting up the working party, the 

Methodist Council saw the task as 

linking the process of the Regrouping 

for Mission initiative into ‘larger than 

circuit’ entities. The phrase ‘larger 

than circuit’ has therefore been 

used throughout this report: it is a 

useful reminder that the working 

party is not working to any preconceived 

model for the future (for 

instance, ‘larger than circuit’ does 

not necessarily mean ‘larger than 

[current] district’). The phrase is 

simply referring to those ‘in between’ 

aspects of the church’s life, currently 

focused in entities and activities 

which have a broader than circuit, 

but not connexion-wide, basis. 

71. The first question is then: does 

the church now need any such ‘in 

between’ layer? Would it not be 

simpler – and cheaper – to work 

on the basis of a direct relationship 

of the circuits with the connexional 

governance bodies and Connexional 

Team? 

72. This is a question which was 

considered at some length by the 

North West Districts and Isle of 

Man in their extensive review, and 

the working party has found their 

analysis very helpful, emerging as 

it did from a process involving a 

number of districts working from 

384 



different experiences. The review 

offered some initial reflections and 

suggested that account needed to be 

taken of the following: 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

circuits vary enormously in size, 

access to resources, staffing 

and ways of working; 

this would make greater 

demands on circuit leadership 

and the Connexional Team; 

the relationship with each other 

as churches and circuits in 

connexion is a valuable part of 

our ecclesiology; 

the work currently undertaken 

by District Policy Committees 

or their equivalents enables us 

to ‘bear one another’s burdens’ 

and ‘watch over one another 

in love’; 

the district is connexionally 

enabling in matters such as 

candidating and probation; 

circuits alone could too 

easily revert to hierarchical 

models of leadership, 

especially in the exercise of 

the Superintendent’s role, 

and would have no easy 

external mechanism for 

resolving conflicts of interest or 

competition for resources; 

districts offer effective 

resource sharing on a human 

scale built on relationships and 

dialogue; 

the office of District Chair 

offers support, challenge 

and encouragement to 

Superintendents, ensuring they 

do not stand alone; 

●● 

the Chairs’ stationing role (with 

lay stationing representatives) 

on behalf of the Conference 

offers proper oversight and 

connexional deployment of 

the important resource of the 

ordained amongst us. 

73. It was concluded that “some 

elements of ‘beyond circuit’ could 

be delivered on an appropriate 

regional basis covering a large area. 

This would offer functional, task 

orientated aspects of our work. It 

would be appropriate for those tasks 

alone but not for the relationshipbased 

togetherness we call 

connexion.” 

74. This approach was considered in 

detail by the working group that has 

been exploring the closer working 

together of the four Yorkshire 

districts. They produced a helpful 

table that identified the tasks of a 

district and considered where, in 

their experience, they would be best 

undertaken. The current working 

party is grateful to have been 

able to draw upon this table as an 

example of how these questions 

can be addressed, and a version of 

it appears in Figure 1 in Appendix 4 

below. In undertaking this piece of 

work, the question of what should 

happen ‘beyond circuit’ was asked 

by the Yorkshire group and the report 

concludes, “there is no one size at 

which everything ‘between’ circuits 

and connexion functions optimally 

... some activities would be better 

co-ordinated over the wider area 


385


of a mega-region ... [others] might 

be better undertaken at a subregional 

level. A flexible approach to 

‘between’ will allow us to tailor the 

provision to the local needs and to 

adopt an appropriate response which 

can vary from activity to activity.” 

75. These two pieces of work, alongside 

conversations with other groups and 

individuals, led the working party 

to the following conclusion: that 

there remains a need for at least 

some functions to be undertaken in 

a broader context than the circuit 

but not on a connexion-wide basis, 

but that the question that should be 

asked at this point is ‘how and where 

is each function which needs to be 

carried out best undertaken, and 

what organisational frameworks and 

patterns of leadership best enable 

this to happen?’ 

SECTION 5 SOME COMMON THEMES 

76. The subject of this report is one 

where very different views are 

strongly held and expressed. We 

have explored above the arguments 

about whether such a review is 

necessary at all, or is long overdue, 

and those about whether any ‘larger 

than circuit’ entity is completely 

unnecessary, or an essential part of 

our connexional life. 

77. There is one theme, however, which 

people whom the working party 

has consulted have advocated very 

consistently: “one size does not fit 

all”. Whilst that phrase may not do 

justice to the complexity of this task, 

there is undoubtedly felt to be a great 

need to be aware of the particular 

context in which ‘larger than circuit’ 

activity happens in different parts of 

the connexion. This manifests itself 

in various ways. 

78. For instance, there are significant 

differences in the numerical size 

of districts and in their nature, for 

instance the ‘regional’ London 

District, the ‘national’ entities in 

Wales and Scotland, the island 

districts, the inclusion of Gibraltar 

and Malta within the South East 

District. In addition some of these 

districts also relate to different legal 

and political systems. 

79. Geography also plays a very 

significant role in two ways. If 

some ‘larger than circuit’ activity 

is proposed to take place on a 

wider basis than at present, the 

constraints of distance and travel 

networks need to be recognised, and 

set in the context of the issues raised 

by Hope in God’s Future. Secondly, 

to say that we are not constitutionally 

organised on a territorial, boundarybased 

model is not to diminish the 

very significant value of ‘place’ in the 

life of the Methodist Church. 

80. Then there are districts which 

increasingly – and perhaps to an 

even greater extent in the future, 

with the development of Covenanted 

Partnerships in Extended Areas - see 

their more natural linkages as being 

with ecumenical partners and say 

386 



that any ‘boundaries’ should reflect 

that; other districts, whilst still being 

fully involved in ecumenical activity, 

have no prospect of aligning the work 

in this way. 

81. There is the need to be aware of the 

thinking and developments which 

have already taken place in some 

areas. These include the following: 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

the Scotland and Shetland 

Districts currently share a 


team; 

the seven districts involved 

in the North West Districts 

Review process have signed 

a covenant, both as District 

Chairs and as Synods, for 

closer working together and are 

now beginning to explore their 

next steps in doing this; 

the four districts in Yorkshire 

have been exploring how to 

work together more closely; 

the Darlington and Newcastle 

upon Tyne Districts, who 

have a history of sharing a 

Training & Development Officer 

(TDO) and more recently a 

Training Officer (TO), have 

now made a temporary joint 

appointment of a ‘Regional 

Change Management Enabler’ 

to replace the DDEs who have 

recently moved on; 

the Lincoln & Grimsby and 

Nottingham & Derby Districts 

have a history of sharing a TDO 

and, more recently, a TO and 

DDE; 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

the Birmingham and 

Wolverhampton & Shrewsbury 

Districts have previously shared 

a TDO and have also had 

conversations about a possible 

merger; 

the Wales Synod has been 

created out of the former 

North Wales and South Wales 

Districts; 

Synod Cymru and the Wales 

Synod currently share a 


team; 

the Bedfordshire, Essex & 

Hertfordshire and East Anglia 

Districts currently share TOs; 

the patterns of how the Chairs’ 

responsibilities in the London 

District (itself created in 2006) 

have been reviewed. 

82. Another common theme is that 

there needs to be a recognition that 

there are distinct conversations to 

be had about a) any ongoing ‘larger 

than circuit’ entity or entities which 

might or might not reflect existing 

district functions and responsibilities 

and b) the role and responsibilities 

of the District Chair as they are 

currently exercised and might evolve. 

Obviously there are close links 

between the two, as our ecclesiology, 

constitutional arrangements and 

experience teach us. But the 

working party was very much made 

aware that, whatever may develop in 

other respects, there will continue to 

be the need for a sufficient number 

of leaders with the gifts, experience 

and time available to exercise this 


387


significant ministry of pastoral 

oversight and leadership. 

83. Beyond these common themes, 

there was much underlying 

agreement about the principles and 

criteria upon which any larger than 

circuit entities and activity should 

be assessed. These appear in 

Paragraph 105 below. 

84. Finally, however, where there is 

definitely no common theme is as 

to the question of process: views 

expressed to the working party 

differed strongly about how, if any 

change was to be recommended, this 

should be brought about. There are 

those who advocate a completely 

evolutionary approach: some 

changes are already happening, 

and any process should simply take 

‘as long as it takes’. Others believe 

that the current system is under 

considerable pressure and a more 

directive approach implemented over 

a relatively short period is preferable. 

Reflections on the Regrouping for 

Mission process suggest that a 

lack of an agreed timescale and 

outcomes has been helpful for 

some but a difficulty for others. The 

working party believes that there is 

a need for an approach which, whilst 

flexible, is based upon a connexional 

sense of direction. 

SECTION 6 THE PROPOSAL 

85. The working party’s proposal, 

endorsed by the Methodist Council, 

is as follows: 

(a) The Conference should this year 

direct that a process be initiated 

whereby further explorations of 

the role and responsibilities both 

of the district and its Synod and of 

the District Chair are undertaken, 

and proposals developed for the 

patterns and structures which will 

within each particular context most 

effectively express the ‘larger than 

circuit’ aspects of connexional life. 

(b) The process should be initially 

a two year process, with a report 

as to the various proposals being 

brought to the Conference of 2015. 

(c) These explorations should 

initially each take place within and 

between the districts which have 

been identified as constituting 

a region for the purposes of 

the Discipleship and Ministries 

Learning Network. 

86. Various details are dealt with below, 

but first, what is the thinking behind 

this basic approach? 

87. First and foremost, the working party 

recognises that the impetus for 

this task is ‘regrouping for mission’ 

and would wish to underline this as 

the context in which any work goes 

forward. 

88. The wide variety of views about what 

approach to take to any possible 

change was mentioned above. In 

this proposal, the working party has 

sought to offer a way forward which 

takes account of these various 

388 



concerns. It is essentially about 

starting, or encouraging existing, 

conversations and offering some 

impetus and sense of direction. (Of 

course, if there are developments 

which are planned to move forward 

more quickly than the envisaged 

timetable, that is all to the good.) If 

this process is adopted, the working 

party believes that there needs to 

be a time-scale within which the 

districts should be asked to work 

in developing their proposals and 

reporting back to the Conference, 

which would then assess progress 

and set in place whatever further 

work might be required. Requiring 

those reports to be made in 2015 

would balance the need for proper 

consultation within and between 

districts with the need to encourage 

the momentum which is beginning to 

build in some parts of the connexion. 

As is explained below, 2015 would 

in many respects only be the start 

of a process, out of which further 

consultations would be necessary 

(for instance if certain constitutional 

changes were to be made). 

89. The initial grouping of districts for 

the purposes of this process arises 

out of the Conference’s resolutions 

of 2012 upon The Fruitful Field, 

which required the working party 

to work closely with the Ministries 

Committee as it sought to establish 


Learning Network Regions, in which 

the teams of regional staff would 

operate. This joint piece of work 

has been undertaken in helpful 

consultation with the District Chairs‘ 

Meeting, where it became clear that 

the development of Network Regions 

needed to start by focusing, where 

possible, on groupings of districts 

that already had a history of working 

together, building on existing links 

and good practice, and avoiding the 

splitting of individual districts. The 

outcome of those discussions was 

the agreement at the Methodist 

Council in January 2013 to the 

configuration of regions based upon 

the maps presented at that meeting. 

90. This has encouraged the working 

party to explore a way forward that 

builds on these developments. The 

existing challenge of having different 

sets of regional groupings for 

different purposes was highlighted 

by a number of people. It is clear 

that it would not be helpful to 

offer a process which involved yet 

another configuration. The working 

party is persuaded of the value of 

working with the groupings that 

have emerged from the Fruitful Field 

process, in taking forward these 

‘larger than circuit’ conversations. 

(Having said that, it would point 

out that there is something in the 

‘mutual accountability’ offered by the 

current stationing regions which it is 

important not to lose in the Learning 

Network configuration which allows 

for some single-district regions.) 

91. There are two points which cannot 

be stressed too strongly. First, as 

to the various functions of districts: 

this is not simply an exercise in 


389


seeking to solve any problems of 

sustainability by continuing to do all 

that we do at present but moving it 

to another ‘level’. Serious questions 

need to be asked about what are 

the priorities for the work currently 

undertaken in districts, about where 

each such piece of work is best 

done, and what we decide – albeit 

with great regret – is not to be done 

at all. 

92. Secondly, this is not (contrary to 

what some have expected the 

report to contain) a simple proposal 

immediately to create a set of 

‘Regional Districts’. A whole range 

of outcomes could emerge in 2015. 

The important thing is that the sharp 

questions are asked and worked 

through. What follows is not an 

exhaustive list, but simply an attempt 

to suggest a few possible outcomes. 

●● 

●● 

Districts might enter into 

something like an informal 

‘federal’ structure, perhaps 

based on an agreement (like 

the ecumenical ‘Lund principle’) 

only to act as separate entities 

in matters where there are 

compelling reasons to do so 

and otherwise generally to act 

together, delegating authority to 

do so to whatever joint bodies 

are thought appropriate. 

It may be that in some 

instances, the districts might 

take as a first step what the 

districts in the North West and 

the Isle of Man have already 

done in seeing a covenant 

●● 

●● 

(entered into both by the 

Synods and the Chairs) to work 

together more closely as the 

way to begin to move forward 

in mission. The working party 

has encountered differing views 

about the use of ‘covenant’ 

language in this context, but 

sees the value of a formal 

agreement in affirming the 

commitment to work together 

more closely. 

In some places, it may indeed 

be that a single larger ‘regional’ 

district is the right way forward, 

or at least the merging of some 

districts within that region. 

It may be possible that in some 

situations, the conclusion 

might be that (whilst there 

could be some aspects where 

districts could further usefully 

share with each other, or 

conversely delegate some tasks 

to larger circuits or groups of 

circuits) generally the current 

arrangement of districts ‘works’. 

Such a conclusion would need 

to be based upon a careful 

exploration of the situation 

and a clear-sighted view about 

how much activity is actually 

sustainable by each district 

and what level of connexional 

support this requires. 

93. It is obvious that the composition 

of the various regions (ranging from 

the London District through to the 

North West where there are seven 

districts already in a covenanted 

relationship) means that the 

390 



process would start at different 

points and be undertaken very 

differently in different contexts, 

but it is the working party’s view 

that the challenge to explore – and 

keep exploring – these issues is 

a connexion-wide task for all 

districts, in enabling us more clearly 

to discern and respond to God’s call 

to discipleship and mission. 

94. Finally, although the 

recommendation is that the 

conversations start from the 

groupings created for the Learning 

Network, it may well be – as has 

happened when circuits began to be 

involved with Regrouping for Mission 

– that there are occasions where it 

is found to be helpful then to initiate 

conversations with others outside 

those initially grouped together to 

achieve a more effective solution, 

with some movement into or out of 

that group. 

PART B WHAT FLOWS FROM THE 

PROPOSAL? 

95. Accompanying the basic proposal, 

the working party has various 

recommendations to make about 

how the process would be taken 

forward, and about possible parallel 

work to be done. 

a). 

Connexional facilitation, 

through support, oversight 

and coordination: 

96. In Regrouping for Mission in 

relation to circuits, having a focused 

and funded role to support and 

encourage the process of change 

(ie through District Development 

Enablers) has been valued by many 

people. It is the working party’s view 

that some level of support of this 

kind, on a connexional basis, would 

be equally, if not more, valuable in 

the proposed process, not least in 

sharing information and encouraging 

reflection on the different ways of 

working being explored elsewhere in 

the connexion. It is recommended 

that this could be encompassed 

within the initial tasks of the regional 


Network staff with relevant church 

and community development 

responsibilities. 

97. Alongside that support, it is 

envisaged that the Conference 

would need to appoint a ‘larger than 

circuit’ coordinating group to take 

forward the process and to bring 

regular reports to the Methodist 

Council which would have overall 

oversight of the process on behalf of 

the Conference. The working party 

recommends that such a group be 

appointed. 

98. Beyond that, it is not suggested 

that the Conference would attempt 

to prescribe a detailed scheme for 

how the consultations between and 

within districts would take place. 

Clearly circuits, as well as district 

groups and officers, would expect 

to play a major part in this process, 

and conversations with ecumenical 

partners would be essential. 


391


99. If a comprehensive and well thought 

through report upon the process is to 

be brought, either by the Methodist 

Council or by the coordinating group 

on its behalf, to the 2015 Conference 

(including appropriate consultation 

with, and seeking advice from, other 

connexional bodies as explained 

below), it would be reasonable 

to seek some indication of likely 

responses by, say, the end of 

January 2015. The working party 

recommends that that should be the 

response date. 

100. One point which emerged from the 

working party’s consultations was 

not directly upon the subject matter 

of this report, but related to it. It 

is important that a piece of work 

is done on gathering together the 

learning from the Regrouping for 

Mission process as it has related 

to the reconfiguration of circuits. 

What has ‘worked’ and what has 

not – and what are the criteria for 

assessing that? It is understood 

that arrangements are being put in 

place for this to be done, and it is 

important that its results are shared 

with the wider connexion to inform 

future developments. 

b) Parameters 

101. The working party sought the 

views of the Council as to whether, 

in such an open-ended process 

the Conference should be invited 

to set parameters as to possible 

responses? In other words should 

there be some clearly defined, 

quantitative, limits within which the 

districts would be asked to work, 

related to eg finance or resources 

of personnel? In the light of the 

discussion about ‘sustainability’ 

above, this would clearly be a 

complex exercise. In the event the 

Council declined to direct the working 

party to do further work on this for 

inclusion in this report. 

c) Criteria for assessing any 

proposals 

102. The working party has given some 

thought to how far the Conference 

would want to indicate in advance, 

if not the range of possibilities, at 

least what would be expected of any 

proposals and how they would be 

assessed in due course – what might 

loosely be called benchmarks. 

103. Out of its many conversations the 

working party has distilled some 

criteria upon which it suggests that 

any review of ‘larger than circuit’ 

entities and activity might be based 

and upon which the outcomes might 

be assessed. 

104. First, as was stressed above, the 

impetus for this task is ‘regrouping 

for mission’, and this is the context in 

which any review should take place 

and by which it should be judged. 

105. Then the working party provisionally 

identified at a relatively early 

stage some criteria which it felt 

would assist it in its own thinking. 

These seem to be reflected in and 

392 



confirmed by the views that others 

involved have expressed, suggesting 

that the priorities in any review would 

be to look for ‘larger than circuit’ 

approaches which would: 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

maintain a clear focus on 

serving local churches and 

circuits in their mission; 

provide a professional and 

coherent provision for local 

churches and circuits; 

prioritise relationships, 

connections and networks, 

rather than boundaries; 

enable the connexion to be 

inter-connected effectively 

through good communications 

and networks. 

106. The working party also engaged in 

some more specific thinking, based 

upon the ‘Healthy Circuit’ model, 

about what such a model might 

look like in a ‘larger than circuit’ 

context. This was offered to various 

groups during the formation of this 

report and was found to be of some 

value. Building upon that material 

the working party has worked on a 

more detailed paper designed to 

offer guidance as to how the task 

of addressing the questions raised 

by this report could be approached. 

This can be found in Appendix 

4 below. It will be seen that the 

questions focus upon the criteria of: 

●● 

●● 

being shaped for mission, 

and supporting mission and 

missional teams; 

inspiring discipleship; 

●● 

working in partnership. 

107. The working party recognises that 

more work will need to be done on 

shaping this process of exploration 

if the basic proposal is accepted, 

but believes that it would be helpful 

for the Conference to consider and, 

if thought appropriate, give general 

approval to the criteria offered in this 

section. 

d) The role of District Chair 

108. Reference has been made at various 

points above to the changing, and 

demanding, role of the District 

Chair, and the proposed process 

will inevitably involve a further 

exploration of it in relation to districtbased 

activity, not least the different 

patterns of personal and corporate 

leadership which have emerged in 

different contexts. 

109. However, these increasingly varied 

patterns of leadership, and the 

demands of time and energy made 

upon the Chairs as connexional 

leaders, leads the working party to 

recommend a more focused piece 

of work be done in any case on 

these connexional aspects (which 

may involve revisiting or building 

upon What is a District Chair?). For 

instance, the working party would 

suggest that there is a need to 

review the balance of ordained and 

lay leadership in the Connexional 

Leaders’ Forum. This could perhaps 

best be undertaken by a group which 

is separate from the coordinating 


393


group mentioned above but would 

need to have some common 

membership so as to keep in touch 

with emerging developments within 

the districts. 

e) Connexionalism 

110. Earlier in the report are to be 

found comments about how far 

attitudes to connexionalism have 

changed over the years, and even 

in the recent past. The very proper 

focus on the contextual nature of 

mission and ministry brings with 

it challenges – not least, the risk 

of personality-driven or exclusively 

local agendas – and there is a 

continuing need to hold that in 

tension with connexionalism. There 

is a difference between recognising 

and celebrating our diversity and 

fragmenting our Connexion. 

111. It will be clear that there is the 

potential for a much greater 

fragmentation if the Conference in 

2015 were to receive proposals for 

a multiplicity of different ‘larger than 

circuit’ patterns. To some extent 

the ‘accompanied’ nature of the 

process, through the resources of 

material and personnel provided, 

may mean that this does not present 

a significant challenge. But the 

working party would point out that 

there are two connexional bodies 

which would very much have this 

question on their agenda in any case: 

the Faith and Order Committee and 

the Law and Polity Committee. 

112. Progress reports on the Larger 

than Circuit reports to the Council 

have been made to the Faith and 

Order Committee during the last 

year. For a number of reasons, the 

committee has already been doing 

some thinking about the nature of 

connexionalism in the twenty first 

century and sees a significant link 

with the working party’s work. The 

working party believes that this is 

an important piece of work which 

needs to be done in any case, and 

brings a resolution to that effect 

below. If the proposed process goes 

forward, it would be important to 

have a robust line of communication 

between those primarily charged 

under our constitution with reflecting 

theologically on these matters 

and those who are working on the 

development of any new patterns of 

‘larger than circuit’ work, and this is 

reflected in the resolution. 

113. An outline of the current 

constitutional provisions as to 

districts appears earlier in this 

report. It may be that the sort of 

responses which are received would 

necessitate changes. These might 

be ones which could be brought 

into effect quite easily, for instance 

by the Conference amending some 

Standing Orders to remove the 

mandatory nature of certain existing 

requirements. But there might be 

more major suggestions which would 

raise significant questions about the 

nature and functions of districts, 

Synods or District Chairs, and work 

would need to be done in conjunction 

394 



with the Law and Polity Committee 

to arrive at a solution which is 

properly located within a connexional 

framework for our church. This 

might involve amending the Deed 

of Union. If so, then it would be 

helpful to be able to bring proposals 

for such amendments to the 

Conference in 2015 for provisional 

adoption, permitting them to go out 

for consultation, before confirmation 

or otherwise by the Conference of 

2016. 

114. For these reasons it seems 

appropriate to recommend (as 

suggested above) that at least 

general reports as to likely outcomes 

be made available to the Methodist 

Council and to these bodies by the 

end of January 2015. 

f) Chairs’ appointments 

115. Finally, the working party has given 

thought to an issue which has arisen 

at various points in its discussions. 

It is clear that, over the next few 

years, a significant number of District 

Chairs’ appointments may become 

vacant. If the nomination process 

is to be carried out carefully and in 

accordance with Standing Orders it 

begins very early, to allow a very long 

lead time before a new Chair takes 

up office (to enable the possibility of 

a full year of ‘shadowing’ the current 

office-holder). To what extent may 

districts feel constrained in their 

exploration of the possibilities for 

new ways of working by the fact that 

they have recently gone through, 

or are in the midst of, a nomination 

process and have identified a person 

offering the gifts of leadership which 

they are seeking? 

116. The working party offered some 

thoughts about three possible 

options that the Council might follow 

in this regard. These would in two 

instances have involved proposing 

to the Conference a suspension of 

relevant Standing Orders. The more 

‘extreme’ was to propose that there 

should be a one year moratorium 

upon the process for making new 

appointments to chairs coming 

vacant in September 2015, with 

appropriate interim arrangements 

being made between the district(s) 

concerned and the Stationing 

Committee for the connexional 

year 2015-16. The other was to 

take account of the suggested 

‘Larger than Circuit’ review process 

by proposing the suspension of 

Standing Orders relating to the 

length of a new appointment or 

as to the requirement that a 

nomination should be brought a 

year ahead. 

117. In the event, the Council accepted 

neither of these, but favoured the 

third option. This was to ensure 

that the fact that the process was 

under way was made explicit in 

any district statement, with the 

willingness of the applicant to work 

with the process being part of the 

assessment criteria, then relying on 

the ‘usual processes’ – including 

the authority of the Conference to 


395


station all ministers annually - to deal 

with any situation as it arose This 

is therefore contained in resolution 

35/8 below. 

*** RESOLUTIONS 


35/2. The Conference adopts the proposal contained in sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 

85 of the report. 

Resolutions 35/3 to 35/8 to be moved only if 35/2 is adopted. 

35/3. The Conference directs each Synod to participate in the process referred to in 

Resolution 35/2 above, conferring both with the circuits in the district and with 

any other relevant districts including primarily those with which it forms a region 

for the purposes of the Discipleship and Ministries Learning Network. 

35/4. a) The Conference resolves to appoint a coordinating group as recommended in 

paragraph 97, to be responsible for taking forward the process connexionally and 

for reporting regularly to the Methodist Council which shall have oversight of the 

work. 

b) The members of the coordinating group shall be: 

[names will be brought on the Order Paper] 

c) The Conference directs the Methodist Council to ensure that the relevant 

members of the Connexional Team referred to in paragraph 96 work in 

conjunction with the coordinating group in carrying out this aspect of their work. 

396 



35/5. The Conference gives general approval to the criteria outlined in paragraphs 

104-106, as the basis upon which the explorations should proceed and against 

which proposals emerging from them might be considered by the Conference. 

It directs the coordinating group to begin its work by producing more detailed 

guidance as to specific issues to be addressed, for use by those involved in the 

process, along the lines of the material offered in Appendix 4. 

35/6. The Conference directs the District Chairs to report to the Secretary of the 

Conference by the end of January 2015 upon what reports and proposals are 

being formulated in their Districts in response to the explorations. 

35/7. The Conference directs the Law and Polity Committee to work with the 

coordinating group upon any proposals emerging from the process which would 

require an amendment to the Deed of Union, Model Trusts or Standing Orders and if 

necessary to bring such amendments to the Conference of 2015 for consideration. 

35/8. The Conference directs that, with immediate effect, those responsible for 

processes leading to nominations for any new appointments as District Chair 

shall ensure that the existence of this ‘Larger than Circuit’ connexional process 

is made explicit in the documentation prepared for the nomination process, and 

that evidence of willingness to work with the connexional process is included in 

the criteria for assessment of candidates. 

It is anticipated that resolutions 35/9 and 35/10 will be moved for adoption even if 

resolutions 35/2 and the consequent resolutions are not. 

35/9. a) The Conference adopts the recommendation in paragraph 109 that a group be 

appointed to review recent developments in the role of District Chair, particularly 

in relation to the exercise of personal and collegiate leadership connexionally, 

with a view to reporting to the Conference of 2015. 

b) The Conference authorises the Methodist Council to approve more detailed 

terms of reference for the group’s work. 

c) The members of this group shall be: 

[names will be brought on the Order Paper] 

[Additionally, if resolution 35/4 is adopted:] 

d) The Conference directs the group to work in consultation with the coordinating 

group appointed under resolution 35/4. 


397


35/10. The Conference welcomes the consideration already being given by the Faith 

and Order Committee to issues of connexionalism as identified in paragraph 

112 and directs that further work be done on this with a view to a report being 

brought to the Conference of 2015. 

[Additional sentence if resolution 35/4 is adopted:] 

This work shall be carried out in consultation with the coordinating group 

appointed under resolution 35/4. 

398 



Appendix 1 Reports, notes and papers reviewed by the working party 

Methodist Conference and Council reports 

Called to Love and Praise - Conference Statement 1999 

General Secretary’s Report to Methodist Conference 2011 

Fruitful Field Report to Methodist Conference 2011 

Report of the North West Districts Review Group Report to Methodist Conference 2011 

General Secretary’s Report to Methodist Conference 2007 Appendix B 

Talking of God, Acting for God Report of the Training Institutions Review Group to Methodist 

Conference 2007 

Mapping a Way Forward; Regrouping for Mission Methodist Council, October 2006 

What is a District Chair? Report to Methodist Conference 2006 

Notes from circuit and district Regrouping for Mission conversations 

Report to 4 Yorkshire Districts Meeting September 2011 

Development of Methodism in Scotland Report from the Scotland District Development 

Team 2011 

Regrouping for Mission: Districts, Chairs & Regions notes from CLF 2010 

Review of the Yorkshire Dioceses the Dioceses Commission 2010 

Reflections on the PCT in Cumbria prepared as part of Regrouping for Mission process in 

the Cumbria district, 2009 

Other papers 

A Hub for Rural Mission a paper by Rod Hill (DDE in Liverpool district) 

Circuits Working in Federation a paper by Matthew Reed (DDE in Southampton District), 

2009 

UK Church attendance and experience segregation Tear Fund, 2006 

Maps 

A series of maps that compared Methodist district boundaries with ... 

Methodist training regions, Methodist stationing regions. Church of England Dioceses, 

Baptist Union Associations, United Reformed Church Synods, Catholic Dioceses in England 

and Wales 

Appendix 2 Consultations undertaken by the working party 

District Chairs’ Meeting, and informal conversations between individual Chairs and the 

working party chair 

Connexional Leaders’ Forum 

Connexional meeting of DDEs 

NW Regional Training Forum – meeting of District Chairs and DDEs 

NE Regional Training Forum – meeting with District Chairs 


399


Cornwall District – meeting of Superintendents and DPC 

The Revd John Hellyer (Chair of SE District) 

Group that worked on possible merger of Birmingham and Wolverhampton + Shrewsbury 

Districts 

The Revds Jenny Impey and Stuart Jordan (Chairs of the London District) - 

Reconfigured Circuits group 

400 



Appendix 3 District numbers 

Districts 

2011/12 

Membership Circuits Churches Ministers 1 

1 Synod Cymru 1586 1 88 6 

2 Wales Synod 8143 16 210 67 

5 Birmingham 9555 12 163 58 

6 Bolton + Rochdale 5836 8 97 35 

7 Bristol 8335 10 212 71 

9 Cumbria 3780 15 119 27 

10 Channel Islands 1358 2 27 12 

11 Chester + Stoke 8574 13 187 53 

12 Cornwall 6405 16 213 46 

13 Darlington 5755 12 146 48 

14 East Anglia 7460 15 258 70 

15 Isle of Man 1065 1 34 8 

16 Leeds 6681 11 113 56 

17 Lincoln + Grimsby 5381 14 169 43 

18 Liverpool 7000 10 109 45 

19 Manchester + Stockport 8648 20 147 58 

20 Newcastle 8706 12 175 65 

21 Lancashire 7979 12 117 54 

22 Nottingham + Derby 9320 20 234 69 

23 Northampton 11026 23 260 84 

24 Plymouth + Exeter 8746 17 222 66 

25 Sheffield 7404 15 189 59 

26 Southampton 10239 23 195 69 

27 West Yorkshire 7702 10 164 58 

28 Wolverhampton + Shrewsbury 7681 13 230 64 

29 York + Hull 9240 23 237 67 

31 Scotland 2405 8 43 22 

32 Shetland 205 1 18 3 

34 Beds, Essex + Hertfordshire 9101 14 196 65 

35 London 19175 40 241 138 

36 South East 12450 24 208 85 

Total 226941 419 4892 1671 

1 

based on district deployment figures 

By way of comparison the Minutes of Conference for 1957 reports the following statistics: 

Total membership recorded in the circuits in Great Britain (which would include at that time 

the members of the Wesley Deaconess Order, of whom nearly 250 were in the active work): 

742,444; Probationers and ministers in the active work: 3,454. 


401


Appendix 4 Guidance Material – Regrouping for Mission / Larger than Circuit 

Introduction 

Standing Order 400A(1) begins: ‘The primary purpose for which the District is constituted is 

to advance the mission of the Church in a region, by providing opportunities for Circuits to 

work together and support each other, by offering them resources of finance, personnel and 

expertise which may not be available locally and by enabling them to engage with the wider 

society of the region as a whole and address its concerns.’ 

Is it now time to re-imagine the role of the District in ‘advancing the mission of the Church 

in a region’ and to ask what a ‘larger than circuit’ entity might look like and what its 

responsibilities would be? 

Each District is encouraged to explore this question in some detail through a number of 

exercises and further questions, outlined below. These reflections should focus on the 

context of a particular District and its relationships with its Circuits, with other Districts 

(particularly those in the same Discipleship and Ministries Learning Network region) and 

with ecumenical partners. It is envisaged that these reflections will be completed by the end 

of January 2015, following a period of appropriate consultation, and will then form the basis 

of reports to Methodist Council in the spring of 2015 and the 2015 Methodist Conference. 

Reflection 

Any ‘larger than circuit’ entity should have ‘advancing the mission of the Church’ at its heart 

and to aid this reflection five focus areas have been identified. In each case Districts are 

invited to undertake, in consultation, an exercise in which they imagine what the Methodist 

Church might look like, in their particular context, if this particular area was its focus ... 

there are many ways in which this could be undertaken and districts are encouraged to be 

as creative as possible. 

1. Shaped for Mission 

Imagine a Methodist Church with its focus on being shaped for mission: What does it look 

like? What model of ‘larger than circuit’ would best encourage and enable this? 

This imagining could include ... 

●● 

●● 

●● 

encouraging church leaders, officers and staff working across the region to use 

their gifts and skills where they are most needed to be missionally effective 

undertaking strategic planning that is forward looking and visionary 

modelling structures and ways of working that are participative and accessible 

to all. 

2. Inspiring discipleship 

Imagine a Methodist Church with its focus on inspiring discipleship: What does it look like? 

What model of ‘larger than circuit’ would best encourage and enable this? 

402 




●● 

providing opportunities for gathering together to offer inspiration, mutual 

support, challenge and ‘watching over one another in love’ 

●● 

providing and supporting effective learning and development opportunities in 

response to the requirements and expectations of local churches, Circuits and 

the Conference 

●● 

●● 

drawing effectively on learning and development offered by other agencies 

encouraging and supporting life-long discipleship and vocational discernment. 

3. Supporting local mission 

Imagine a Methodist Church with its focus on supporting local mission: What does it look 



●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

taking a strategic approach to encouraging pioneering mission and developing 

fresh expressions of church 

providing effective resources (ie finance, people and property) for local mission 

and evangelistic activity 

effectively evaluating the missional nature of applications for grants and 

consent for property projects 

targeting grant making to areas where it will be most effective and make a real 

difference locally. 

4. Supporting missional teams 

Imagine a Methodist Church with its focus on supporting missional teams: What does it look 



●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

developing effective relationships with the staff of the Discipleship & Ministries 

Learning Network 

providing effective personnel and expertise, that is not available locally, through 

officers and staff or by providing access to appropriate professional services 

supporting work with leaders of faith groups, third sector and other groupings 

working for the good of the region 

supporting deployment and oversight of ministry through the support of paid 

and voluntary lay work and the stationing of presbyters and deacons. 

5. Working in partnership 

Imagine a Methodist Church with its focus on working in partnership: What does it look like? 

What model of ‘larger than circuit’ would best encourage and enable this? 


●● 

●● 

identifying and engaging with the networks and partnerships that are most 

valuable 

exploring how Crcuits and, at present, Districts best work together, with 


403


●● 

●● 

●● 

ecumenical and other partners 

recognising the value of church leaders, officers and staff working effectively 

with ecumenical and other partners 

exploring ways of working outside the models of inherited Church 

providing an effective link between the Circuits, the Conference and the 

Connexional Team. 

Questions 

Using the five pictures created, and within the context of the District and the network region, 

consider the following questions: 

a. Compare these reflections with the various functions currently carried out by 

Districts. Which of them need to continue? Where are they uniquely or best 

done? (Figure 1 is offered as a template for this.) 

b. How do the current district structures enable or hinder the task of advancing the 

mission of the Church? 

c. What would a ‘larger than circuit’ entity that best incorporates the results of your 

reflections look like? 

d. What, in any structures that are developed, would ensure 

●● 

accountability 

●● 

simplicity 

●● 

sustainability? 

e. What are the people roles that are required? Which are no longer essential or 

desirable? 

f. How are these roles best undertaken by the district chair, other officers and 

staff or other agencies? 

Action 

In the light of your responses to these questions please identify the action you intend to 

undertake in the next year ... 

... as a district 

... as a network region 

404 



Regrouping for Mission - Larger than Circuit 

Fig 1 Current district functions 

identify which functions are uniquely or best done by 

whom – if at all 

Functions 

Archives 

Awareness raising of Methodist charities 

Candidates for ministry 

Chaplaincy overview 

Children and youth networks and events 

City Centre missions 

Complaints and discipline 

Creating opportunity for circuits to work together 

Diaconal networks 

Discipleship training 

District Advance Fund 

Ecumenical relationships 

Engagement with wider society 

Elections and appointments 

Interfaith relationships 

International houses 

Lay employment oversight 

Lay ministries: networking and continuing development 

LEP designations and constitutional approval 

Local Preachers: support and continuing development 

Memorials and resolutions to Conference 

Methodist schools, FE and HE establishments 

Mission policy and strategy making 

Pastoral care of Supernumeraries 

Probationers: support and oversight 

Property consent 

Sabbaticals 

Stationing 

Superintendents meeting 

Support, deployment and oversight of ministries 

Synod: ministerial and representative 

Vocational discernment 

World Church networking and awareness raising 

Please add below any functions you feel are missing 

Do we still 

need to do 

this? 

Yes / No 

Yes / No 

Yes / No 

Yes / No 

Yes / No 

Yes / No 

Yes / No 

Yes / No 

Yes / No 

Yes / No 

Yes / No 

Yes / No 

Yes / No 

Yes / No 

Yes / No 

Yes / No 

Yes / No 

Yes / No 

Yes / No 

Yes / No 

Yes / No 

Yes / No 

Yes / No 

Yes / No 

Yes / No 

Yes / No 

Yes / No 

Yes / No 

Yes / No 

Yes / No 

Yes / No 

Yes / No 

Yes / No 

Yes / No 

Yes / No 

Yes / No 

... if so, who does this uniquely or best? 

Circuit 

Larger 

than 

circuit 

Connexion 


405

36. Westminster College Oxford Trust Limited: 

Estate Development 


Introduction 

Mrs Susan R Howdle 

(Chair) 

srhowdle@ukgateway.net 

A brief history of the background 

1. As members of the Conference 

will be aware from reading report 

9 in Volume 1 of this agenda, 

Westminster College Oxford Trust Ltd 

is the trust company whose board 

is appointed by the Conference to 

oversee the continuing relationship 

between the Methodist Church and 

Oxford Brookes University, following 

the merger between Westminster 

College and the university in 2000. 

The board reports annually to 

the Conference and in this year’s 

general report (paragraph 5 p46) 

the board referred to ongoing 

discussions with Oxford Brookes in 

the context of the university’s review 

of its overall estates strategy, and 

undertook to bring a fuller report 

to this Conference. Inevitably, 

because of the complexity of the 

matters involved and the publication 

deadline for this volume, the board 

is not yet in a position to bring a 

recommendation in its final form. 

This report is intended to set out 

the background and to indicate the 

various issues and options involved, 

so that members may be as fully 

informed as possible at this stage. It 

is then intended that a short report 

with the board’s recommendations 

will appear on the Order Paper. 

2. Westminster College was founded 

in 1849 as a Methodist college 

for the training of teachers. Until 

1959 it was located in Horseferry 

Road, Westminster, but then moved 

to Oxford, occupying newly built 

premises on Harcourt Hill overlooking 

the city 1 . It flourished and developed 

a wider academic curriculum, with 

theology (including a significant 

distance-learning programme) 

among its core courses. 

3. However in common with other 

church-based colleges of that type 

and size in the higher education 

sector, by the late 1990s its future 

as an independent institution 

was becoming increasingly 

unsustainable. In 1998 the College’s 

governors decided to seek a 

strategic alliance, and the outcome 

was the proposed merger with Oxford 

Brookes University. 

4. The Conference approved this 

way forward in 1999, with the 

merger formally taking place from 

1. For the full history, see FC Pritchard: The Story 

of Westminster College 1851-1951, Epworth 

Press, 1951; Jennifer Bone: Our Calling to Fulfil 

– Westminster College and the Changing Face of 

Teacher Education 1951-2001, Tockington Press, 

2003 




1 September 2000 when “The 

Westminster Institute of Education” 

(encompassing the various strands of 

activities which then constituted the 

life of the College) became one of the 

constituent parts of the university. 

5. Under a restructuring exercise 

which took place in 2011 in full 

consultation with the board of the 

trust company, the eight Schools 

within the university (of which the 

Westminster Institute was one) were 

reorganised into four Faculties, 

and the Institute’s academic 

activities were subsumed into two 

different parts of the new Faculty 

of Humanities and Social Sciences, 

with adequate safeguards built 

in to enable the trust company’s 

continuing oversight of these 

activities and continued recognition 

of the name ‘Westminster’ in its 

historic Harcourt Hill location. 

6. The circumstances which give rise to 

this report are dealt with later in this 

report, but first it is important to set 

out the background as to the trust 

and the structural relationship with 

the university. 

The legal context of the trust 

7. The legal freehold of the ex- 

Westminster College Oxford site 

(“the Westminster campus”) is 

held by the Trustees for Methodist 

Church Purposes (“TMCP”) as 

custodian trustee. Under the trust 

instrument, a 1955 Declaration of 

Trust as subsequently amended, it 

is to be managed by Westminster 

College Oxford Trust Ltd (a charitable 

company limited by guarantee, 

regd. charity no. 309672) in 

accordance with the trust company’s 

constitution, but with any power 

of selling, mortgaging, letting or 

exchanging (other than leases, 

tenancies or licences for a term 

not exceeding 12 months) to be 

exercised only with the consent of 

the Methodist Conference. 

8. The objects of the trust company are 

to manage the charity in accordance 

with the charitable trusts set out in 

the Declaration of Trust. They are: 

“[to] permit the same to be 

used occupied and enjoyed 

for such charitable purposes 

of the Methodist Church as 

defined in Section 4 of the 

Methodist Church Act 1976 as 

the Annual Conference of the 

Methodist Church (hereinafter 

called “the Conference”) shall 

from time to time direct but 

until the Conference shall 

otherwise direct the trust 

property shall be used and 

occupied for the purposes 

of promoting and advancing 

education and in particular 

but not by way of limitation the 

training of teachers and the 

advancement of further and 

higher education”. 

9. Any proceeds arising from the 

disposition of the trust property are 

to be held upon those trusts. In the 


407



event of the termination of the trust 

company, any property after all debts 

and liabilities have been satisfied 

is to be given or transferred to such 

charitable bodies and for such 

charitable purposes of the Methodist 

Church as defined by section 4 of the 

Methodist Church Act 1976 as the 

Conference shall direct. 

10. The Conference appoints the directors 

of the trust company’s board, which 

comprises between three and six 

persons; currently there are five 

directors: Mrs Susan Howdle (Chair), 

Mrs Susan Barratt (Deputy Chair), Mrs 

Ann Leck, Dr Clifford Marshall and the 

Revd Dr Martin Wellings. Although the 

individuals who form the board of the 

company are technically directors, not 

trustees, it is clear that their duties 

are to ensure that the company fulfils 

the terms of the trust – they are, in 

effect, bound by the trusts as if they 

were trustees. 

11. The Westminster campus and its 

buildings are the principal asset of 

the trust company. Besides that, 

there are certain works of art (and 

archives) which are directly owned 

by the company, as having previously 

belonged to Westminster College 2 , 

and currently valued at £130,000. 

In the latest annual accounts, as 

at 31 August 2012 the company 

2. These are to be distinguished from the various art 

collections and other heritage material deposited 

there on long-term loan, for which the company 

acts as agent for their respective owners. These are 

detailed below. 

had in its general fund (from which 

the expenses of the Trust are paid) 

investments with a market value of 

£365,210 and net current assets of 

£42,620, with a further £204,643 

in endowment and restricted funds. 

All investments are made through 

the Central Finance Board. The 

endowment and restricted funds are 

essentially for prizes and bursaries, 

which are awarded by the directors in 

consultation with the university. The 

accounts are now consolidated into 

the Methodist Church accounts, as a 

self-accounting entity. 

The structural relationship 

with Oxford Brookes University 

a. Property 

12. The Conference of 1999 authorised 

the grant of a lease (which took 

effect from 1 September 2000) of 

the College’s site and buildings at 

Harcourt Hill, Oxford by the trust 

company to the university. The 

lease is for a term of 60 years at a 

nominal rent, but with an agreed 

annual subvention being paid by the 

university for the support of certain 

activities (dealt with at paragraph 

18 below). The university has full 

repairing and insuring obligations. 

The premises are to be used only for 

or in connection with the Approved 

Use ie “for the training of teachers 

and the advancement of further and 

higher education”. The company’s 

prior written consent is required for 

any external structural alterations 

or additions to the premises or the 

408 




demolition of the whole or part of 

them. 

13. The lease includes break points for 

the trust company but not for the 

university. The trust company can 

determine the lease at 22 and 40 

years (ie in 2022 and 2040), each 

upon five years notice and for the 

“Prescribed Reason”. Under the 

lease this is defined thus: 

“the Conference in its absolute 

discretion has resolved that the 

alliance between the Charity 

and the Tenant and/or the 

Approved Use of the Premises 

no longer fulfils the educational 

purposes and requirements 

of the Methodist Church and 

directed that the option to 

determine be exercised.” 

14. As provided in the lease, an “Agreed 

Statement of Intent” indicated how 

the alliance and the approved use of 

premises was expected, as at the date 

of the lease, to fulfil the educational 

purposes and requirements of the 

Methodist Church. This has been 

revised from time to time, as indicated 

below. Various structural works have 

been carried out by the university with 

permission during the period of the 

lease. The most significant of these, 

as described in the general report in 

Volume 1, is the recently completed 

major scheme replacing a number 

of residential blocks which were well 

past the end of their useful life with 

high quality accommodation, as was 

envisaged in the original Conference 

resolutions of 1999. A Licence was 

granted for this in 2010, with full 

professional legal and valuation 

advice. 

15. In 2007, a Deed of Agreement was 

entered into between the trust 

company and the university to 

formalise the arrangements about 

the long-term loan to the university 

(for the same period as the lease) 

of the various collections of archive 

and printed materials and art works 

held by the company either as 

owner or as agent for the various 

owners. Together these constitute a 

substantial and significant holding of 

material to be actively monitored by 

the company. They include: 

a. the Westminster College 

Collection, including archives 

relating to the history of the 

college, and pictures 

b. the Methodist Church 

Collection of Modern Christian 

Art 

c. the Methodist Church House 

Collection of pictures 

d. the Wesley Historical Society 

Library of printed and 

manuscript materials 

e. the Smetham Collection of 

pictures and the related archive 

f. the Avec archives 

g. the papers of the late Revd Bill 

Gowland 

h. the papers of the late Revd Dr 

Donald English 

i. the archive of the Oxford 

Institute of Methodist 

Theological Studies. 


409



b) The governance arrangements 

16. Under the terms of the merger, the 

Conference has the right to nominate 

one governor of the university (out of 

a current total of 14 governors). By 

convention this has been the chair of 

the trust company: currently, since 

autumn 2009, Mrs Susan Howdle. It 

should be noted that in the context 

of the current business, both the 

governing body of the university and 

the board of the trust company have, 

with legal advice, adopted formal 

policies which deal appropriately 

with any potential conflict of interest 

arising from this joint office-holding. 

17. There is a Liaison Committee to 

oversee the ongoing relationship, 

particularly in the light of the Agreed 

Statement of Intent (referred to at 

paragraph 14 above). It currently 

consists of one independent 

governor and the Registrar of the 

university and two representatives 

of the trust company. The trust 

company’s annual report to the 

Conference also serves as an annual 

report by the Liaison Committee to 

the university governors upon the 

working of the arrangements. 

c) The activities 

18. There have inevitably been some 

significant changes since the merger, 

including the recent academic 

reorganisation within the university, 

and the Agreed Statement of Intent 

has been modified from time to time 

to reflect these. However, essentially 

the relevant activities which fall 

within the Trust’s general purview are 

the following. 

a. The whole of the university’s 

undergraduate and 

postgraduate programmes 

in teacher education and 

continuing professional 

development, now comprising 

the School of Education 

(involving well over 2,000 

students). This is one of the 

largest Schools of Education 

in the UK, with Primary 

programmes training some 600 

new teachers every year and 

rated by Ofsted as outstanding, 

and it is one of the UK’s 

leading providers of continuing 

professional development in 

education. 

b. A range of taught programmes, 

supported by relevant 

research, in Theology and 

Religion (including distance 

learning), currently involving 

over 300 students - now part 

of the Department of History, 

Philosophy and Religion. 

c. The Methodist chaplaincy 

and the chapel: there is a 

full-time Methodist chaplain 

on the Westminster campus, 

appointed as such under 

SO 344, who is part of the 

university’s chaplaincy team 

but has a distinctive ministry 

on the campus, as well as 

(currently) teaching on Theology 

and Religion courses and being 

involved with the work of the 

410 




Oxford Circuit and Northampton 

District. 

d. The Oxford Centre for 

Methodism and Church History 

(“the Oxford Centre”), the 

specialist research centre for 

the promotion of interest and 

understanding of religious 

history, with particular 

reference to the Wesley and 

Methodist Heritage. Its aim 

is to embody the historic 

links between the university 

and the Methodist Church, 

through a programme of 

research activity and support 

for the historic collections. See 

http://www.history.brookes. 

ac.uk/research/centres/ 

ocmch/. It now operates within 

the Department of History, 

Philosophy and Religion. 

e. The care and use of the historic 

collections themselves, as 

mentioned above ie the archival 

and printed materials and art 

collections. 

f. Through the Director of the 

Oxford Centre, the focus 

of alumni activity and of 

interaction with Methodist 

and wider church learning 

communities worldwide 

through fostering exchange 

programmes, bursaries etc. 

19. All except the first of these activities 

are, as initially agreed, funded in 

part by an annual subvention by 

the university, uplifted for inflation 

annually (£134,000 at April 2000, 

budgeted figure for 2012-13: 

£198,156). The budget and its 

outturn are reported to and discussed 

with the trust company, which has 

also taken a proactive part in the 

continuing development of the areas 

of activity in the light of the purposes 

of the trust and the educational 

needs and aspirations of the church. 

20. The overall task of the board of the 

trust company is obviously to keep in 

review and take forward the ongoing 

partnership with the university 

(including holding to account where 

necessary). It currently meets at 

least three times a year. The Dean 

of the Faculty of Humanities and 

Social Sciences and other key 

members of staff report to relevant 

meetings and an annual site 

inspection is carried out. 

The university’s development 

of its estate strategy 

21. Oxford Brookes University has in 

recent times embarked on a major 

review of its estates strategy as 

part of its overall strategic planning. 

There are various factors which have 

prompted this. A major part has been 

played by the extremely significant 

changes initiated by the coalition 

government as to how universities 

are funded, necessitating difficult 

decisions as to the level of tuition 

fee to be charged. Oxford Brookes 

has taken the decision not to go 

down the expansion route but to 

work on the basis of a small planned 

reduction in overall numbers, clearly 


411



linked to a focus on the quality of the 

student experience which is being 

offered. It has been recognised that 

a key element in that is the need to 

improve the university’s overall built 

environment – a long-felt need, but 

now being seen to be much more 

urgent. Alongside this, of course, 

is the pressing need to ensure that 

there is efficient and economical use 

of space, which is seen as crucial 

not only in financial terms but as 

part of the university’s well-attested 

commitment to acting responsibly in 

environmental terms. 

22. The university governors have 

therefore focused on a consideration 

of the three main campuses on 

which the university operates. These 

are: the Headington campus on 

Headington Hill just to the east of 

the city centre, the Wheatley campus 

which is a few miles further east 

down the A40, and the Westminster 

campus at Harcourt Hill to the west 

of the city just beyond the A34 Oxford 

bypass. The Headington campus 

is historically where the central 

university functions are based and 

very significant development is 

currently taking place there with a 

major new Learning and Teaching 

Building due to be opened later 

this year. The question is therefore 

how best to achieve buildings of the 

desired quality elsewhere. 

23. The university has embarked upon 

a large-scale internal and external 

consultation exercise and the 

governors have worked to develop 

and refine options for the estates 

strategy, based upon a range of 

criteria such as affordability and 

ease of implementation (in terms 

of eg planning and community 

responses, land ownership etc), so 

as to achieve the improvement in 

quality but reduction in quantity of 

space. Their conclusions at this stage 

are that this can only realistically be 

done by reducing the number of main 

campuses to two, ie withdrawing in 

due course from either the Wheatley 

or the Westminster campus, and 

putting very major investment into 

the other. 

24. The Westminster campus has much 

to recommend it and it is clear that 

it is still very much a live option 

which finds favour with many of 

those who will be involved in the 

ultimate decision. However, it is also 

clear that the university could not 

responsibly build on this major scale 

when its tenure of the site is only, at 

best, for the remainder of the lease, 

ie 47 years (nor indeed would lenders 

be ready to lend on that basis). 

25. It is in that context, therefore, that 

the university has approached the 

trust company to explore possible 

options for acquiring greater security 

and the ability to maximise its 

investment, most probably by the 

grant of a longer lease or acquiring 

the freehold. This investigation has 

to be the first step for the university, 

as it would not be appropriate to 

expend considerable sums of money 

on developing detailed plans to take 

412 




to the planning authority if in the 

event there was no possibility of 

acquiring sufficient security of tenure 

to enable development to take 

place. In that scenario, the university 

would have to focus instead on 

the equivalent development of the 

Wheatley campus. 

26. The possibilities are explored in 

more detail below, but if the outcome 

favoured by the trust company were 

to be that the university should have 

the possibility of acquiring greater 

security of tenure at Westminster, 

then it is clear that any grant of a 

longer lease or sale of the freehold 

would need to have the consent of the 

Conference. The university has been 

alerted to this, and is awaiting the 

Conference’s declared mind on the 

issue, before taking any further steps. 

A review of the current relationship 

27. The directors of the trust company 

have obviously given much careful 

consideration to how best to respond 

to this approach in fulfilling their 

responsibilities under the trust, both 

in properly considering the possible 

options and then in formulating a 

proposal (or alternative proposals) to 

put to the Conference. 

28. They are doing so in the context of 

the historic link of Methodism with 

the Westminster campus, and of the 

whole history of the college, both 

in Oxford and previously in London, 

as an expression of the church’s 

involvement in education. They 


are also doing so in the light of the 

more recent experience of how that 

involvement has continued to be 

expressed, through the relationship 

which has developed with the 

university as envisioned by the 

Conference in 1999. 

29. This post-1999 experience has been 

an emphatically positive one in 

general. 

30. So far as the care of the site is 

concerned, the university has duly 

fulfilled its repairing obligations 

and the campus is in a good state. 

(Indeed in the national poll for 

Green Flag awards for favourite 

green spaces it came in the top ten 

sites.) The programme to replace 

the residential blocks by the new 

Westminster Halls (see page 46 

in Agenda Volume one) was dealt 

with effectively and with good 

collaboration. 

31. Inevitably in a fast-changing 

environment of higher education, 

there have needed to be changes 

in the activities envisaged in the 

original Statement of Intent, but 

revised versions of this have been 

agreed with very little difficulty. The 

1999 report to the Conference 3 

spoke of the negotiations at that time 

being marked by “great good will and 

a willingness to think imaginatively 

about the future”, and that spirit has 

continued to be at work. 

3. Conference Agenda 1999, pp 150 ff. 

413



32. It should be added here that the 

university as a whole has continued 

to grow and flourish since the time of 

the merger, and consistently leads 

the field in ‘league tables’ of post- 

1992 universities. The university 

itself would acknowledge that the 

strength of the contribution from the 

Methodist Church’s side, in terms 

of the attractive campus and the 

reputational strength of the relevant 

academic departments, has been 

significant in this development. 

33. It should be emphasised at this 

point that Oxford Brookes has 

made it clear that it is not making 

this approach with the motive of 

withdrawing from the relationship 

with the Methodist Church. Had the 

extraneous factors impacting on 

the development of its strategy not 

had such significant implications 

in relation to its estate, the current 

relationship would have been likely 

to continue, with mutual benefits, 

for years to come. At this point the 

university continues to express its 

willingness to look for a way for this 

to continue, if the church so wishes. 

34. As indicated above, under the 

Declaration of Trust the current 

obligation is that the trust property 

shall be used and occupied “for 

the purposes of promoting and 

advancing education and in 

particular but not by way of limitation 

the training of teachers and the 

advancement of further and higher 

education”. The directors believe 

that clearly what has happened 

414 

since 1999 and what is happening 

at the moment does fulfil those 

trusts, and does so effectively 

and in accordance with what 

was envisaged at the time of the 

merger. They also believe that the 

activities carried on in this regard 

are entirely consistent with the 

commitment of the Methodist Church 

to, and involvement in, education as 

affirmed by the Conference last year 

in adopting the resolutions brought 

by the Education Commission 4 . 

35. However the directors now find 

themselves potentially in a new 

situation, in which there may be 

an unexpected opportunity to 

reconsider the best use of the trust 

assets, and the directors must take a 

clear-headed view about this. Would 

a way forward which continued the 

links with Oxford Brookes, albeit 

under a different legal arrangement, 

be the best way – fully or partly - 

to fulfil the trusts? Or would it be 

best to free up the assets to use, 

within the terms of the trust and in 

consultation with the appropriate 

connexional bodies and officers, 

in other ways? These questions 

need to be considered at length, in 

terms of the possible options being 

offered and the financial terms upon 

which they are offered, and they 

are outlined below. But first, it is 

helpful to review the current aspects 

of what is being done through this 

partnership with the university, so 

4. Conference Agenda 2012, pp 287 ff. 




as to evaluate which of them offer or 

could potentially offer, in the board’s 

view, a significant contribution to the 

Methodist Church’s commitment to 

the field of education as expressed in 

the company’s trusts. 

36. Some benefits are of course 

relatively easy to evaluate in financial 

terms; others are less tangible in 

terms of the influence and visibility of 

Methodism in this situation. Clearly, 

whatever benefits are identified, 

need to be balanced against the ‘lost 

opportunity cost’ of using the trust 

assets to deliver other such benefits 

in other ways or in other places. 

37. It will be recalled that, in lieu of 

rent, certain agreed activities 

are supported by earmarked and 

inflation-linked funding (a subvention) 

amounting to almost £200,000 per 

year. These include various aspects, 

but there are two upon which it is 

perhaps most useful to focus. 

38. First, there is the payment of the 

stipend and on-costs of having a 

resident Methodist chaplain. As 

explained above (paragraph 18), 

the chaplain is part of the university 

ecumenical chaplaincy team but 

has a distinctive ministry, being fully 

involved in the life of the campus 

through pastoral ministry, the daily 

worship life of the chapel, and 

participation in relevant university 

courses, as well as providing a link in 

to the life of the circuit and district. 

More detail about this is found at 

page 45 of this agenda. When the 


current chaplain’s reappointment 

was recently under consideration, 

there was a striking volume of 

testimony to the value of having such 

a presence ‘embedded’ in the life of 

the community. The value of higher 

education chaplaincy, as affirmed 

by the Education Commission, is 

not to be under-estimated 5 . Clearly 

there are different ways in which the 

church’s resources may be deployed 

in support of such chaplaincy, but in 

the directors’ view the influence for 

good which can be exercised in such a 

well-established and focused setting 

as this is not to be lightly disregarded. 

39. Secondly, there is the funding of 

the Oxford Centre for Methodism 

and Church History, also mentioned 

above. This is a very active centre 

producing high quality scholarship 

and research, linked to the significant 

archival holdings, such as those of the 

Wesley Historical Society. More detail 

is to be on pages 44-45, but briefly 

the profile of this centre has increased 

very significantly in recent years, and 

benefits from its current location 

within the highly research-rated 

Department of History, Philosophy 

and Religion of the university. 

Besides the impressive range of 

Methodist historical work which has 

been produced, the links of art and 

religion are proving fruitful – not least 

because of the provision of storage 

5. Ibid Section 12 and resolution 42/2: “The 

Conference affirms and recognises the opportunities 

offered to the whole church by engaging in 

chaplaincy across the educational sector.” 

415



416 

and care for the Methodist Collection 

of Modern Christian Art in between 

its travelling exhibitions. Whilst the 

scope of the Centre’s work is clearly 

distinct in a number of respects from 

that encompassed in the Fruitful 

Field report, there are nevertheless 

helpful links to be made, particularly 

in supporting the development of the 

scholarship, research and innovation 

work, and that report envisaged 

these being explored further 6 . As 

with the chaplaincy, the directors see 

considerable value in what has been 

built up at Westminster over a number 

of years with the strong support of the 

university, not least in the global links 

with world Methodism. In addition, 

its Oxford location and name are 

significant factors to bear in mind in 

any consideration as to whether such 

work could be replicated elsewhere – 

particularly if the valuable connection 

with archive holdings belonging to the 

various owners were lost. 

40. Whilst the two aspects just described 

form the major part of the subvention 

spending, there is support also for 

the Theology and Religion distance 

learning courses which are a 

significant and distinctive part of the 

life of the Department of History, 

Philosophy and Religion, continuing a 

valued Westminster College tradition 

into the modern virtual learning 

environment. 

41. Besides the activities covered by 

6. Conference Agenda, 2012, pp 644 ff, at paras 

82.19 and 248 and Resolution 57/4 

the subvention, it is right to mention 

here other financial costs borne 

by the university on behalf of the 

church’s ‘interests’ ie costs which 

the church would otherwise have 

to make provision to deal with, for 

instance the care and storage for 

various collections of material (ones 

which the Methodist Council itself as 

trustee would otherwise have to be 

involved in funding, eg the Methodist 

Collection of Modern Christian Art; the 

Methodist Church House collection). 

42. The aspects mentioned above 

are relatively quantifiable, and the 

directors regard them as providing 

both ‘value for money’ and an 

appropriate and effective way of 

discharging the trusts, both at present 

and into the foreseeable future. 

43. We come then to the less tangible 

aspects of the relationship between 

the church and the university. The 

question may be asked as to how 

distinctively ‘Methodist’ is any of 

this engagement. There are specific 

points at which an embodied 

Methodist presence or the Methodist 

tradition is encountered by individual 

members of the university, and there 

is also at times a general underlying 

sense of Westminster’s historic 

Christian ethos and values. 

44. There is, for instance, the visible 

presence of the Christian Church, 

in the form of the very distinctive 

chapel at the heart of the campus 

- and indeed it is planned that this 

should be an even more prominent 




architectural focal point for any 

new development. The chapel’s 

use for appropriate occasions such 

as exhibitions and musical events 

enhances this, having the potential 

to draw people in to a sacred space 

for reflection. 

45. Then there is the recognition of 

Methodism’s commitment to the 

high quality training of teachers, 

which has taken different forms over 

the decades. This is obviously less 

distinctive now than in the times when 

the church had its ‘own’ colleges, 

and at present in the Westminster 

context is expressed largely indirectly; 

but nevertheless, this expression of 

the commitment still carries value. 

There is the recognition of excellence 

and support of learning symbolised 

by the award of prizes and bursaries 

from the Westminster College 

endowment funds to students, and 

the encouragement of a wider vision 

through supporting the links between 

the School of Education and teacher 

training in The Gambia. There is the 

sense of tradition surrounding the 

place where students in the School of 

Education are studying, reinforced by 

the recent naming of the Westminster 

Residences after distinguished 

Methodist educationalists. There are 

the mechanisms for the directors 

being involved in receiving and 

commenting on regular reports and 

in making key appointments such 

as the Faculty Dean. It hardly needs 

saying that the future of teacher 

education is in a state of constant 

flux – as was the case during much of 

the history of the college. But against 

this challenging background, the 

church/university relationship may 

well offer increasing opportunities, 

not least in the developments relating 

to the church’s multi-academy status 

through MAST. At a discussion 

with the Strategy and Resources 

Committee, helpful suggestions 

were made about how this, and 

possible contact also with the 

Methodist Independent Schools 

Trust (MIST), could be usefully taken 

forward. 

46. There is also the ‘seat at the table’ 

which ex officio membership of the 

governing body of the university 

brings. This of course varies 

according to the way in which the 

function is exercised by particular 

office-holders; but there is no doubt 

that it has invariably been seen by 

the key university people, as a truly 

representative role, embodying 

the church’s affirmation of the 

principles and values which underpin 

its involvement with education. 

The potential for offering to the 

church the insights gained from 

this experience, is something which 

has perhaps greater possibilities in 

the future than in recent years, as 

the implications of the Education 

Commission’s recommendations 

continue to be explored. 

47. Having therefore weighed up all 

these considerations, the directors’ 

preferred initial approach in 

fulfilment of the trust has been to 

seek to work with Oxford Brookes, 


417



continuing in some form and at some 

level the relationship which has been 

positive so far, and which offers 

possibilities for further development, 

rather than to opt for a complete 

withdrawal in order to direct the 

resources elsewhere. However, 

that obviously depends upon what 

options in relation to the estate are 

open to consideration, and upon 

what terms. We turn now to that. 

Options for the way ahead 

48. Oxford Brookes has indicated 

that in order to have the level of 

certainty needed to make the major 

development on the Westminster 

Campus, it would need to be able to 

achieve security of tenure consistent 

with the life of the buildings to 

be developed, and the ability to 

use those facilities flexibly (eg by 

subletting parts of the campus) in so 

far as is consistent with the interests 

of the university and the trust. 

49. The university is open to various 

possibilities as to how this can be 

achieved, but there appear to be two 

main options: 

a) the grant of a new 99 year lease or 

b) acquisition of the freehold. 

50. In the lease option, it would clearly 

not be appropriate for the university’s 

needs to be subject to break clauses 

as at present, but there could be 

other possible mechanisms for 

bringing the relationship to a close if 

the arrangement in the future ceased 

to deliver the benefits expected by 

the Church. 

51. In either case, the university would, 

as explained above, be looking 

to remain in partnership with the 

Church. In the case of a lease, this 

could be by means of a continuing 

subvention for certain Methodistrelated 

activities (obviously variable 

over time but within the purview 

of the current or subsequently 

amended trusts) or through some 

form of direct funding if a commercial 

rent were negotiated. Similarly, 

with the sale of the freehold, there 

could be a commitment for the trust 

to continue to support identifiable 

activities and for the partnership to 

continue in this way. On the other 

hand, if the Church wished to walk 

away from the relationship, the sale 

of the freehold could be outright, 

freeing the capital entirely to be used 

in the fulfilment of the trusts in other 

ways. 

52. Obviously, any proposed solution 

would need to be seen to be the 

appropriate and effective way for 

the trusts to be fulfilled, and to 

be reached on the basis of proper 

professional advice as to the legal 

effectiveness and the price to be 

paid by the university for its enlarged 

interest. The trust company is 

currently receiving professional 

valuation advice as to the various 

scenarios from an Oxford valuer 

who is familiar with the property 

and the local market from previous 

valuations. The company has also 

418 




taken the view that, whilst Pothecary 

Witham Weld (PWW) has acted as its 

solicitor for many years, as for many 

other Methodist bodies, it would 

be appropriate in this particular 

instance to seek independent legal 

advice, leaving the Church free to 

use PWW for advice if the need 

arose. That advice is being given by 

Blake Lapthorn, a firm with a strong 

reputation and expertise in the 

relevant legal fields. The university 

has undertaken to pay all the trust 

company’s reasonably incurred 

professional fees. 

53. It is envisaged that the valuation 

discussions will be continuing until 

much nearer to the date of the 

Conference, and it is only at that 

stage that the directors hope to 

be in a position to put forward a 

preferred option for the Conference 

to consider. 

54. However we offer here some broad 

considerations. The freehold option 

would undoubtedly create funds 

sufficient to enable the trust to fund 

some activities at Oxford Brookes 

– such as the Oxford Centre for 

Methodism and Church History 

and the Chaplain. However it would 

be difficult to create an effective 

structure which would realistically 

enable the present relationship to 

be continued on similar terms. In 

addition, there are serious questions 

about the wisdom of disposing of 

freehold land in Oxford, and at a time 

when the market is still relatively 

weak. 


55. The continuing relationship would be 

easier to make effective through a 

leasehold agreement, although there 

are still a number of questions to 

address. However, the disposition of 

such a long leasehold interest would 

need to be reflected in the premium 

to be paid for the lease. 

56. It might be relevant to point out that 

the possibility of a development 

such as is now being considered 

was envisaged at the time of the 

merger. The report to the Conference 

in 1999 said “… it is possible that 

during the period of the lease the 

Methodist Conference would be 

willing to enter into an even longer 

term commitment with OBU [Oxford 

Brookes] if it remains satisfied with 

the educational provision on the 

campus and the relationship with 

OBU. But a longer term commitment 

will not in any event involve the 

relinquishment of the Church’s 

freehold ownership of the property.” 7 

57. It may be argued that there is in 

fact another option: the ‘do-nothing’ 

option ie to refuse to agree to any 

alteration in the current leasehold 

arrangement. It must be recognised 

that the status quo is not likely to 

be a possibility in anything other 

than the short term as the directors 

believe that the university is 

currently strongly committed to its 

estate strategy of reducing to two 

campuses, and would want either 

7. Conference Agenda 1999, para 6.5 

419



to develop the site (with greater 

security) or vacate it. 

58. There is, however, one final point 

to be stressed here. A positive 

decision by the Conference to agree 

to any proposal in principle to grant 

a lease or sell would not mean that 

there was a ‘done deal’ with the 

university. So far as the university 

is concerned, it would form the 

basis for expending considerable 

efforts and costs on drawing up the 

detailed plans and dealing with the 

demanding local planning aspects of 

the scheme, particularly with regard 

to the traffic implications if there 

were significantly increased usage. 

High level, ‘master plan’ submissions 

have already been made for this 

campus and the Wheatley campus, 

for inclusion within the local Master 

Plans currently being drawn up by the 

respective planning authorities. The 

Wheatley master plan has already 

been accepted for inclusion, but any 

decision on the Westminster master 

plan has been delayed until June. It 

may still be that further development 

on this campus, whether because of 

planning constraints or other factors, 

is not thought to be the best way 

forward for the university. 

59. However, at the moment the 

university is strongly wishing to 

establish with the trust company 

the possibilities of developing the 

Westminster campus and therefore 

this is the basis upon which the 

trust company is bringing this report 

and will look forward to bringing 

its more detailed proposals to the 


***RESOLUTION 


420 


37. The Faith and Order Committee 


The Revd Dr Peter Phillips 

Secretary of the Faith and Order Committee 

p.m.phillips@durham.ac.uk 

The Faith and Order Committee offers both 

theological scrutiny for the work of the 

Connexional Team and the Conference, 

as well as theological consultation for 

work being conducted throughout the 

Connexion. The Committee is grateful for 

the support of a Connexion-wide network 

of Methodist people who volunteer their 

skills and expertise to support the work of 

the Committee and the ongoing assistance 

of members of the Connexional Team and 

many other people across the Connexion. 

The committee drafts, scrutinises and 

comments on reports from its own members 

or from other parts of the Methodist Church, 

makes recommendations to the Council 

and the Conference, offers advice on 

issues related to the Faith and Order of the 

Methodist Church and reports directly to the 

Methodist Conference. 

In this report, the Committee outlines the 

main areas in which it has been working 

during the present connexional year. 

The work of the Committee has been 

hampered through this connexional year 

by the absence (through ill-health) of the 

Secretary of the Faith and Order Committee 

as its Executive Officer and regrets the 

subsequent delay of a number of pieces of 

work to which this absence has contributed. 

1. Responses requested by previous 

Conferences 

1.1 The Committee has been working on 

a number of responses to specific 

Conference resolutions relating to 

the work of the Committee: 

1.2 Christian Zionism (Resolution 14/5, 

Conference 2010) 

1.2.1 The Faith and Order Committee has 

attempted to develop a number of 

papers in response to this resolution 

over the last few years. However, the 

Committee has expressed concern 

over both the content and the 

process and developed the following 

report in response to the resolution. 

1.2.2 In 2010 the Conference received the 

report of a working group, entitled 

Justice for Palestine and Israel. The 

Conference directed the Faith and 

Order Committee ”to undertake 

further work on the theological 

issues, including Christian Zionism, 

raised in the report that are needed 

to guide and support the approach 

of the Methodist Church to the 

Israeli/Palestinian situation and to 

bring a report to Conference” (2010 

Conference Agenda, Resolution 

14/5). 

1.2.3 The Committee has given careful 

consideration to how it might 

best fulfil the intentions of the 

2010 Conference as expressed 

in Resolution 14/5. Justice for 

Palestine and Israel uses the word 

‘complex’ and its cognates no 


421


fewer than 11 times to describe 

the historical, political, religious 

and cultural dimensions of Israel- 

Palestine. The theological issues 

raised in the report are no less 

complex and rank among the most 

contentious aspects of interfaith 

relations. 

1.2.4 For the Methodist Church to 

undertake a major piece of 

theological work on the subject of 

Israel-Palestine would duplicate 

work done elsewhere and would be 

unlikely to contribute anything fresh 

to the present state of debate. For 

example, the Anglican Communion 

Network for Inter Faith Concerns has 

recently published a relevant report, 

under the auspices of the Anglican 

Consultative Council, entitled Land of 

Promise? An Anglican Exploration of 

Christian Attitudes to the Holy Land, 

with special reference to Christian 

Zionism (November 2012). ‘This 

report seeks to set out an Anglican 

response to the phenomenon of 

Christian Zionism, and to do so within 

a wider account of Christian thinking 

about Israel’ (p 7). 

1.2.5 Methodists, like Anglicans, have their 

own particular narrative within the 

Christian story, and our theological 

tradition has certain characteristic 

emphases that may not be shared 

by others in quite the same way. 

Nevertheless, the theological 

resources available to Methodists 

in thinking about the issues raised 

by the situation of Israel-Palestine, 

including Christian Zionism, need not 

be any different to those available to 

Christians generally. 

1.2.6 The Committee therefore believes 

that it would be more useful at 

the present time to draw attention 

to a range of relevant theological 

resources that are presently in the 

public domain. Any future Methodist 

study of the theological issues 

relating to the situation of Israel- 

Palestine would probably draw on 

these and other sources, though 

the Faith and Order Committee 

recommends that any such work 

should be undertaken jointly with 

ecumenical partners. 

1.2.7 To enable Methodists to engage 

with the theological issues raised by 

the historical, political, economic, 

religious and cultural situation of 

Israel-Palestine, the Committee has 

prepared a short resource list for 

further reading which will be placed 

on the Faith and Order section of the 

Methodist Church Website. The list is 

neither exhaustive nor comprehensive 

(the field is simply too vast even 

to consider such an undertaking) 

but it is broadly representative of 

the present state of theological 

scholarship on the subject. 

1.2.8 It should be noted that in this much 

debated area neutrality is rarely 

possible, and there will be those 

who defend enthusiastically some of 

the resources listed on the website 

and those who are much more 

cautious about them. It is important 

to state, therefore, that the inclusion 

422 



of specific works in the list should 

not be taken to indicate any kind 

of approval or endorsement by the 

Committee or by the Conference. For 

this reason, it is worthwhile drawing 

attention to the fact that published 

works are listed in alphabetical order, 

according to the author. 

1.3 General Secretary’s Report 2011 

(GSR2011) – sections 31-45, 61-64 

(resolutions 2/3 and 2/5) 

The two resolutions asked for pieces 

of work to be developed by either the 

Ministries Committee or the Faith 

and Order Committee in consultation 

with the other body. Conversations 

have been ongoing throughout on 

the appropriate way in which that 

consultation should be developed, 

especially as the Ministries 

Committee is currently engaged 

in a significant amount of work in 

implementing the Fruitful Field report. 

It was agreed that each committee 

would begin work on one of the 

aspects under joint consideration. 

Sadly, with ongoing pressures 

surrounding workload and change 

of personnel, it has not yet been 

possible to organise a joint meeting. 

The Committee is hopeful that this 

will be resolved early within the next 

connexional year and that a report 

can be made to the 2014 Conference. 

1.4 Memorial M13 (2011): Communion 

mediated through Social Media 

A small group is currently working on 

the response to this memorial and 

the Committee will bring a report to 

the 2014 Conference. 

1.5 Memorial M16 (2011): Preaching at 

Local Arrangement Services 

Having produced a number of 

different drafts involving changes to 

the Guidance offered; exploration of 

the nature of ‘preaching material’; 

and possible redrafting of the whole 

area of Local Arrangements, the 

Committee is currently exploring 

how any proposed changes might 

be incorporated into the ongoing 

revision of Local Preaching as part 

of the Fruitful Field process and the 

development of the Discipleship 


It is proposed that any necessary 

changes be incorporated into that 

process. 

1.6 Encountering Christ the Saviour: 

Church and Sacraments 

The Committee had hoped to have 

completed its drafting of a response 

to this report of the World Methodist 

Council-Roman Catholic Dialogue 

Commission for this Conference as 

noted in last year’s agenda. This 

has not been possible and is not 

technically required by this date. As 

such, the response will be brought to 


2. Scrutiny and other work 

2.1 The scrutiny work of issues/projects/ 

Council papers has continued 

during the year. The Committee 


423


has offered specific responses to 

paperwork, continuing involvement 

in the support of a working group, or 

commentary on the development of 

reports. Where appropriate, specific 

responses have been sent either to 

the Cluster Head/Strategic Leader, 

or directly to the authors of specific 

reports, or to those providing the 

lead in various areas of work: 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

Larger than Circuit 

Ministers and Ill-Health/Living 

with Disabilities 

Equality and Diversity 

Singing the Faith Online 

Supplement 

Discipleship Materials 

Fruitful Field/Discipleship and 

Ministries Learning Network 

Joint meeting with Faith and 

Order Advisory Commission 

of the Church of England (now 

established in a regular pattern 

of meetings) 

Ecumenical Reports 

Diaconal Conversations (JIC) 

Reflection on papers from JIC 

Poverty 

Membership 

Senior Leadership 

World Methodist Council 

Worship Material for Aldersgate 

Sunday 

Liturgical Resources throughout 

the year 

Participation in Methodist 

Missionary Society Working 

Group 

3. Ways of Working: A proposal 

to develop the Faith and Order 

Network 

3.1 For the last six years, the Committee 

has been working within a Network 

structure. Throughout that period, as 

previous Conference reports show, 

we have been constantly reviewing 

the work that we do and trying to 

find the most effective way to make 

use of the network and the resource 

groups to maximise the work of the 

Committee and at the same time 

avoid the creation of a number of 

semi-autonomous sub-committees. 

Our practice over the last few 

years has identified the strengths 

and weaknesses of having a Faith 

and Order Network comprised of 

resource groups. 

3.2 The Network has held two 

highly successful, well-attended 

conferences. These Network 

Conferences offer a time to 

engage with Methodist theology 

in a stimulating and intense way. 

The Network Conference held in 

September 2012 allowed the Network 

and Committee to develop thinking 

on youth participation and also to 

explore a number of difficult themes 

in innovative and creative ways. The 

Network has allowed us to embrace 

more people into the Faith and Order 

work of the Church and to open up 

that work to make it more transparent, 

consultative and accountable. 

3.3 Experience indicates that the main 

weakness of a Faith and Order 

424 



Network comprising separate 

resource groups is an inevitable 

tendency to compartmentalise 

scrutiny work. Rather than allocate 

work to an individual resource group, 

the Committee has discovered that 

the most productive way of working 

is to create a working group that 

combines a range of expertise 

– biblical, theological, historical, 

ecumenical, etc. Coordinating 

and administering the work of the 

resource groups has been far more 

consuming of the Faith and Order 

Secretary’s time and energy than 

was originally conceived. 

3.4 Therefore the Faith and Order 

Committee brings the following 

recommendations to Conference for 

approval. 

3.5 Recommendations: 

3.5.1 The concept of a network to support 

the work of the Committee, overseen 

by the Secretary of the Faith and 

Order Committee will continue. 

3.5.2 Members of the network will no 

longer be allocated to specific 

resource groups, which will cease 

to exist, but will form an approved 

panel of people with relevant skills 

and gifts, who can be consulted 

as necessary and, along with 

members of the Committee and 

other key individuals with relevant 

expertise, be appointed to Faith and 

Order working groups to undertake 

specific tasks. The Secretary of the 

Committee will establish informal 

interest or focus groups from time to 

time to facilitate discussion of topics 

of interest and concern. 

3.5.3 The Network Conference should 

continue to happen every two or 

three years but discussions should 

be held with the Discipleship and 

Ministries Learning Network to 

explore whether the conference 

could be sponsored by the network 

and seek to enhance the work of 

the Faith and Order Committee, the 

Ministries Committee and the wider 

theological health of the Connexion. 

An appropriate funding strategy 

should be drawn up to share the 

costs of the conference between the 

appropriate budget heads. 

3.5.4 The Committee will need to give 

thought to its own composition to 

ensure that the expertise currently 

available through the resource 

groups is found through the 

Committee membership itself either 

directly or through connectivity with 

existing and emerging networks in 

the Church. 

3.5.5 The Committee agreed to set up 

one sub-committee to continue the 

work of the Worship and Liturgy 

Resource Group. The Liturgical 

Sub-Committee should be chaired 

and convened by members of the 

Committee, but with the rest of its 

membership drawn from outside 

of the Committee if necessary to 

ensure appropriate expertise and 

experience. Consideration should be 

given to whether the sub-committee 


425


would benefit from ecumenical 

participation and appropriate links to 

existing ecumenical liturgical bodies. 

4. Statement on Pastoral Care 

4.1 The Conference of 2011, under SO 

129(3), directed that paragraphs 

1-30 and the first two sentences 

of paragraph 31 of the report The 

Theology of Pastoral Care were to be 

treated as a Conference Statement 

and sent out for consultation, 

with comments to be sent to the 

Secretary of the Faith and Order 

Committee no later than 15 January 

2013 “so that a revised Statement 

can be presented to the 2013 

Conference by the Faith and Order 

Committee”. (2011 Agenda p. 117) 

4.2 A few responses have been received. 

However, the absence of the 

Secretary of the Committee has 

not permitted for the appropriate 

processing of this item of business in 

time for the Conference of 2013. 

4.3 As such, still in accordance with SO 

129(3), the Committee recommends 

to the Conference that it be 

permitted to complete the work 

in the next connexional year and 

make a further report to the 2014 

Conference . 



37/2. The Conference amends SO 330 (2) as follows: 

(2) The committee will shall appoint specialist resource groups (which together form 

a Faith and Order Network)a Liturgy and Worship Sub-Committee, chaired and 

convened by members of the committee but including where appropriate persons 

who are not members of the committee, in order to assist the committee in the 

completion of its tasks. 

37/3. The Conference varies the directions made in 2011 in respect of the draft 

Conference Statement, the Theology of Pastoral Care, as set out in paragraph 

4.3 of the report. 

426 


38. Report of the Methodist Missionary Society 

Working Party 



Background Context and 

Relevant Documents 

David Friswell 

Email: friswelld@methodistchurch.org.uk 

To offer a vision and strategy for one mission in the 

Methodist Church in Britain. 

All Partners Consultation Report 2010 

Future Mission Together Report 2012 Conference 

1. Our Mission Heritage 

1.1 The year 1813 is widely recognised 

as pivotal to Methodist mission 

overseas. It did not see the start 

of Methodist missions overseas; 

that can be dated from 1760, when 

Nathaniel Gilbert arrived home in 

Antigua from London and began 

to preach to the slaves on his 

estate. Neither did 1813 see the 

formation of the Wesleyan Methodist 

Missionary Society. That was in 

1818, when the Conference created 

a committee to oversee missionary 

work and appointed three ministerial 

secretaries. But 1813 came at the 

end of a long series of attempts, 

instigated by Thomas Coke, to create 

a framework of support for workers 

in the overseas mission field, and it 

began that final process leading to 

1818 and the Wesleyan Methodist 

Missionary Society. 

1.2 The organisation of missionary work 

had been, since at least 1783, largely 

the work of one man, Thomas Coke. 

In July 1813 the Conference granted 

his wish to lead a mission to Ceylon. 

Despite official backing the mission 

was dependant on Coke’s personal 

fundraising. As other denominations 


set up their own societies to support 

missions there was a fear that these 

would become a threat to Methodist 

fundraising efforts. Partly for this 

reason, and partly to fill the void left 

by Coke’s imminent departure, the 

superintendent of the Leeds Circuit, 

George Morley, proposed holding the 

first missionary meeting – indeed the 

first-ever Methodist public meeting 

called for any purpose other than 

worship and prayer. It was held 

at the Old Chapel in Leeds on 6 

October 1813. At the meeting was an 

energetic young minister newly arrived 

in the Leeds Circuit, Jabez Bunting. 

Thanks largely to him, the meeting 

led to the formation of the Leeds 

District Missionary Society. This 

was soon to be followed by similar 

societies in Halifax, York, Sheffield, 

Cornwall and Newcastle. In 1814, the 

Conference welcomed this initiative 

and commended it to the Connexion 

as a whole. At the union of 1932 the 

Wesleyan and Primitive Methodist 

Missionary Societies also came 

together and became known simply 

as The Methodist Missionary Society. 

1.3 Thus 1813 came to be seen as 

the formative date in the creation 

of the Wesleyan Methodist 

427


Working Party 

Missionary Society, the jubilee of 

which was celebrated in 1863 and 

the centenary in 1913. This year 

the Leeds District is organising a 

commemoration of these events on 

Sunday 6 October. A ceremony on the 

site of the Old Chapel in Leeds will be 

followed by a service in nearby Leeds 

Minster attended by the President of 

the Conference. Connexional officers 

and former missionaries and mission 

partners will be invited. The event will 

include the launch of Methodists and 

their Missionary Societies, written 

by the Revd John Pritchard, and the 

annual conference of the Methodist 

Missionary History Project: 200 

Years of Mission. 

2. Future Mission Together 

2.1 In 2010 the All Partners Consultation 

brought together 200 people from 

60 countries representing 44 

conferences of the Methodist and 

Wesleyan traditions along with a 

number of ecumenical partners. 

They met to explore how the 

understanding and outworking of 

mission had changed over the past 

100 years since the 1910 Edinburgh 

Missionary Conference and how it 

might continue to develop over the 

next 20 plus years. The theme of 

the consultation was ‘Re-imagining 

Future Mission Together’. 

2.2 The 2010 Conference received 

the report of this All Partners 

Consultation and directed the 

Secretary for External Relationships 

to set up a working party with clear 

terms of reference, to report back to 


“Resolution 83/2 2010: 

The Conference directs the Secretary 

for External Relationships to set up a 

working party to: 

i. Explore how best to take 

forward and build upon the 

conversations initiated at the 

Consultation (at local, national, 

and international levels of the 

Church). 

ii. Make specific 

recommendations regarding 

the future of the Methodist 

Missionary Society in the light 

of those conversations. 

iii. Consider how the Methodist 

Church in Britain might explore 

with partners the best structure 

through which our ongoing and 

future mission partnerships 

might develop. 

The working party will report to the 

Conference no later than 2012.” 

This gave the opportunity to work 

with our sisters and brothers in 

other parts of the world, in order to 

re-frame the Methodist Church’s 

understanding of our vision for 

mission and of what it means to 

share in God’s mission in the twentyfirst 

century. 

The 2010 working party produced 

the Future Mission Together Report 

which expressed the belief that the 

Methodist Church is called to fully 

and willingly participate in God’s 

428 



Working Party 

mission to the world and recognised 

that this ‘one mission’ is local and 

global wherever it is taking place. 

2.3 The Future Mission Together 

Report was presented to the 2012 

Conference. Resolution 25/6(a) 

2012 was adopted as follows: 

“Resolution 25/6 2012: 

a) The Conference appoints 

a Working Party to oversee 

arrangements for giving effect to the 

adoption of the Vision Statement and 

the Purposes for Mission and the 

integration, where appropriate, of the 

work of the MMS into the Methodist 

Church in Britain.” 

2.4 The Working Party has met six 

times in the course of the current 

connexional year to review 

relevant work being carried out by 

Connexional Team staff (in line with 


- Agenda p335) and to ensure the 

voices and concerns of Methodists 

within the British Connexion, 

Ireland and Partner Churches 

are being heard and fed into the 

discussion process. This working 

party has continued to explore the 

relationships between the concept 

of being a discipleship movement 

shaped for mission and the ‘Vision’ 

and ‘Purpose for Mission’ statements 

as laid out in the report. 

Statement for Mission in the 

Methodist Church in Britain 

A world transformed by God’s 

love; 

a confident Church motivated to 

share God’s love; 

a people celebrating being part 

of a worldwide family. 

Purpose for Mission Statement for 

Mission in the Methodist Church in 

Britain 

To invite and call all people to 

discipleship, evangelism and 

service; 

To equip and resource people 

for mission; 

To encourage and participate in 

networks of Church to Church 

relationships. 

3. Integration of the Methodist 

Missionary Society work into the 


3.1 Since the early 1970s the day to day 

work of the Methodist Missionary 

Society has been fully integrated 

into the work of the Connexional 

Team, initially through the Methodist 

Church Overseas Division, then the 

World Church Office and currently the 

World Church Relationships team. 

The reality therefore is that for very 

many years the Methodist Missionary 

Society has existed in name only 

and by virtue of its constitution, 

holding its AGM during the time of 

the Conference each year. It has also 

published an annual report – the 

formal accounts being part of the 

consolidated accounts and annual 

report of The Methodist Church in 

Great Britain. 


429


Working Party 

3.2 The Vision Statement and the 

Purpose of Mission Statement 

adopted within the Future Mission 

Together Report give strength and 

understanding to the continuing 

mission work with overseas Partner 

Churches. These set a clear 

framework for the future work of the 

World Church Relationships team 

and the whole of the Methodist 

Church as it continues to engage 

in partnership working, exchange, 

encounter, prayer and giving 

across all ages and groups within 

Methodism. At the same time the 

Future Mission Together Report 

underscores the concept that 

mission is one, whether in one’s own 

part of the world or another country. 

It is therefore clear that this ‘one 

mission’ is core to the very heart 

and soul of the Methodist Church in 

Britain. 

3.3 In line with the Methodist Missionary 

Society Constitution, The Methodist 

Missionary Society (Ireland) 

undertakes and conducts its work 

through the Methodist Missionary 

Society as directed by the Irish 

Conference and in line with its 

Manual of Laws. As the functions of 

the Methodist Missionary Society 

are currently carried out by the World 

Church Relationships team and the 

World Mission Fund, the work of 

the Methodist Missionary Society 

(Ireland) is also already carried out 

by the World Church Relationships 

team and the World Mission Fund. 

The Methodist Church in Ireland 

and Methodist Missionary Society 

(Ireland) will be making changes to 

their Manual of Laws to reflect the 

constitutional changes being made 

by this Conference. 

3.4 It should be noted that the Methodist 

Church in Ireland and the Methodist 

Missionary Society (Ireland) are in 

full support of the integration of the 

Methodist Missionary Society into 

the Methodist Church in Britain. 

3.5 The work of Junior Mission for All is 

carried out within the Connexional 

Team mainly by Children & Youth 

with input from World Church 

Relationships. It is important that 

this mission work is not ‘structurally’ 

lost at the point that the Methodist 

Missionary Society is wound up. By 

continuing to hold and develop the 

work of Junior Mission for All within 

Children & Youth and World Church 

Relationships team, it will be enabled 

to grow and become more accessible 

to all Methodist children and young 

people. 

4. Changes to Standing Orders 

4.1 With the integration of the Methodist 

Missionary Society into the work of 

the Methodist Church, a Constitution 

for the Society will no longer be 

required. All references to the 

Methodist Missionary Society and 

the Constitution in Standing Orders 

will need to be amended accordingly. 

4.2 Existing Standing Orders emphasize 

the fact that every member of the 

Methodist Church in Great Britain “is 

430 



Working Party 

as such a member of the Methodist 

Missionary Society” (CPD Vol. 2, 

Part 3, Article 2 and SOs 400A(2); 

500(2); 600(2)) with a consequent 

commitment to sharing actively in 

God’s mission across the world, 

both locally and globally. It will be 

important that this commitment to 

a personal engagement in mission 

of the whole Methodist people is not 

lost. 

4.3 The Future Mission Together Report, 

has at its heart, the conviction that 

there is no essential difference in 

the mission of God, wherever it is 

exercised, for God’s mission is one. 

The consequence of that report, 

together with the resolutions that 

this report will invite the Conference 

to adopt, is that the work, hitherto 

carried out under the banner of 

the Methodist Missionary Society, 

is recognised as incorporated into 

and thus informing every aspect 

of the life of the Methodist Church 

in Britain. This, in the view of 

the Working Party, provides the 

opportunity to draw together a 

number of Standing Orders with the 

essential and continuing elements 

of the Constitution of the Methodist 

Missionary Society, to enable 

and encourage the mission of the 

Church in Britain and across the 

world. It is suggested that new and 

relocated Standing Orders form a 

new Part 10, under the possible title 

of ‘The Church in Mission’. Further 

consultation and work needs to be 

carried out, but it is hoped that the 

Conference will give its permission 

for that further work to take place 

with a final report being brought to 


4.4 Any new Standing Orders would 

incorporate the vision, purpose and 

theology of mission as outlined in 


thus enabling both the World Mission 

Fund and the Mission in Britain Fund 

to be best used for their specific 

purposes and ensuring that Notice of 

Motion 206 of the 2012 Conference 

is continually developed. 

4.5 The Conference should note that the 

Irish Connexion sees no difficulty 

with this mode of operation even 

if the wording in the Manual of 

Laws and associated documents 

may be slightly different from that 

used in the Standing Orders of this 

Conference. As the Conference of 

the Methodist Church in Ireland is 

held before that of this Conference, 

changes to the Irish Manual of Laws 

are unlikely to take place until 2014. 

There is no intention to change 

the close working relationship or 

the strong links between the two 

Connexions. 

4.6 For the sake of clarity and the 

avoidance of any doubt as far as 

legacies given in the past or to 

be given in the future, and for all 

purposes for which it may have 

application, it should be noted that 

the Conference is being asked to 

resolve that, for the purposes of 

Section 24 of the Methodist Church 

Act 1976, the Methodist Church in 


431


Working Party 

Britain will become the successor 

body to the Methodist Missionary 

Society. 

5. Assets 

5.1 All fixed assets traditionally belonging 

to the Methodist Missionary Society 

have previously been transferred 

to either the Trustees for Methodist 

Church Purposes or the Methodist 

Missionary Trust Association as 

custodian trustees. Funds have 

been transferred into the ‘restricted’ 

World Mission Fund. These funds 

and assets can only be used for work 

relating to world mission activities. 

(See SO 362 (2)). The closure of the 

Methodist Missionary Society will not 

affect the ring-fenced nature of these 

funds and assets, which will continue 

to be shown in the full accounts of the 

Methodist Church in Great Britain. 

5.2 It should be noted that the World 

Mission Fund is, and will remain, 

the recipient fund for legacies and 

assets given to The Methodist 

Missionary Society (see 4.6 above). 

5.3 The Methodist Missionary Trust 

Association will remain a custodian 

trustee body in respect of assets 

and property until such time as it is 

appropriate to wind up its operations. 

At this point consequential changes 

to the Deed of Union will be required. 

6. Towards One Mission 

6.1 With clear strategic planning the 

Methodist Church is in a unique 

place in its history to re-envisage 

how it moves forward in one 

mission. Changes in children’s and 

youth work, the growth of Fresh 

Expressions and an increasingly 

multicultural context are some 

of the exciting challenges to our 

understanding of mission. Closer 

working relationships across the 

Connexional Team and the church 

should mean that mission and 

evangelism can be viewed holistically 

with less division between them and 

bringing together traditional 'home' 

and 'overseas' mission work. While 

ensuring the correct use of the two 

funds (World Mission Fund and 

Mission in Britain Fund) joint working 

to take forward the reality of One 

Mission should be possible. 

6.2 The Conference is advised that a 

communications strategy is being 

developed to ensure that the winding 

up of the Methodist Missionary 

Society is not perceived by members 

of the Methodist Church in Britain, 

Ireland or Partner Churches, as the 

ending of mission work either at 

home or overseas. 

6.3 Arising from the discussions of the 

Working Party, a document based 

on the Future Mission Together 

Report, entitled ‘One Mission’, has 

been prepared and is offered to 

the Church as a resource which, it 

is hoped, will, in addition to the full 

report, act as a stimulus to further 

theological and ecclesiological 

reflection on the heart of the concept 

that ‘all mission is one’. 

432 



Working Party 

This One Mission statement 

(included here) forms part of the 

education and communication 

strategy required to meet Resolution 

25/7 2012. 

ONE MISSION 

A world transformed by God’s love; 

a confident Church motivated to share 

God’s love; 

a people celebrating being part of a 

worldwide family. 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

Participation in God’s mission 

and the proclamation of God’s 

kingdom are at the heart of 

Jesus’ message and continue 

to be empowered by the Holy 

Spirit’s activity in the Church 

and in the world. 

Every Methodist is called to 

share in this mission, working 

together in cooperation, 

partnership and collaboration 

wherever they are. 

Sharing God’s mission 

embraces and unites social 

action and evangelical 

proclamation as good news for 

all people in every aspect of 

their being. It is through that 

mission that God will enable 

holiness, transforming lives, 

communities, nations and the 

world. 

God’s mission is expressed 

both locally and globally and 

the Methodist Church in Britain 

celebrates being in partnership 

with the worldwide community 

of Methodist, United and 

●● 

Uniting Churches. 

Mission at home and overseas 

is all one mission. 

The Purposes for Mission in the Methodist 

Church in Britain in the twenty-first century 

include: 

To invite and call all people to 

discipleship, evangelism and service by: 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

Proclaiming and affirming our 

conviction of God’s love in 

Christ, for us and for all the 

world. 

Fulfilling the call of God to be a 

good neighbour to all. 

Creating opportunities to 

serve God in ways that support 

community development and 

challenge unjust structures and 

systems. 

Encouraging fresh ways of 

being church. 

To equip and resource people for mission by: 

●● 

●● 

●● 

Building confidence in British 

Methodists as disciples of 

Jesus so that we rediscover 

a passion for mission and 

evangelism. 

Encouraging a new generation 

to tell its faith story by focusing 

on explicit and intentional 

voicing of the Gospel. 

Engaging in education and 

training for mission in every 

church, circuit, district and 

wherever the connexion meets 

together, drawing on local and 

global resources. 


433


Working Party 

●● 

Encouraging and supporting 

British Methodists to live on a 

world map and to be disciples 

in a worldwide Church. 

To encourage and participate in networks 

of Church to Church relationships by: 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

Engaging with Churches 

across the world in a spirit of 

partnership, collaboration and 

mutuality; giving and receiving 

inspiration, challenges and 

resources. 

Sharing experiences, insights 

and best practice of mission 

with partners at home and 

overseas so that we all learn 

from each other. 

Fostering ecumenical links in 

mission, including the World 

Methodist Council. 

Contributing to and shaping a 

common response to global 

mission with our Methodist, 

United and Uniting partners. 

Facilitating encounters 

between people across 

denominational, national and 

cultural boundaries that enrich 

the Church at every level. 

6.4 There is further work that needs 

to be carried out to ensure the 

full integration of the work of the 

Methodist Missionary Society into 

the life of the church and the full 

implementation of the underlying 

principles and understanding of 

mission embodied in the Future 

Mission Together Report. Some 

of that further work may involve 

structural change, in particular to 

strengthen and continue to ensure 

the close working relationship of 

the British and Irish Connexions 

as well as with Partner Churches 

across the world. Equally it will 

be important to communicate 

effectively our belief that there is but 

one mission; that mission is God’s 

to be exercised through us, God’s 

people, both locally and globally, 

in Britain and across the world. To 

this end the Conference is invited 

to permit the working party, with 

a revised membership, title and 

redefined remit to continue its work 

for one further year to bring a final 

report to the 2014 Conference. 

The proposed One Mission Working 

Party will explore and follow up the 

suggestions agreed by the Methodist 

Council (MC/13/36). The Group will 

seek feedback from stakeholders 

of the Methodist Church in Britain, 

the Methodist Church in Ireland and 

with Partner Churches as it draws its 

conclusions and proposes its final 

resolutions to the 2014 Conference. 

It is important to note that any group, 

committee or structure established 

would not be responsible for 

strategy, staffing or budgets. It would 

support the work thus enabling 

the Church to continue to discuss, 

develop and feed into One Mission 

ideas and concepts. It must not be, 

or become, a burden to operational 

tasks. 

6.5 The terms of reference of the One 

Mission Working Party would be as 

follows; 

434 



Working Party 

i. To bring about the full 

integration of the One 

Mission concept into, and its 

implementation throughout, all 

levels of the church. 

ii. To make specific 

recommendations to the 

2014 Conference as to how 

One Mission is overseen, 

promoted, held accountable 

and embedded into the life of 

the Methodist people and the 

Methodist Church in Britain. 

iii. To recommend to the 2014 

Conference changes to 

Standing Orders including 

a new Part within Standing 

Orders to incorporate One 

Mission. 

iv. To support relevant 

Connexional Team staff as 

they continue to educate, 

communicate and encourage 

Methodists throughout the 

Connexion, enabling a better 

understanding and practice of 

One Mission. 

7 Conclusion 

7.1 Perhaps for the first time in our 

recent history there is the real 

possibility of bringing the strands 

of overseas and home missions 

together. Without contradicting the 

terms of use for the restricted World 

Mission or the Mission in Britain 

funds, we have a unique opportunity 

to assert the understanding that 

the mission of the Church is one in 

which work at home and overseas is 

essentially the same mission. One 

Mission expresses the intention to 

work with partners, at home and 

across the world, to engage with God 

in this mission. The work of the All 

Partners Consultation in 2010 took 

the British Methodist Church further 

in our thinking about mission in the 

twenty-first century than we had 

dared to hope. Now is the time to 

move those thoughts into action as 

we continue to grow as a worldwide 

family transformed by God’s love. 



38/2. The Conference encourages Methodist people to engage with Churches across 

the world, in a spirit of partnership, collaboration and mutuality, through prayer, 

the interchange of personnel and through continuing support for the World 

Mission Fund and the Mission in Britain Fund. 

38/3. The Conference encourages local Churches, Circuits and Districts to engage with 

the Vision Statement for Mission, the Purpose for Mission Statement for Mission 

as adopted by the 2012 Conference and the One Mission Statement (paragraph 


435


Working Party 

6.3 of this report) and commends them for study, leading to action, throughout 

the Connexion. 

38/4. The Conference thanks the Future Mission Together Working Party for its work 

and directs the Methodist Council to appoint a new working party, to be known 

as the One Mission Working Party with terms of reference set out in paragraphs 

6.4 and 6.5 of this report and directs the One Mission Working Party to report to 


38/5. The Conference resolves that, for the purposes of section 24 of the Methodist 

Church Act 1976, the Methodist Church in Britain shall be the successor body to 

the Methodist Missionary Society. 

38/6. By way of transitional arrangement, the Conference directs that until such 

further recommendations are agreed by the Conference: 

a. the Methodist Council shall be responsible for the fulfilment of the purposes 

and responsibilities currently overseen and exercised by the Methodist 

Missionary Society, reporting annually to the Conference on the discharge of its 

responsibilities. 

b. the Methodist Council shall regulate the following; 

A. Overseas Appointments. 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

The Council shall be responsible for the selection, training and appointment of 

men and women for service overseas with an autonomous conference or united 

church or other agency in accordance with mutually agreed arrangements, and 

shall make appropriate provision for their support in retirement. 

Wherever possible lay persons so appointed shall for the duration of their 

service overseas transfer their membership to a Local Church in the place 

where they serve. 

Those so appointed serve at the invitation of, and under the regulations and 

(subject to (d)) the discipline of, the church or agency concerned. 

The mutual arrangements referred to in (a) above shall ensure that, in the event 

of disciplinary proceedings grave enough to call into question the status of a 

minister or probationer or the membership or local preacher status of a lay 

person so appointed: 

436 



Working Party 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

such status shall not be removed by any court overseas; 

the case shall, whether or not the appointment is terminated, be reported 

to the appropriate member of the Connexional Team who shall ensure that 

whatever further action is required by or appropriate under the Standing Orders 

of the relevant home conference is taken; 

for that purpose the membership of any lay person whose status may be in 

question shall, where necessary, be transferred to his or her home church. 

B. Regulations and By-laws. The Methodist Council shall have authority to issue, 

as occasion may require, codes of regulations and by-laws for the guidance and 

control of personnel overseas. The council or any body to which it may for the time 

being delegate its authority in this regard may recall any such person for any reason 

which the council or other body exercising this power deems sufficient, having due 

regard to the mutual arrangements agreed in accordance with Article A. Overseas 

Appointments (above). 

C. Junior Mission for All. In every home Circuit and Local Church there shall where 

possible be a Junior Mission for All group whose purposes shall be to encourage 

children to learn, pray and serve with the worldwide Church of Christ and to raise 

money for world mission. 

D. Youth Affairs. It shall be a purpose of every home District, Circuit and Local Church 

to encourage the development of a world outlook in every youth and young adult 

group meeting under Methodist auspices, and to help young people between the 

ages of approximately 13 and 30 years to take their full share in the task of world 

mission. 

If resolutions 1 to 6 above are passed the following resolution will be moved: 

38/7. The Conference resolves that the Methodist Missionary Society be wound up 

with immediate effect. 

If resolution 7 above is adopted the following resolution will be moved: 

38/8. The Conference amends Standing Orders as follows: 

SO 212 (14) The council shall nominate to the Conference appropriate persons for 

appointment as secretary and treasurer of the Methodist Missionary Society. 

SO 216 (2) The council shall also exercise the powers conferred on it by the 


437


Working Party 

Constitution of the Methodist Missionary Society, and these Standing Orders shall be 

read and construed in conjunction with that Constitution. In the case of any conflict 

between the provisions of the Constitution and those of these Standing Orders the 

provisions of Standing Orders shall prevail, except that no such provision shall prevail 

over or derogate from the provisions of Articles 1, 2 and 6 of the Constitution. 

SO 311 (2) One of the connexional Treasurers shall be the treasurer of the Methodist 


SO 362 Specified Funds (1) The Methodist Council shall raise and administer the 

four restricted funds specified in clauses (2) to (5) below, for which contributions, 

including public collections, subscriptions, donations and legacies, shall be invited 

for particular aspects of the work of the Church. 

(2) The purposes of the Methodist World Mission Fund shall be the purposes of the 

Methodist Missionary Society, which are: ..... 

SO 400A (2) Since every member in the District is as such a member of the 

Methodist Missionary Society, the purposes of the District include the promotion 

of understanding of and support for the work of the Society to the end that every 

member may share actively in world mission. 

SO 500 (2) Since every member in the Circuit is as such a member of the 

Methodist Missionary Society, the purposes of the Circuit include the promotion 

of understanding of and support for the work of the Society to the end that every 

member may share actively in world mission. 

SO 600 (2) Since every member in the Local Church is as such a member of 

the Methodist Missionary Society, the purposes of the Local Church include the 

promotion of understanding of and support for the work of the Society to the end that 

every member may share actively in world mission. 

735 Permission to Serve another Conference or Church. (1) Overseas 

aAppointments under Article 9 of the Constitution of the Methodist Missionary 

Society and permissions under Standing Order 773 are not within the scope of this 

Standing Order. 

772 Residence Abroad. (1) No presbyter or deacon in Full Connexion whose 

ministry is based on the home Districts and no probationer in training for such a 

ministry shall reside abroad unless appointed to a station within the control of the 

Church or as a mission partner under Article 9 of the Constitution of the Methodist 

Missionary Society to an overseas appointment or as a chaplain to the forces or 

438 



Working Party 

permitted to do so under Standing Order 735 or 773 or this Standing Order. 

SO 1152 (1) Where a complaint is referred to the connexional Complaints Panel: 

(i) 

(ii) 

relating to matters alleged to have arisen outside the home Districts; and 

made against a local preacher or member appointed to serve overseas in 

accordance with Article 9 of the Constitution of the Methodist Missionary 

Society arrangements for overseas appointments as regulated by the 

Methodist Council whose membership has remained in or been transferred 

back to a Circuit in a home District the complaints team must consult the 

secretary of the Methodist Missionary Society the appropriate member of the 

Connexional Team in performing its functions under this Part. 

In accordance with Resolution 7 above, delete Part 3 Constitution of the Methodist 



439

39. Managing Trustees of Central Hall Westminster 



The Revd Michaela Youngson 

Chair of the Managing Trustees 

michaela@methodistlondon.org.uk 

church family alike. 

This report from the Managing 

Trustees gives an overview of the 

varied activities and events which 

have been part of the life of the 

Methodist Central Hall Westminster 

during 2012/13. The Church and 

the Conference Centre reach out 

to a vast number of residents and 

workers in London and the South 

East, as well as to visitors. This 

year Methodist Central Hall has 

celebrated 100 years of mission 

and service. The centenary theme; 

‘Rejoicing, Remembering and 

Renewing’ was worked out through 

a range of worship, social and public 

events. 

2. Ministry of the Church 

2.1 The team ministry, led by the 

Superintendent Minister, the Revd 

Martin Turner, has the support and 

loyalty of church officers and other 

volunteers in carrying out a diverse 

range of tasks. A central focus and 

meeting point for the congregation is 

Sunday morning worship, where the 

newly refurbished organ graces the 

Great Hall both in sound and sight. 

2.2 The pastoral work of the church is led 

by Deacon Denise Creed, who offers 

and coordinates care for church 

members and those in our extended 

2.3 Work amongst children and young 

people continues in strength. All-Age 

worship services, held quarterly and 

led by the Revd Tony Miles, are a 

welcome feature of Sunday morning 

worship. “The Sanctuary”- a creative 

contemporary worship service 

meets on Thursdays and includes 

members who have volunteered to 

assist at a winter night shelter run by 

Westminster Churches Together. 

2.4 Our Healing Ministry, under the 

leadership of the Revd Peter 

Edwards, has grown to such an 

extent that the regular monthly 

evening services have now moved 

from the Chapel back up into the 

Great Hall. 250 people attended 

this year’s Healing Conference. 

Discussion and training material 

on the ministry of healing is being 

developed as a resource for the 

Connexion. Peter Edwards has now 

joined Martin Turner in the weekly 

Premier Radio broadcasts, “God’s 

Healing Love”. 

2.5 The midweek service for local 

workers continues to grow under 

the leadership of the Revd Gordon 

Newton. 

2.6 As part of our serving the local 

community in Westminster, twice a 



month a Drop In Centre is held for 

those who are living with mental 

illness. This is in conjunction with 

the Revd Neil Bunker, local Anglican 

chaplain for the mentally unwell. 

A new project is a monthly Drop In 

Centre for people with Parkinson's 

and their carers - run in conjunction 

with NHS Parkinson's Nurse, Lorraine 

Savory. 

2.7 St Vincent’s Family Project, 

established with the Sisters of 

Charity of St Vincent de Paul, 

continues to meet in the extended 

community suite at Central Hall. 

2.8 Chaplaincy continues to play an 

important part of the work, with 

Martin Turner as chaplain to the 

Methodist Parliamentary Fellowship, 

Tony Miles as Media Chaplain and 

Denise Creed as Chaplain to the St 

Vincent Family Project. 

2.9 A key role for the Church at 

Methodist Central Hall is acting as a 

facilitator for events led by a whole 

range of different ministries and 

charities, thus the building is used 

to serve the London District, the 

Connexion and the wider Christian 

community. 

2.10 Westminster Women’s Outreach had 

its fourth successful conference 

in April, as part of the Church’s 

Centenary celebrations. The theme 

for this well attended event was 

‘Women’s Voices’ and a range of 

speakers and performers enabled an 

engaging and powerful day. 

2.11 The Trust is delighted to host this 

year’s Methodist Conference and 

hopes that representatives and 

visitors to the Conference are 

able to experience something of 

the hospitality and vibrancy of the 

Central Hall. 

The Conference Centre 

3.1 Mr Paul Southern, Managing Director, 

leads the Conference Centre team 

as it works tirelessly to market the 

facilities of Central Hall at a time 

when all such centres have suffered 

from the down-turn in the economy. 

Bookings continue steadily but are 

often made at very short notice, so 

the team has to be very flexible as it 

maintains the excellence of service 

that an even more demanding client 

base expects at Central Hall at an 

even more reduced rate. 

3.2 The commercial business unit 

has been preparing, updating 

and becoming more efficient 

over the last 12 months. It has 

assessed the potential markets 

and how Central Hall is perceived. 

Following this assessment many of 

the old membership groups were 

’dropped‘and Central Hall declined 

to attend some of the traditional 

exhibitions in favour of new and more 

innovative marketing opportunities 

which included an ever evolving 

website including new video footage 

and “Google Street view”. This allows 

visitors to walk into Central Hall 

through the website. The business 

unit also exhibited at the centre of 


441


the fastest growing market in the 

world, Beijing, which may produce 

some good returns. 

3.3 There have been some interesting 

lettings this year and they include:- 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

4. New Facilities 

A Badminton exhibition match 

in the Great Hall by the Chinese 

Olympic Gold Medal winners. 

Three very short notice events 

for the new President of 

Somalia for 2,000 people each 

time. 

Le Web. The largest meeting of 

web designers outside of the 

USA converged on Central Hall 

in June. 

The filming of scenes for 

the film Red 2 which will be 

released in August. Catherine 

Zeta-Jones, John Malkovich 

and Bruce Willis were all seen 

filming around the Great Hall. 

Scarlet and Gold. A Christmas 

concert for a military charity. 

4.1 These tough times have not meant 

that Central Hall has stood still 

in its updating, restoration and 

refurbishment programme and in 

fact the quiet nature of some of 

the months has allowed some of 

the works to progress more swiftly. 

The updates in the last 12 months 

include:- 

●● 

●● 

●● 

5. The Future 

systems to include low energy 

light bulbs. 

Painting of the main corridors. 

Opening a street café. 

Completely refurbishing the 

café including 

l Repairing water 

damaged walls that had 

been damaged over 

past decades. 

l Restoring the wood 

block flooring. 

l Restoring the original 

arches. 

l Removing some of the 

suspended ceilings 

to reveal the original 

features and arches. 

The local church continues to grow, 

with 9 new members and 27 reinstatements 

or transfers in this 

year, making the membership stand 

at 408. On the business side signs 

of a recovery are evident. Many 

clients are returning and new clients 

are being added constantly. 

6. Retirements 

The Managing Trustees place on 

record their gratitude for their service 

to the Trustees who are retiring in 

August 2013: Mr Richard Reeves, Mr 

Ian Hulme and Ms Sue Chadwick. 

●● 

●● 

Repainting of the entrance 

areas. 

Replacements of the lighting 

442 




39/1. The Conference adopts the Report. 

39/2. The Conference appoints the following Managing Trustees of the Conference 

Property at Central Hall Westminster: 

The Revd Michaela Youngson (Chair of the Managing Trustees and Convenor – ex 

officio) 

The Revd Martin H Turner (Superintendent, London Westminster – ex officio) 

*Mr.Tony Ackah-Yensu 

Mr Kojo Amoah-Arko 

The Revd Ian Bell 

*Ms Angela Cobbina 

*The Revd Anthony D Miles 

Mrs Judith Mitchell 

Mr Ian Serjeant 

Ms Helen Tudor 

The Revd Jason Vinyard 

* Indicates the people nominated by the Westminster Circuit Meeting. 


443

40. Sharing Agreements and Ecumenical Partnerships 


The Revd Neil A Stubbens 

Connexional Ecumenical Officer 

stubbensn@methodistchurch.org.uk 

Standing Order 334(5) requires all new 

schemes approved by the Synods under 

Standing Order 412(2) and all Sharing 

Agreements authorised by the Ecumenical 

Officer (EO) to be reported to the Conference. 

Key 

B 

CC 

CE 

CM 

JCE 

M 

Mor 

URC 

Baptist 

Church Council 

Church of England 

Circuit Meeting 

Joint, vested in Diocesan Board of 

Finance for the Church of England 


Moravian Church 

United Reformed Church 

A: SCHEMES APPROVED BY THE 

DISTRICT SYNODS UNDER S.O. 412(2) 

1 Ecumenical Partnerships in 

Extended Areas 

No new Ecumenical Partnerships in 

Extended Areas have been approved 

by the Synods and reported to the 

Ecumenical Officer since the last 


In 2012, the Conference was 

informed that further details about 

the extended area established by the 

Leeds District Synod in May 2012 

would be reported to this Conference 

(Daily Record (2012), 8/23/2). 

Since the JIC is proposing a period 

of consultation on its quinquennial 

report, which includes further work 

on extended areas, the Methodist- 

Anglican Panel for Unity in Mission 

(MAPUM) is waiting for the outcome 

of that consultation before deciding 

how extended areas should be 

reported to the Conference. 

2 Local Ecumenical Partnerships 

The following list records those 

schemes approved by the Synods 

and reported to the Ecumenical 

Officer. It indicates which other 

Churches are involved and the nature 

of the Partnership. It also records 

those Partnerships in which a new 

constitution has been adopted and 

whether the Synod issued or revoked 

a direction under Standing Order 611. 

Circuit 

No 

Trustee Body 

Other 

Church(es) 

Single 

Congregation 

Partnership (SCP) 

or Churches 

in Covenanted 

Partnership (CCP) 

New 

Partnership 

(NP) or New 

Constitution 

NC) 

Direction 

issued (DI) 

or revoked 

(DR) under 

SO 611 

14/5 Christchurch Newmarket CC URC SCP NC DI 

18/5 Trinity Page Moss 

CE SCP _ DI 

(formerly Trinity Huyton) CC 



18/9 St Andrew’s CC URC SCP NC DI 

19/1 Edge Lane CC CE, URC SCP NP _ 

22/15 ChristChurch CC URC SCP NC DI 

***RESOLUTION 


B: SHARING AGREEMENTS 

The consent of the Ecumenical Officer is required for the making or amendment of any 

Sharing Agreement (SA) under the Sharing of Church Buildings Acts 1969 and, where any 

such Agreement requires consent, to its termination (S.O. 334(3)). 

The first list in Section 1 below reports the Sharing Agreements authorised by the Ecumenical 

Officer and not previously reported to the Conference. Since not all Sharing Agreements so 

authorised come into effect, and those that do sometimes take a considerable time to reach 

that stage, further lists are provided to indicate those Sharing Agreements that have come 

into effect since the last Conference. The list in Section 2 reports those Sharing Agreements 

to whose termination the Ecumenical Officer has given consent during the past year. 

1 Consents 

Circuit 

No 

Local or 

Circuit 

Trustee 

Body 

Building(s) 

to be shared 

and other details 

(including owner) 

Other 

Church(es) 

party to 

the SA 

Date of 

EO 

consent 

Date 

of SA 

Registered 

No 

Date SA 

registered 

5/1 Hall Green CC 609 Reddings 

Lane, Hall Green, 

Birmingham B28 8TE 

(Church: M) 

Mor, URC 26/7/12 

6/14 Central CC Burnley Road, 

Bacup OL13 8AB 

(Church: M) 

CE 20/11/12 

13/7 Danby CC Christ Church, 

Westerdale, Whitby 

YO21 2DT 

(Church: CE) 

CE 13/11/12 

21/3 Trinity, Great 

Harwood CC 

King St, Great 

Harwood, Blackburn 

BB6 7JN 

(Church: M) 

URC 19/4/13 


445


22/15 1 Christ Church 

CC 

Finkin Street, 

Grantham 

NG31 6QZ 

( Church: M) 

24/16 Tiverton CC St Peter Street, 

Tiverton EX16 6NU 

(Church: M) 

URC 25/3/13 

URC 20/11/12 

23/29 North 

Marston CC 

Schorne Lane, 

North Marston, 

Buckingham 

MK18 3PJ 

(Church: M) 

CE 24/1/13 

23/29 North Marston 

CC 

Parish Church of 

the Assumption 

of the BVM, Schorne 

Lane, North Marston, 

Buckingham 

MK18 3PH 

(Church: CE) 

CE 24/1/13 

27/32 Northcliffe 

(Hall Royd 

Methodist) 

CC 

27/33 Great Horton 

with Lidgett 

Green CC 

27/36 Central 

Dewsbury CC 

29/36 Central, Goole 

CC 

Northcliffe Church 

(formerly known 

as Hall Royd 

Methodist Church), 

Bradford Road, 

Shipley BD18 3ED 

(Church: M) 

Great Horton with 

Lidgett Green, 

Great Horton Road, 

Bradford BD7 3ER 

(Church: M) 

Longcauseway, 

Aldams Road, 

Dewsbury 

WF13 1NH 

(Church: URC) 

North Street, Goole 

DN14 5RA 

(Church: M) 

URC 15/12/11 24/4/13 39/262 24/4/13 

URC 15/2/09 20/12/12 39/257 20/12/12 

URC 13/2/13 

URC 7/11/12 20/12/12 39/258 20/12/12 

1 

Consent was reported to the Conference in 2008 (Agenda, p.665) but the project was 

subsequently abandoned; it has now recommenced as a new project. 

446 



Sharing Agreements registered since the last Conference to which EO consent was 

reported to the Conference in 2008: 

Circuit 

No 

Local or 

Circuit 

Trustee 

Body 

Building(s) 

to be shared 



Other 

Church(es) 

party to 

the SA 

Date of 

EO 

consent 

Date 

of SA 

Registered 

No 

Date SA 

registered 

16/17 

(was in 

16/20) 

The King’s 

Way CC 

The King’s Way 

Church, Ossett 

(Church: M) 

URC 13/2/08 20/12/12 39/259 20/12/12 

16/17 

(was in 

16/20) 

CM 

3 King’s Close, 

Ossett 

(Manse: M) 

URC 13/2/08 20/12/12 39/260 20/12/12 

Sharing Agreements registered since the last Conference to which EO consent was 

reported to the Conference in 2012: 

Circuit 

No 

Local or 

Circuit 

Trustee 

Body 

Building(s) 

to be shared 



23/1 2 CM 8 Fry’s Hill 

Oxford OX4 7GN 

(Manse: M) 

26/4 Drayton CC Drayton, Havant Road 

Drayton Portsmouth 

PO6 1PA 

(Church: M) 

25/19 Levertons CC Methodist Church 

Sturton Road 

North Leverton 

Retford DN22 0AB 

(Church: M) 

25/19 Levertons CC All Saints’ Church 

Church Street 

South Leverton 

Retford DN22 0BX 

(Church: CE) 

25/19 Levertons CC St Martin’s Church 

Church Walk 

Main Street 

Retford DN22 0AD 

(Church: CE) 

Other 

Church(es) 

party to 

the SA 

Date of 

EO 

consent 

Date 

of SA 

Registered 

No 

Date SA 

registered 

B, URC 22/3/12 30/8/12 39/256 31/8/12 

URC 22/6/11 25/7/12 39/255 3/8/12 

CE 26/4/12 12/3/13 39/261 12/3/13 

CE 26/4/12 12/3/13 39/261 12/3/13 

CE 26/4/12 12/3/13 39/261 12/3/13 

2 

This SA amends SA 39/148 dated 30 November 2003. 


447


2 Terminations 

Circuit 

No 

Local or 

Circuit 

Trustee 

Body 

Building(s) to be 

shared and other details 


7/17 CM Church Cottage 

2A St Mark’s Road 

Worle 

(Manse: JCE) 

22/15 3 ChristChurch CC St Peter’s Hill 

(Church: URC) 

23/28 CM 22 The Lagger 

Chalfont St Giles 

(Manse: URC) 

Other 

Church(es) 

party to 

the SA 

Date of 

EO 

consent 

Date 

of SA 

Registered 

No 

CE 23/8/12 15/4/86 38/555 

URC 10/8/09 39/231 

URC 10/5/13 4/8/99 39/071 

3 

Formal written notice not received by EO, but property sold by URC; also see list of 

Consents above. 

***RESOLUTION 


448 


41. The Discipleship and Ministries Learning Network 


Jude Levermore 

Interim Head of the Discipleship and Ministries Cluster 

levermorej@methodistchurch.org.uk 


“Be transformed by the renewing of 

your minds, so that you may discern 

what is the will of God – what is 

good and acceptable and perfect.” 

Romans 12:2 (NRSV) 

1.1 The 2012 Fruitful Field report had at 

its heart a desire to create learning 

and development structures best 

fitted in the present age to serve the 

mission of the Church and to support 

the Methodist people to grow and 

learn as disciples, encouraging 

patterns of witness and evangelism, 

loving and prophetic action. 

The report had four key focuses 

(discipleship development; ministry 

development – lay and ordained; 

church and community development; 


innovation) aiming to create mutually 

dependent collaborative ministries 

rooted in church communities which 

are loving, participative, pioneering 

and contextual. The report envisaged 

the development of a learning 

network with centres, spaces and 

staff fitted for excellent provision, in 

a connexional context, to respond 

to local need. This report provides 

an update to the Conference on the 

progress that has been made in 

seeking to implement the resolutions 

of the 2012 Conference. 

1.2 Under the direction of the Methodist 

Council, the SRC, an Implementation 

Executive, and an Implementation 

Management Team have undertaken 

a significant amount of work since 

the 2012 Conference. The focus has 

been upon the best way to give life to 

the vision of the Fruitful Field report 

as expressed through the creation 

of the Discipleship and Ministries 

Learning Network (DMLN). 

1.3 The Fruitful Field report contained 

considerable detail commensurate 

with such a large scale project. 

The practical implementation of 

the vision has involved variations 

and changes, however, the original 

intentions and guiding vision 

remains intact. Throughout the 

implementation process changes 

have been shared and discussed 

in detail with the relevant bodies 

and permission given before any 

work was carried forward. The 

Methodist Council has overseen 

the implementation process and 

has been informed of any proposal 

that departs from the resolutions 

of the 2012 Conference. At its 

April meeting the Council was 

presented with a chart setting out 

the progress made in relation to 

each section of the Fruitful Field 

report as well as a description of the 

variances that had arisen following 

legal advice and the emergence 


449


of practical issues relating to the 

governance arrangements, staffing 

and the budget for the DMLN. This 

report included a description of 

the variances that have arisen in 

respect of governance and staffing 

arrangements. 

1.4 In passing resolution 38/A the 

Methodist Council acknowledged 

that the resolutions contained in 


Learning Network report (MC/13/38) 

departed from the recommendations 

adopted by the resolutions of the 

2012 Conference, and accepted that 

the proposals contained within the 

report that was before it were the 

most effective and efficient way of 

ensuring that the general intentions 

of the 2012 Conference could be 

fulfilled in the light of the legal and 

practical issues which had emerged 

since the Conference last met. 

2. Project Implementation 

2.1 In October 2012 the Methodist 

Council was presented with 13 

implementation development 

strands which were eventually 

focused into 5 core thematic areas: 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

Organisational Development; 

Staffing; 

Learning and Development; 

Transition; 

Communication. 

2.2 In January 2013, two Project 

Managers were appointed to work 

with the Connexional Team to build 

upon the developmental work which 

had taken place in the months 

immediately following the 2012 

Conference. The Project Managers 

developed a critical pathway 

methodology, activity diagrams 

and Gantt charts, standard within 

professional project management, 

for each of the core areas of work 

which together formed the working 

project plan. 

2.3 Organisational Development 

a. The Fruitful Field report 

highlighted the significance 

of the integration of the 

DMLN within the Connexional 

Team. There has been careful 

reflection on the organisational 

structure of the DMLN and, 

more particularly, its integration 

with the Connexional Team 

and relationships with local 

churches, circuits, districts, 

regions and centres. This is 

dealt with more fully in Section 

4 (Staffing Transition and the 

Staffing Model). 

b. The budget for the DMLN was 

incorporated into the budget 

scrutinised by the Strategy 

and Resources Committee and 

the Methodist Council. The 

Discipleship and Ministries 

Cluster budget contains the 

DMLN budget along with a 

number of additional activities 

(eg VentureFX, the Education 

Commission), related to but not 

formally part of the DMLN. 

450 



2.4 Learning and Development 

a. Considerable work has been 

completed on the learning 

and development strategy 

throughout 2012/13 and a 

strategy paper, containing key 

work and strategic objectives 

for the DMLN for the first five 

years of its existence, will be 

presented to the Council in 

October 2013 for discussion. 

b. Local Preacher and Worship 

Leader pathways are being 

designed to allow more shared 

learning between those called 

to be Local Preachers and 

those who exercises a ministry 

as Worship Leaders. Further 

information on this is found 

in the report of the Ministries 

Committee. 

c. The Common Awards – progress 

has been made in developing 

the partnership between the 

Methodist Church and the 

Church of England in relation to 

the Common Awards. There is 

further information about this 

in the Ministries Committee 

Report. 

2.5 Transition 

A key priority during the 

implementation process has been 

to ensure an effective transition and 

continuity for existing ministerial 

students. Conversations have taken 

place over the course of the last year 

with the relevant training institutions 

to enable an orderly transition 

and ensure that there is adequate 

staffing to assist with formational 

experience for all student deacons 

and presbyters. Furthermore, 

transitional plans have been put in 

place with the Queen’s Foundation 

to ensure a quality experience for 

those whom the Conference accept 

as candidates for training. Plans 

are now far advanced in relation to 

part-time and full-time pathways for 

training and the allocations process 

was completed successfully in April 

2013. A role has been identified 

for a Connexional Team member to 

be the key contact point for training 

institutions from which the Methodist 

Church is withdrawing. 

2.6 Communication 

A communications strategy since 

the 2012 Conference has focused 

upon ensuring that key information 

has been shared with different 

bodies across the Connexion. In the 

period following the establishment 

of the DMLN the communications 

task will begin to focus upon the 

values of the learning network and 

upon the learning and development 

opportunities that the network will 

begin to create for the Methodist 

Church. 

3. Governance Structures 

3.1 The original proposals envisaged a 

separate governance structure for 

the DMLN and a Network Committee 

having responsibility for directing 

the affairs and policies of the DMLN 

on behalf of the Conference and 

the Council. This governance body 


451


was also to have control of the 

Network’s resources, deploying 

them for the Network’s purposes. It 

was envisaged that this governance 

structure would be accountable 

directly to the Conference and report 

annually to the Conference. 

3.2 Further work on this structure has 

identified the need to ensure that 

the governance structures of the 

DMLN are closely integrated into 

the governance structures of the 

Methodist Church as a whole. For 

example, the SRC, on behalf of the 

Methodist Council, has oversight and 

responsibility for the Connexional 

Team. As staff of the DMLN will 

be members of staff within the 

Connexional Team, it is vital that 

they are held within our existing 

governance and accountability 

structures. 

3.3 It is proposed that the new 

governance structure for the DMLN 

takes the form of a committee of the 

Council, reporting to the Council and 

thereby ensuring that the Council, 

with appropriate advice from the 

SRC, retains responsibility for the 

Network staff and has oversight 

of the Network budget which will 

fall within the Central Services 

budget. Through the established 

budgeting process the Council will 

provide the Network Committee 

with its resources and the Network 

Committee will facilitate how 

these resources are utilised to 

fulfil the objectives of the DMLN. 

The Conference and the Council, 

on advice from the Ministries 

Committee, have responsibility for 

policy. The Ministries Committee 

will therefore work closely with 

the Network Committee to ensure 

appropriate implementation of 

agreed policies. Mechanisms for the 

exact nature of this close working are 

currently being evolved. 

3.4 The Network Committee will have 

responsibility for ensuring the income 

generating centres (Methodist 

International Centre and the Guy 

Chester Centre) generate as much 

income as possible. The Network 

Committee will be responsible for 

preparing the Network’s budget in 

light of the estimated income and 

work to be undertaken. The SRC 

will need to ensure scrutiny of the 

budget prior to submission, as part 

of the Central Services budget to the 

Council and the Conference. 

3.5 The Queen’s Foundation– Future 

Accountability 

The Queen’s Foundation is an 

independent Methodist-Anglican 

charitable entity with its own 

governance structure. It is not 

possible or desirable for the 

Methodist Church to place the 

Foundation directly within the 

governance of the Network 

Committee. It is therefore necessary 

to formalise and regulate the 

relationship between the Foundation, 

the Network Committee and the 

Council by way of a Partnership 

Agreement. The Foundation will 

be accountable to the Network 

452 



Committee for the work they are 

directed to undertake for the 

Network and will need to report 

annually to the Network Committee 

in respect of such work. This is a 

new partnership way of working 

which sees the Foundation playing 

a significant role in the DMLN as 

envisaged but now formalised in 

a Partnership Agreement. This 

agreement is currently being 

prepared and will detail mutual 

expectations, how work will be 

directed, how this work will be 

funded and the responsibilities of 

all parties. The original purpose of 

the Network Committee to exercise 

reflective, collaborative, ambitious, 

and prophetic oversight of the 

DMLN (para 250.1 of the Fruitful 

Field report) will be achieved via 

the partnership agreement with the 

Foundation. 

3.6 Cliff College – Future 

Accountability 

The Methodist Council will continue 

to delegate managing trusteeship 

for Cliff College to the Cliff College 

Committee which will need to report 

annually to the Council on the 

fulfilment of its managing trustee 

responsibilities. The Cliff College 

Committee will be accountable to the 

Network Committee for the work the 

College is instructed to undertake for 

the Network and will need to report 

to the Network Committee in that 

respect. Terms of management will 

be drafted between the Methodist 

Council, the Network Committee 

and Cliff College Committee to 

ensure that all parties are aware 

of their responsibilities, reporting 

requirements, membership of the 

Committee, how the Network will 

direct work to be undertaken and 

how this work will be funded. 

3.7 Conclusion. 

The proposed governance structure 

represents a departure from the 

proposals in the Fruitful Field report. 

However, it provides a feasible, 

realistic and durable structure that 

will enable the Network to fulfil its 

purposes. What is proposed here 

ensures that the Council and the SRC 

are able to meet their responsibilities 

for the Connexional Team and the 

Central Services budget as well 

as respecting existing governance 

structures, particularly of the 

Queen’s Foundation. 

3.8 In April 2013 the Council approved 

the establishment of a Discipleship 

and Ministries Learning Network 

Committee and the Council therefore 

recommends to the Conference 

that the proposed governance 

arrangements, as set out in this 

report, are adopted and a Standing 

Order to give effect to this is set out 

in the resolutions below. 

4. Staffing 

This section reports on progress in 

respect of staffing transition and the 

decisions agreed about the shape 

and structure of DMLN staffing by the 

Methodist Council as the employing 

body. 


453


Summary of the Key Staffing 

Recommendations of the Fruitful Field 

Project Report 

4.1 The Fruitful Field report 

recommended the establishment 

of a single team of expert staff, 

distributed across the Connexion. 

The key recommendations regarding 

the formation of the DMLN are found 

in Section H (paras.157-186) which 

needs to be considered carefully 

alongside the recommendations 

on ‘Expenditure, Funding Streams, 

Funds and Assets’, contained in 

Section L (paragraphs 259-270) of 

the report. 

4.2 The report recommended the 

formation of a single team of expert 

staff focused upon the four purposes 

of the Network: 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

discipleship development; 

ministry development (lay and 

ordained); 

church and community 

development; 


innovation. 

4.3 Regional Teams – paragraph 

164 recommended the setting 

up of regional teams which would 

‘normally’ consist of five full-time 

postholders - ‘normally’ in this 

context recognised the fact that the 

eventual configuration of regions 

might result in regions that were 

irregular in terms of their geography, 

membership, numbers of ordained 

staff etc. Five focuses for posts were 

recommended: 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

the development of lay 

ministries and roles 

(para.164.1); 

the development of ordained 

ministries and roles (164.2); 

the development of the 

gathered ministry of the church 

community (164.3); 


dispersed ministry of the 

church community (164.4); 


diversity of the church 

community (164.5). 

In addition to individual focuses of 

responsibility, the report envisages 

that up to 25% of staff time would be 

utilitised for a number of additional 

activities including discipleship 

development (para.166.1), 


(para.166.2), working in partnership 

across and beyond the Methodist 

Church (paras.166.3 and 166.4) and 

quality assurance and enhancement 

(para.166.5). One of the post holders 

would be identified as a ‘coordinator’ 

(para.167). 

4.4 Centre-Based Posts – the report 

went on to recommend the setting 

up of staff teams within centres 

(The Queen’s Foundation and Cliff 

College). The report envisaged that 

posts within this category would have 

a primary focus on either ministry 

development in all its forms or 

church and community development 

(paras.173.1 and 173.2). In addition 

454 



to this primary task each post is 

envisaged as having capacity for 

various combinations of the following 

activities: 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

discipleship development 

(para.174.1); 


innovation (para.174.2); 

working in partnership within 

and beyond the Methodist 

Church (paras.174.3 and 

174.4); 

quality assurance and 

enhancement. 

It should be noted that these posts 

were envisaged as additional posts 

to those posts at the Queen’s 

Foundation and Cliff College which 

are not currently funded by the 

Methodist Church (para.176). 

4.5 The Coordinating Team – in the 

report (para.178) the setting up of 

a coordinating team consisting of 

eight directors including a director 

of the Network, the Principals of 

the Queen’s Foundation and Cliff 

College, a director of the regional 

teams, a director of discipleship 

development, a director of ministry 

development, a director of church 

and community development and a 

director of scholarship, research and 

innovation, was recommended. 

4.6 It should also be noted that the 

report recommended that the DMLN 

incorporate within its work the 

majority of work currently undertaken 

by the Discipleship and Ministries 

Cluster of the Connexional Team 

(para.183) including: chaplaincy; 

children and youth; evangelism, 

spirituality and discipleship; and 

ministries, learning and development 

(para.182). The implication of the 

report was that significant amounts 

of policy, advocacy and development 

work currently undertaken in the 

Cluster would be delivered by the 

DMLN, including the work of the 

Youth President and the Methodist 

Children and Youth Assembly 

(para.184). 

Changing Needs and Complexities 

4.7 In the eight months following the 

2012 Conference those charged with 

the implementation of those sections 

of the report as adopted by the 

Conference faced a number of issues 

and complexities which created 

challenges in the development of 

the staffing structure. These focused 

around five main issues. 

i 

ii 

Governance and centres - as 

outlined above. 

Network Regions – the 

Methodist Council at its 

meeting in January 2013 

agreed the configuration of the 

Network regions, comprising 

nine regions in England and one 

each in Wales and Scotland. 

The regions established are 

varied in size and context and 

this inevitably impacts upon 

the staff distribution across the 

regions. 


455


iii 

Cluster links – it became clear 

that it would be necessary 

to retain a number of posts 

previously located within the 

Discipleship & Ministries 

Cluster for three reasons: 

(1) the specific configuration of 

some roles, eg a role focused 

on the processes connected 

to candidating, allocations and 

oversight of pre-ordination 

students, a role requiring close 

working with Development & 

Personnel; 

(2) there are a number of roles 

now located in the Discipleship 

& Ministries Cluster that 

were not so located when the 

2012 report was considered 

by the 2012 Conference, 

eg education, the Inspire 

Project , VentureFX and Fresh 

Expressions and the Family 

Ministry Development Officer 

post; 

(3) there are some areas of 

work that whilst connecting 

with DMLN are not best served 

by being in it and which are 

funded via different, nonnetwork 

sources, eg the Forces 

Board, and the National Rural 

Officer. This also has a number 

of implications in the design 

and implementation of the 

staffing of the Network. 

The challenges created by these 

complexities resulted in staffing 

plans agreed by the Methodist 

Council as the employing body of the 

Connexional Team which aim to: 

●● 

●● 

●● 

first and foremost retain 

the purpose of the 

recommendations made to the 

Conference; 

be reasonably cautious in order 

to ensure that the DMLN is 

sustainable within the scope of 

the Budget agreed; 

create a team of expert staff 

that is cohesive and fit for 

purpose. 

Revised Staffing Model: An Overview 

4.8 Design Principles and Criteria. The 

following key design principles have 

been factored into the staffing model 

described in what follows: 

a) The aim is to establish a DMLN 

staff team which is part of the 

Connexional Team and located 

across the Connexion. 

b) The purposes of the DMLN 

are (The Fruitful Field Project 

report, para.117ff): 

Discipleship development 

– to support discipleship 

development across the 

Connexion; 

Ministry development – to 

support ministry development, 

in all its forms, across the 

Connexion; 

Church and community 

development – to support 


development across the 

Connexion; 

Scholarship, research and 

456 



innovation – to nurture apt and 

excellent scholarship, research 

and innovation within the 

Network to inform, equip and 

challenge the Connexion. 

c) To achieve these ends the 

Team will (The Fruitful Field 

report, para.158): 

– Focus on serving and 

supporting circuits, local 

churches and districts, working 

with all those who lead and 

serve local churches and 

circuits; 

– Work through interactive 

relationships and in dialogue 

with local communities – 

their diverse and continually 

developing contexts, needs and 

aspirations; 

– Provide a coherent, 

comprehensive and excellent 

service through embodying 

a breadth of knowledge and 

skills, through working to 

enhance the quality of its 

work, and through being wellcoordinated. 

d) In addition to these core 

principles, the following factors 

have been woven into the 

design of the staff team model: 

– The need to ensure that in 

any revision of the staffing 

model the needs of local 

churches, circuits and districts 

and the staffing of regions 

are prioritised, enabling key 

focuses upon discipleship 

development, small group 

development, local ministry 

development (including 

Worship Leaders and Local 

Preachers), practice-based 

formation, youth participation, 

children and youth work 

training and Superintendent 

training and church and district 

development to be adequately 

resourced and supported. 

– The need for simplicity, 

ensuring that the DMLN does 

not become too bureaucratic; 

– The need to ensure that the 

structure of the staff team is 

part of the Connexional Team 

to ensure both synergy and 

accountability to the Council as 

the employer; 

– The need to be financially 

responsible ensuring that the 

budget can be met. 

4.9 The Staffing Model – these factors 

led to the following proposal: 


457


Staff located in regions 

11 Regional Coordinators (one per region) 

33 Regional Staff (distributed across the regions) 

Staff not connected to a particular region 

3 Specialist Team Coordinators (Discipleship Development; Ministry Development; 

Church & Community Development) 

5 Practitioner Staff 

1 Youth President 

There will also be a number of specialist staff within the Queen’s Foundation and Cliff 

College 

Directors 

1 Director of Scholarship, Research & Innovation 

1 Director of Learning & Development (Pathways) 

1 Director of Learning & Development (Regions ) 

This group will be overseen by the Head of Discipleship & Ministries, 

This is represented in graphic form as follows – 

458 



4.10 The key role within each regional 

team is that of the Regional 

Coordinator - as well as being 

actively engaged in learning and 

development, they will have a 

number of line management and 

coordinating responsibilities for the 

regional team, helping the team 

define its work plan in relation 

to both local, circuit, district and 

regional needs and connexional 

priorities, working with District 

Chairs. The Regional Coordinator will 

have an important role in helping 

to develop connexional pathways 


regionally and locally whilst paying 

attention to the particular needs of 

the region in which they are located. 

It is anticipated that the relationship 

between the Regional Coordinator 

and the Chairs of District will be key. 

4.11 A significant issue in determining 

the shape of regional staff teams is 

the balance between specialist and 

generic skills within the team as a 

whole, especially given the range of 

tasks envisaged by the Fruitful Field 

report. The appropriate balance of 

specialist and generic skills within 

459


a regional team is key but it is also 

recognised that a certain number of 

specialist skills need to be available 

in each team. These specialisms will 

include the following in line with the 

key purposes of the Fruitful Field 

report: 

●● 

discipleship development – 

focusing on the discipleship 

agenda of the Church; 

●● 

ministry development – 

focusing on the ministry of lay 

and ordained; 

●● 


development – focusing on 

the ongoing development of 

circuits and districts; and on 

the development of diverse and 

dispersed communities. 

It was also recognised that these 

teams could be a mixture of full-time 

and part-time, lay and ordained. 

4.12 At the same time, there is value in 

not being too prescriptive about the 

way in which a regional team might 

operate, especially in advance of the 

staff of the DMLN being appointed. 

This allows the team flexibility 

in developing a work plan, in 

consultation with the two Directors of 

Learning and Development, to reflect 

specialist skills within the team, to 

develop practitioner networks in 

churches, circuits and districts to 

support delivery, and to adjust to 

particular contextual needs within 

the region through consultation with 

District Chairs. 

4.13 A proposal on the precise distribution 

of regional staff across the Network 

regions was presented at the 

District Chairs’ meeting in March. 

The names of the regions and the 

numbers of staff allocated to them 

were discussed and with the Chairs 

agreement was presented to the 

Methodist Council for approval. 

Region FTE 

Scotland & Shetland 2 

The North East 3 

Yorkshire Plus 5 

The North West & Man 7.5 

East Central 4.5 

The Bristol & West Midlands 4.5 

Cymru Wales 3 

East of England 3.5 

London 3.5 

The South West 3 

Southern & Islands 4.5 

4.14 It needs to be recognised that whilst 

these roles are dispersed across 

regions, they remain Connexional 

Team roles. Within the work plan 

of every regional team and for 

every staff member there needs 

to be space which allows regional 

team members to work across 

regional boundaries and across the 

Connexion as needed, supporting 

delivery, policy, pathway and 

strategic development, ecumenical 

partnership and quality assurance. 

Staff not connected to a particular region 

4.15 The model above assumes the 

creation of three teams focused 

460 



upon the core work areas of ministry 

development (lay and ordained), 

discipleship development, and 

church and community development. 

The term ‘specialist’ staff picks up 

part of the emphasis in the Fruitful 

Field report concerning the creation 

of staff teams in Centres whilst 

taking it further to enable stronger 

links between Centres and Regions, 

and between policy, strategy and 

practice based learning. This model 

assumes the creation of staff who 

will be part of the Connexional 

Team but will be based within the 

two centres along with staff who 

will be based at and employed by 

the Queen’s Foundation or Cliff 

College – although as outlined 

below it is assumed that Regional 

and Specialist staff, Centre Tutors 

together with coordinators and 

Directors will together form one 

Network, even whilst there is some 

diversity of employer. These 

groups will have the following 

responsibilities: 

●● 

●● 

●● 

To provide links into the Higher 

Education sector through the 

Centres, thereby ensuring the 

development of good links 

between theory and practice, 

feeding this into the Network; 

Supporting and facilitating 

policy, advocacy and strategy 

development work in these 

areas working alongside others 

within DMLN; 

Enabling the development 

of practitioner networks not 

limited to staff within the 

●● 

●● 

Connexional Team ; 

A focus on field-based work 

supporting the work of regional 

teams in the development of 

their strategy and practice 

and working intensively with 

Districts and Circuits in a 

coordinated way to develop 

examples of good practice; 

To coordinate, the work of 

DMLN across the Connexion 

and to support and deliver 

particular pieces of connexional 

work (eg 3Generate, 

Connecting Disciples, 

Superintendents’ conferences). 

4.16 It is recommended that these 

three specialist teams, working 

under the Director of Learning 

and Development (Pathways) will 

have a particular responsibility for 

ensuring that the DMLN purposes 

are implemented, whilst recognising 

the need for these work streams 

to overlap at significant points with 

other members of the DMLN team. 

These practitioner teams will also 

build relationships with appropriate 

regional and centre staff and others 

outside of the DMLN. 

4.17 The Church and Community 

practitioner group will contain expert 

staff in Children & Youth Ministry and 

Chaplaincy and the Youth President 

post will be located in this team. 

4.18 It is envisaged that a number 

of posts (Centre tutors) will be 

supported through direct funding 

of the Queen’s Foundation and Cliff 


461


Directors 

College (as a result of the future 

accountability models proposed 

in section 3) in addition to those 

posts which the Queen’s Foundation 

and Cliff College currently support 

through other means (eg from 

funding from the Church of England 

or from independent student fees). 

It is worth emphasising, however, 

that both the Queen’s Foundation 

and Cliff College seek a deeply 

embedded, mutual partnership with 

staff contributing to the work of 

regions and a variety of pathways. 

4.19 This model envisages fewer Directors 

than envisaged in the Fruitful Field 

Report. This partly reflects an 

attempt to focus finance and staffing 

where it is most required but is also 

considered a better working model 

for the following reasons: 

●● 

●● 

●● 

It provides a simplified and 

more integrated structure 

ensuring that the DMLN does 

not become detached from the 

rest of the Connexional Team. 

It offers a less hierarchical and 

bureaucratic structure, and 

allows decision making and 

leadership to be concentrated 

at the points where it is most 

needed. 

It places some of the functions 

and responsibilities envisaged 

in the original ‘directorate’ 

within a number of coordinating 

roles (specialist, regional and 

Centre Principals) which link 

role more closely to practice 

whilst ensuring appropriate 

levels of accountability and 

authority and minimising 

potential conflicts of interest. 

4.20 The Director for Scholarship, 

Research and Innovation (SRI) will 

be located as a full-time position 

within the DMLN. The Fruitful Field 

report is clear about the importance 

of underpinning the life and activity 

of the DMLN, within the context of 

the broader learning activities of the 

Church, with scholarship, research 

and innovation. It is proposed that 

a Director of SRI be located in close 

association with a community of 

scholarship and research. 

4.21 This model assumes that the roles 

of the Principal of the Queen’s 

Foundation and the Principal of Cliff 

College will be supported through 

funding agreements agreed with 

each party rather than through 

separate, additional funding for the 

role of Director/Principal. It does, 

however, assume that they will 

be part of the ‘Lead Staff’ of the 

Network and be a key part of the 

ongoing discussion relating to the 

work of the DMLN. 

Ways of Working 

4.22 The pattern of work which the 

DMLN develops needs to be both 

connexional and contextual if it is to 

be a truly ‘connected’ way of working. 

The Network will benefit from being 

seen both as a Connexional Team 

462 



of staff based at Methodist Church 

House as well as staff based across 

the Connexion. This approach 

represents a different kind of 

working from one in which everything 

is centrally driven but also from one 

in which local needs are the only 

concern without reflection upon the 

needs of the whole. 

4.23 These structures will include: 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

line management and 

accountability that is 

appropriate for dispersed 

members of the Connexional 

Team; 

working with the Connexional 

Team’s agreed ‘Ways of 

Working’ 

the development of a work plan 

that balances the needs and 

expectations of the Connexion 

and the region, through a 

participative process that 

includes a Regional Network 

Forum and allows a work flow 

pattern that facilitates Circuit 

and District interaction with 

the regional structure of the 

Network; 

a Regional Learning and 

Development Network Forum 

that builds on the strengths of 

the former Regional Training 

Network Forums; 

regular meetings of the 

Regional and Specialist Team 

Coordinators; 

Network conferences for all 

Network and associated staff. 

4.24 The proposals regarding the staffing 

of the DMLN as set out in this report 

were approved by the Methodist 

Council, as the employing body of 

all Connexional Team staff in April 

2013. The Council recognised 

that the proposals varied from the 

staffing structure as set out in the 

Fruitful Field report and as such 

the Council passed the following 

resolution:- ‘R 38/2 The Council 

approves the changes to the 

proposals in respect of staffing as 

set out in the Fruitful Field report 

so as to enable the more effective 

establishment of the Discipleship 

and Ministries Learning Network.’ 

The proposed staffing of the DMLN 

has implications for the staffing 


Cluster and in accordance with the 

relevant Council policies the required 

legal consultations regarding 

redundancies have taken place. 

5. Responding to Notice of Motion 

102 

In passing Notice of Motion (NoM) 

102 the 2012 Conference directed 

the Methodist Council to oversee 

such processes as may be required 

to maintain, develop and promote 

relationships with university 

theological departments and the 

opportunities already available to 

further Methodist scholarship for the 

benefit for the whole Church. This 

section of the report sets out the 

process which has been and is being 

developed to fulfil this requirement, 

within the context of the broader 


463


work being done to cement the 

central place of Scholarship, 

Research and Innovation within the 

DMLN and the Church more broadly. 

Context: 

5.1 In many ways, NoM 102 reinforced 

what was contained within the 

Fruitful Field report, which identified 


(SRI) as a core purpose of the DMLN, 

including staff time across the 

Connexion, and a senior coordinating 

post within DMLN to direct SRI. The 

Fruitful Field report contains within 

it sufficient commitment to this area 

of the Church’s life that, as the DMLN 

begins to come into formal existence 

and as appointments are made, a 

clear and direct response to the NoM 

will be lived out naturally. 

5.2 Alongside this general affirmation, 

the Conference provided a clear 

indication of how and why it believed 

scholarship and research should 

be sponsored by the Methodist 

Church. The Conference affirmed 

that whilst it believed scholarship 

and research should be supported 

by the Church in partnership with 

universities it should only do so 

where the scholarship and research 

activities fulfilled the purposes of 

the Fruitful Field Report and was 

considered a good use of resources. 

The purposes set out in the Fruitful 

Field Report allow for criteria to be 

established about which types of 

SRI activity the Church can support 

directly whilst responsible good 

steward of its precious resources. 

5.3 This approach, directed by the 2012 

Conference, rightly indicated that 

it would be unwise simply to begin 

conversations with universities, 

or indeed to develop existing 

conversations, without establishing 

first a clear idea of why we are 

doing so and what we hope to gain 

from these conversations across 

the whole of the Church. Although 

recognizing that in some contexts 

there will be time-sensitive decisions 

to be made, this approach requires 

that the development of partnerships 

with Higher Education Institutions 

(HEIs) becomes an ongoing process 

over the coming months and years, 

and throughout the lifetime of the 

DMLN, as the needs and priorities of 

the Methodist Church develop. We 

must therefore prioritise the careful 

discernment of the church’s needs 

over quick decision making in local 

contexts to protect relationships 

which may ultimately not serve those 

needs in the best ways. The Church 

must maintain a clear understanding 

of why it wishes to sponsor SRI 

activity, how it will do that, how 

much resource it can commit to it, 

and what it hopes to achieve from 

it. From that point, it must sustain 

an open and enquiring approach to 

developing relationships wherever 

they can form in a manner which 

is most beneficial to achieving the 

Church’s purposes. 

5.4 Although the process for responding 

to NoM 102 may leave an unclear 

picture about specific institutional 

partnerships, the resolutions of 

464 



the 2012 Conference compel us to 

seek excellence. We should hold 

throughout this process a renewed 

confidence that what the Methodist 

Church will have to offer through 

the newly formed DMLN will make it 

a far more appealing and stronger 

partner in any relationship with 

an HEI than has previously been 

possible, presenting to it a large, 

well-resourced and coherent body 

of people and activities across all of 

Britain. The Conference should be 

assured that working to develop a 

strong, coordinated, coherent and 

well-managed DMLN is the best way 

to ensure beneficial relationships 

with HEIs in the longer term. 

5.5 Conversations with HEIs indicate 

that moving to a model of fewer 

Methodist ‘institutions’ with their 

own independent partnership 

arrangements may in fact bring much 

greater opportunity for the Methodist 

Church to approach universities 

about SRI. The Council will oversee 

the prioritising of partnerships in this 

respect. 

Implementation 

5.6 Establishing SRI definitions and 

purposes 

The Fruitful Field report set out a 

number of practical commitments 

to SRI provision which are of direct 

relevance to this work. Using these 

as a starting point, alongside 

information and opinions voiced 

in the consultations run prior and 

subsequent to the Conference’s 

decisions, the Implementation 

Management Team (IMT) identified 

two initial pieces of work to be 

undertaken to enable the Methodist 

Church to begin thinking through 

potential partnerships which will 

enable the church best to fulfil its 

priorities and the commitments 

made by Conference. 

The two pieces of work are: 

●● 

●● 

to define what the Methodist 

Church understands 


innovation to be; 

to establish a clear and 

succinct description of the 

purposes for which the Church 

is committed to sponsoring SRI 

activity. 

Documents setting out these two 

areas of work and seeking views 

from across the connexion have been 

in circulation since early 2013 and 

these form the basis for consultation 

exercises set out below. 

5.7 Establishing Priority Fields 

Following on from and making use 

of these definitional pieces of work, 

a further key activity necessary 

before detailed conversations can be 

undertaken with HEIs is to establish 

as a Church the broad subject areas 

of SRI activity which our members 

and partners feel should be priorities 

for us over an initial period of three 

- five years. Establishing research 

priorities is common practice 

amongst a range of world-class 


465


learning and research institutions. 

Establishing the SRI priorities will 

ensure a coordinated approach 

across the Connexion which will 

inform, equip and challenge 

the Connexion. Establishing the 

priorities will also allow us to have 

more fruitful conversations with HEI 

partners and to build relationships 

with departments (Theology and 

otherwise) within universities where 

their resources and expertise best 

match our own needs. 

To achieve this for the Methodist 

Church, a call for input has been 

sent across our existing learning 

infrastructure, our committees, to 

local churches and circuits, and 

partner organisations. The majority 

of submissions are now received 

and work has begun on determining 

the process for discernment of 

the submissions, aiming to have in 

place before the beginning of the 

Connexional Year 2013/2014 a clear 

statement of the SRI priorities of the 

Methodist Church. 

5.8 Identifying existing relationships 

There is detailed knowledge resulting 

from the Fruitful Field consultation 

exercise and the work surrounding 

that which relates to our primary 

partner HEIs, with which we have 

formalised relationships through 

learning institutions. There is, 

however, less information available 

regarding those relationships 

which exist outside of our learning 

institutions, with groups, regions, 

committees etc. In response to 

the need for more information on 

relationships outside the learning 

institutions, the IMT has issued a 

further call for information across the 

Connexion, asking for details about 

SRI-related partnerships and shared 

activities/events which already take 

place in the life of the Church. 

Data received through this call for 

information will be used to ensure 

that, in responding to NoM 102, the 

full breadth of existing opportunities 

is respected, and our connexional 

approach to Church is fully 

recognised. The call for information 

will remain open as long as possible. 

5.9 Exploring the types of HEI 

relationships that do or could exist 

Relationships with universities can 

be various, and it is important that 

the Methodist Church protects 

and encourages different types of 

relationships, rather than simply 

seeing an unspecified relationship 

with any particular HEI as simply a 

‘good thing’. The church, at this point, 

is a customer of the universities and 

therefore maintaining or establishing 

any form of relationship which draws 

on their resources will cost the church 

money and other resources. An 

important piece of work is currently 

underway within the Implementation 

Management Team (IMT) which is 

seeking to identify within our current 

learning infrastructure the types of 

relationships which exist with HEIs, 

the benefits these relationships can 

bring to the Church, the costs of the 

relationships, the limitations, the 

466 



breadth of their impact on the life 

of the Church, the reliance of such 

relationships on local contextual 

factors and the longer term viability 

of those relationships. A long list 

of these relationships is therefore 

being drawn up by members of the 

IMT and the Connexional Team and 

in our current learning institutions. 

This list is being shared regularly 

with members of the Implementation 

Executive (IE), who are providing 

comment and feedback as 

necessary. Details about specific 

configurations and locations of 

relationships are being explored 

under the categories: 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

Validation Relationships 

Provision of teaching or 

research training/oversight 

Provision of a broader 

intellectual community within 

which Methodist students can 

work 

Provision of office and learning 

spaces and physical resources 

Provision of specialist technical 

services 

Church influence within the 

context of an HEI and HE more 

generally 

Research or Study ‘Centres’, 

Fellowships or Chairs 

Exchange Programmes. 

5.10 Ongoing work to maintain and 

develop these types of relationship 

where they currently exist and add 

demonstrable value to the Church 

Working from this list of the types of 

relationship that can exist, members 

of the IMT, the Implementation 

Executive and the Connexional Team 

have begun a process of targeted 

consultation to explore where and 

with whom some of these might 

possibly be pursued within the 

future life of the DMLN. This is a 

sensitive and complex task that 

will evolve creatively, and which 

is also impacted on by external 

factors (such as the Common 

Awards partnership with the Church 

of England), but has at its core a 

commitment to: 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

speaking with key 

representatives from all our 

existing learning institutions 

and working with them to 

identify their own ideas about 

the possibilities of future 

relationships between their 

partner HEIs and the Methodist 

Church; 

speaking with key 

representatives from all of 

those partner HEIs where, 

through our own learning 

institution contacts or through 

other means, the possibility of 

fruitful interaction in the future 

seems realistic; 

ensuring that the DMLN is 

fully informed about how 

relationships with current 

HEI partners can be well and 

best managed as they either 

come to a close or evolve into 

something new; 

speaking with a range 

of Methodists involved, 

through work outside of the 


467


management of the Church 

but in the context of or in 

partnership with universities 

and HE institutions, to develop 

broader thinking around 

new and creative ideas for 

partnership between the 

Church and HEIs. 

By mid-March 2013 contact had 

been made with one or more key 

contacts in each of our learning 

institutions on this specific matter, 

either separately from or included 

within broader conversations 

relating to institutional changes. 

From January 2013, a programme 

of targeted conversations with a 

range of Methodist academics or 

HEI/HE-related employees in non- 

Methodist institutions was also set 

in motion. As this process continues, 

the IE is mindful that detailed work 

has been and is being done by staff 

members and trustees of the Wesley 

Studies Centre and Wesley House, 

Cambridge to explore how those 

institutions could offer to the church 

possible models for continuing 

relationships with their associated 

HEIs. The possibilities which these 

present are being examined in detail 

and additional meetings have been 

and are being arranged specifically 

to address whether and how the 

church might meaningfully engage 

with proposals being made by those 

institutions. 

5.11 Future decisions 

Further work will be undertaken after 

the 2013 Conference in exploring 

the developing possibilities emerging 

from these initial conversations 

and the development of the DMLN, 

to establish where and with whom 

relationships with universities 

can and should therefore be best 

maintained, developed or promoted. 

The following questions will be 

used as key to all decision making, 

ensuring that the mission priorities 

of the Church shape its decision 

making for scholarship and research, 

as for all aspects of its activity: 

●● 

●● 

●● 

Which relationships have the 

best potential to enable the 

church’s SRI priorities to be 

developed and disseminated to 

the highest quality and in the 

most mission-focused ways and 

according to agreed criteria? 

Which relationships will best 

encourage coherence, crossfertilisation 

and meaningful 

impact across the DMLN, to 

the benefit of those whom it 

serves? 

Which relationships represent 

the most responsible use of 

resources, in terms of time and 

money? 

5.12 Exploring Broader Opportunities 

A much greater range of work 

relating to SRI activities other than 

those set out in this report has been 

undertaken by the IMT. This work 

will provide creative and exciting 

opportunities for developing our 

relationships with HEIs and impact 

directly on the practical response to 

468 



NoM 102. The IE is receiving regular 

reports on these developments, 

amongst which the most relevant 

include: 

a. An evolving relationship across 

our learning infrastructure with 

Durham University through the 

Common Awards scheme. Work 

around the scheme includes 

not only the validation of 

awards, but also the provision 

of opportunity for students 

to attend summer schools 

run by Durham University, to 

benefit from the research and 

scholarly activity undertaken 

by the academic staff of the 

University, to access web-based 

materials, including podcasts of 

special lectures and seminars, 

and some additional specialist 

modules. Methodist tutors will 

also have the opportunity to 

attend dedicated conferences 

in Durham focusing both on 

pedagogical issues and also 

on scholarship in important but 

neglected areas. 

b. The development of a body of 

distinguished DMLN ‘Fellows’: 

an honorary body of people 

committed to the DMLN with 

the purpose of ensuring it has 

access to the best possible 

minds, the best guidance and 

the best skills, particularly 

from those associated with 

HEIs across Britain. We will 

aim to bring into our fold 

the biggest names amongst 

leaders in areas of SRI, who 

can bring a higher profile to our 

activities, provide inspiration 

and leadership to Methodists, 

bring closer relationships 

with their own HEI partners, 

and demonstrate the forward 

thinking approach to SRI being 

taken by the Church. 

c. Plans for the provision of 

targeted scholarships that will 

sponsor excellence amongst 

Methodists, lay and ordained, 

and support the development 

of excellence in those contexts 

which are best suited to that 

development. This will include 

grants and scholarships for 

individuals across a range of 

leading HEIs in Britain and 

abroad, to nurture our future 

leaders, theological educators 

and innovative pioneers – 

those employed by the Church, 

ministers of the Methodist 

Church and lay Methodists more 

broadly – in their chosen fields. 

d. The development of formal 

scholarly networks of 

Methodists in HE, and 

Methodist-sponsored scholars, 

with dedicated support, 

mentoring and broader 

provision from within the 

Church, encouraging the 

common growth of a body 

of individuals across the HEI 

sector who are committed to 

the life and priorities of the 

Methodist Church and who are 


469


likely to contribute to its work in 

the future. 

e. The development of an 

‘Excellence in Leadership’ 

scheme that will identify from 

those exercising ministries 

within the Methodist Church 

people who have exceptional 

potential for leadership 

in a range of areas (lay 

and ordained). Within that 

broader process will sit a 

process for identifying those 

with potential to be leaders 

in the Methodist Church 

in areas of SRI, including 

excellence in academic 

and academic-related 

ability (future theological 

scholars), and dedicated 

development pathways, 

including sponsorship through 

particularly focused and highlevel 

HEI courses. 

f. Work to explore British 

located partnerships through 

the Methodist e-Academy: 

an initiative of Methodist 

Churches throughout Europe 

which seeks to meet the 

challenge of equipping people 

for ordained and lay leadership 

using the internet and modern 

technologies to overcome some 

of the problems associated 

with dispersed learners. The 

provision includes the use 

of interactive tutorials and 

opportunities for students to 

meet together and thus offers 

significant opportunities for 

sharing and learning from the 

experiences of others in very 

different HE contexts. 

6. Conclusion 

This report outlines the substantial 

amount of work undertaken since 

the 2012 Conference. The work has 

been undertaken against a difficult 

backdrop, however, the overall aim 

has remained to stay true to the 

vision of the Fruitful Field report. 

Returning to that report we are 

reminded that the Methodist Church 

values deeply its activities in the 

fields of formation, learning, training, 

theological education, scholarship, 

research and development. Through 

its support of these activities within 

and across the Connexion, the 

Conference fulfils some fundamental 

aspects of its purpose and calling. 

At their best, these activities help 

to nurture and equip the Methodist 

people to be Christ-like disciples 

in an often un-Christ-like but never 

Christ-less world. At their best, 

these activities help to form and 

equip those called to a wide range 

of ministries and roles within and 

beyond the life of the Church to be 

effective leaders and servants of 

God’s mission. At their best, these 

activities challenge and equip 

Circuits and Local Churches as 

they change and grow as Christian 

communities of faith, hope, love 

and mission. It is to that vision of a 

Church continuing to engage in God’s 

mission through these activities that 

we remain committed. 

470 





41/2. The Conference adopts the recommendation of the Council in respect of the 

creation of a Discipleship and Ministries Learning Network Committee as set out 

in this report. 

41/3. The Conference adopts the Standing Order 32A3: 

SO 32A3 Network Committee 

(1) The Methodist Council shall annually appoint a Network Committee which 

shall work collaboratively with the Council, the Ministries Committee and 

the Strategy and Resources Committee in developing and maintaining the 

learning and training of lay people and ministers and the pursuit of scholarship, 

research and innovation throughout the Connexion. 

(2) The committee shall:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

(v) 

(vi) 

(v) 

exercise such managing trustee responsibilities and duties as may be 

delegated to it by the Council; 

be responsible for ensuring the generation of income from those 

centres for which the committee has managing trustee responsibilities 

and the appropriate use of the resources so generated; 

review and monitor the fulfilment of the terms of all agreements reached 

between the Council and any training institutions with which the Council 

has agreements; 

work collaboratively with the Ministries Committee to ensure the 

implementation of connexional policy as respects learning, training, 

scholarship, research and innovation; 

make an annual report to the Strategy and Resources Committee on 

all financial matters relating to the centres and training institutions for 

which the committee has managing trustee responsibilities. 

make an annual report to the Ministries Committee; 

undertake such other tasks as the Council may delegate to it. 

41/4. The Conference appoints the following as members of the Network Committee 

and directs that all future appointments to the Committee shall be the 

responsibility of the Council; Names to be provided on the Order Paper. 


471

42. Ministries Committee 


The Revd Leo Osborn 

Chair of the Ministries Committee 

leo.osborn@talk21.com 

Subject and Aims Report on the work of the Committee in 2012/13 


1.1 The Ministries Committee has 

met five times (once residentially) 

since the 2012 Conference. Earlier 

meetings were taken up with both 

governance and oversight issues until 

the Implementation Management 

Team and Implementation Executive 

had been established and the 


Network (DMLN) had begun to take 

shape following the resolutions of 

2012 Conference in response to 

The Fruitful Field Project report. 

The Committee was particularly 

grateful for the wisdom and skill of 

the consultants who advised them 

and to Siôn Rhys-Evans for his 

expertise and support. During the 

latter part of the year, the Committee 

has been more able to concentrate 

on oversight matters particularly in 

relation to ministerial formation, both 

in commissioning work and receiving 

reports on work undertaken. This 

report focuses on the progress made 

in respect of developing learning and 

training of lay people and ministers in 

response to the Fruitful Field report. 

Other aspects of the implementation 

of the resolutions of the 2012 

Conference are presented within the 


Network report to the Conference. 

1.2 Much work has begun in a number 

of important areas that had been 

previously highlighted as crucial 

and, whilst issues relating to initial 

ministerial formation are important, 

the Committee would, through this 

report, want to respectfully remind 

the Conference and the wider 

Connexion that the Fruitful Field is 

about a great deal more than that. It 

is about formation, learning, training, 

theological education, scholarship, 

research and development. It is 

about the future of the Methodist 

Church’s connexional learning 

resources. It is about equipping the 

Methodist Church and its ministries 

in all of its contexts and formational 

communities, and equipping God’s 

people for discipleship and mission. 

Members of the Conference are 

warmly invited to attend the two 

workshops arranged under the 

auspices of the Ministries Committee 

around pathways for Local Preachers 

and Worship Leaders and local 

pastoral ministry and to offer input 

into this ongoing work. The members 

of the Committee continue to be 

grateful to the Conference for 

entrusting them with the privilege 

of helping form disciples of Jesus 

and thank you for your continuing 

prayers. 



2. Fresh Expressions, the Fresh 

Ways Practitioners’ Forum and 

VentureFX 

2.1 The 2007 Conference affirmed and 

encouraged the priority of developing 

fresh ways of being church and the 

many and various ways in which 

this priority is being taken forward 

in the life of the Connexion. The 

2009 Conference reaffirmed this for 

Phase 2 of the Fresh Expressions 

initiative and directed the Methodist 

Council to bring annual reports 

to the Conference from 2008 to 

2013 detailing progress made 

in encouraging the priority of 

developing fresh ways of being 

church and with detailed guidance on 

how this can be further encouraged 

including any necessary changes 

to Standing Orders. This section 

comprises the fourth of these 

reports. 

2.2 The 2012 Conference passed 

resolution 52/1 (Fresh Ways 

Working Group: The Future), thereby 

receiving the report and adopting 

the recommendations set out in 

paragraphs 5.1 – 5.3 approving 

the changes necessary for work to 

develop and respond to growth in the 

life of the Connexion. The following 

sections detail the respective 

developments of this work. 

Fresh Ways Practitioners’ Forum 

2.3 The Fresh Ways Working Group was 

a Conference-appointed group, 

formed in the wake of the Mission 

Shaped Church Report, tasked with 

helping the Conference (through its 

various decision-making bodies) to 

respond to the developing ‘fresh 

ways’ of being a growing church 

in the twenty first century. It has 

undergone an informal review, and 

this year, following the decisions of 

the Conference, has evolved into a 

Practitioners’ Forum. 

2.4 The aim of the Fresh Ways 

Practitioners’ Forum (hereafter 

Forum) is to enable practitioners 

from a variety of fields to join 

together for the mutual benefit of 

their ministry and the work of the 

wider Connexion. It is a dialogical 

meeting point for those involved in 

various aspects of the Church's life in 

the UK. The Forum seeks to enable 

theological reflection on aspects of 

ministry and mission from and by 

practitioners across the country. 

2.5 Practitioners are invited to 

attend a regular Forum meeting 

on the following criteria, either 

through self selection, or through 

recommendation by a Chair of 

District. 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

Members of the former Fresh 

Ways Working Group, the 

Connexional Team or the Fresh 

Expressions Team 

District Officers with a Fresh 

Ways remit 

Those leading large 

congregations with a 

membership over 200 

Those leading an inherited 


473


●● 

●● 

●● 

congregation to growth (loosely 

defined as a church with a 

membership that has been 

increasing consistently for four 

or more years) 

Those leading a linguistically, 

ethnically or culturally distinct 

congregation 

Those leading a Fresh 

Expression inside of a church 

building 

Those leading a Fresh 

Expression outside of a church 

building, including VentureFX 

pioneer missioners. 

2.6 The methodology for the Forum 

is an action-research process 

of interaction both in clustered 

subgroups and across the different 

constituencies represented. Each 

Forum focuses on a particular area 

of the Church’s work, discovering 

areas of celebration and concern. 

The outcomes of the Forum are: 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

Connexional listening, based on 

current practice and experience 

by practitioners and key 

stakeholders 

Identification of the barriers 

to continued development of 

growing churches 

Identification of the key issues 

for practitioners, especially 

working with the unchurched in 

contemporary society 

Capturing and distributing good 

practice for evangelism and 

discipleship 

Networking opportunities for 

●● 

those who often feel isolated 

and dislocated from community 

and Connexion, offering 

support and encouragement 

Cross-pollination of ideas and 

experiences from different 

parts of the Methodist 

Connexion. 

2.7 There have been two meetings of 

forum in the 2012/13. The first 

focused on broad issues faced by 

those in attendance, and piloted an 

action research model as part of a 

community of practice. The second 

focused on evangelism in the UK 

today, following on from the national 

consultation on this topic. 

2.8 The Forum reports to the Ministries 

Committee and many of the points 

raised have been fed into the 

implementation process of the DMLN 

for consideration during transition 

and development. The Forum 

will continue to be a part of the 

communities of practice within the 

DMLN. It is a key place for listening 

and learning from those engaging in 

mission, evangelism and discipleship 

in a variety of contexts throughout 

the Methodist Church. 

Venture FX 

2.9 VentureFX, the connexional 

pioneering ministries scheme, was 

established by the 2008 Conference 

and has previously reported annually 

to the Conference as part of the 

Fresh Ways Working Group (FWWG) 

report. As a substantial part of 

474 



the work formerly undertaken 

by the FWWG has now passed 

to the Ministries Committee, the 

Ministries Committee’s report to 

the Conference is now the most 

appropriate place to include 

reference to VentureFX. 

2.10 There are currently 14 pioneers 

and this, rather than the original 

complement of 20, is the maximum 

number that can be supported by 

the scheme in accordance with 

the Conference’s own decisions. 

The scheme is overseen by a 

full-time coordinator, who is a 

member of the Connexional Team, 

and is accountable to a project 

management group. 

2.11 Pioneers are deployed in England, 

Scotland and Wales and represent a 

diversity of backgrounds, interests 

and theologies. Within the pioneer 

team there is also a mixture of lay 

and ordained people, both men and 

women. Although the pioneers are 

centrally overseen and supported, 

they are individually appointed to a 

local circuit or district where a local 

management group offers another 

form of oversight and support. 

2.12 Pioneers are charged with enabling 

those with minimal or no church 

background to engage with the good 

news of Jesus. Their objective is to 

help form disciples of Jesus among 

those who are not currently being 

reached by existing forms of church, 

and then to enable appropriate 

ecclesial communities to develop. 

It is an important guiding principle 

for pioneers that their starting point 

is the community rather than the 

church, and that those who come 

to faith will often need a fresh form 

of church to which they can relate, 

rather than being fed back into 

existing congregations. At the same 

time they are conscious of the need 

to ensure that these new ecclesial 

communities are connected to 

and in a healthy relationship with 

the wider Church. All pioneers are 

actively engaged in an exploration 

of how Methodist identity may most 

appropriately be expressed in these 

emerging communities of faith. 

2.13 Pioneers tend to be highly creative 

and innovative individuals who are 

able to make effective connections 

between the Christian faith and 

those whose world is shaped by 

interests and passions such as 

art, music, sport, politics and 

concern for social justice or who 

are part of a distinctive culture 

or network. They sometimes 

speak in terms of “opening up a 

space” in which people are able to 

explore spirituality in a way which 

connects with their whole life 

experience and in which encounter 

with God and transformation of 

life becomes possible. They also 

talk of their aspiration to be an 

authentic presence of Jesus in their 

community, embodying the gospel 

in such a way that the possibility of 

Christian discipleship is opened up 

for those who are drawn to Christ but 

find it difficult to engage with more 


475


traditional forms of church. 

2.14 Punk rockers in Exeter for instance, 

are not conspicuous by their 

presence in the city’s churches, 

they are drawn to the vision of God’s 

kingdom offered to them by Jon 

Curtis who is a VentureFX pioneer 

there but who is also a member of 

punk rock band, The Cut Ups. As 

those who are instinctively drawn 

to engage with issues of social 

justice and radical politics and 

whose taste is for the alternative 

music scene, fellow punks sense 

an authenticity about Jon’s work 

which gives credence to the gospel 

he represents. Some of them are 

engaging with discussion groups 

or Christian exploration groups 

which he organises, or with the food 

distribution network he oversees 

within the city, and some are forming 

a small core of people whom Jon 

would describe as ‘journeying 

towards Jesus’. 

2.15 In South London, Winnie Gasa, 

another VentureFX pioneer, is 

working among young adults who 

have had no previous engagement 

with Church or the Christian faith. 

Others come from an experience 

of vibrant African and Caribbean 

London congregations but have 

become disillusioned or feel 

ostracised or rejected. Yet others 

have become caught up in the 

world of gangs or suffer from the 

effects of abuse, neglect or poverty. 

Winnie is working alongside other 

agencies and individuals, as well as 

existing churches, to offer support 

and the opportunity to engage with 

Christian faith and spirituality. One 

homeless man, a night-shelter 

resident for over two years, says: 

“When I was homeless I was a lost 

soul, destitute.” Through the care 

and support of Winnie and others he 

has discovered his value to God and 

speaks of his new-found Christian 

faith as “being found by Jesus.” 

2.16 Another young mother rediscovered 

faith through involvement with one 

of Winnie’s projects, Mummies 

Republic, and says: “I first came 

when I was pregnant and I started 

talking to other mums, I did not say 

at the time, but I was going through 

ante-natal depression – Mummies 

Republic helped because I got out of 

the house. Since I gave birth I was 

also finding it difficult to hold my 

new-born added with the pressures 

of nursing difficulties and the impact 

it was having on my body ... I was 

angry with God. Coming to the 

sessions helps to bring healing.” 

2.17 Many similar stories are emerging 

from the 13 VentureFX projects 

around the country. Individuals are 

being helped to make sense of the 

story of God’s love in Jesus within 

the wholeness and the complexity 

of their lives. Most of the projects 

are still relatively small and fragile; 

they will need much nurture and care 

over a protracted period of time to 

develop into fully-fledged churches 

and, when they do, they will often 

bear little resemblance to many 

476 



existing forms of church. But such 

‘fresh’ forms of church will continue 

to sit alongside more ‘inherited’ 

forms in a mixed ecology for some 

time to come, and both have the 

potential to be enriched by one 

another. 

2.18 VentureFX will continue to support 

and equip the pioneers as they 

nurture these fledgling communities 

of faith; it is vital that this mission 

and ministry continues to be 

adequately supported and resourced 

by the wider Connexion. It is also 

vital that the experience and learning 

of VentureFX and its pioneers is 

shared in such a way that it can 

inspire and encourage many others 

to engage in pioneering mission. The 

coordinator and the pioneer team are 

constantly engaged in the business 

of sharing the vision of pioneering 

so that others can be enabled to 

discern a calling to pioneer in their 

own context. They are also trying to 

find appropriate ways to support the 

very many people who are already 

engaging in pioneer mission in a 

multitude of different ways. 

2.19 Recently, a network of regional 

learning and support days has 

been established, hosted by the 

VentureFX pioneers, in order to 

share with others engaged in similar 

ministry for mutual learning, support 

and encouragement. Strenuous 

efforts are being made to ensure 

that pioneer mission and ministry 

are an integral part of the evolving 


Network. The scheme itself has 

the capacity to support only a 

limited number of pioneers but, as 

the gap between church and the 

surrounding culture widens, the 

need for more pioneers and more 

fresh expressions of church will 

inevitably increase. VentureFX is an 

experiment, a catalyst, a model, a 

laboratory, in which lessons can be 

learned and harnessed, experienced 

gained and shared. But ultimately 

its pioneers are unique individuals 

who are themselves being formed as 

disciples: they do not comprise an 

elite squad or an exotic group. Rather 

they strive to share the good news of 

Jesus in a way that makes sense to 

all involved, and their existence is a 

reminder that in some form or other 

that is the calling of the whole people 

of God. 

Fresh Expressions agency 

2.20 “What is very clear to me is that 

mission-shaped ministry and fresh 

expressions are giving vitality to 

Christian fellowships up and down 

the land'. There seems to be a new 

spirit of permission to risk different 

approaches, timings and styles.” 

(Mike King, Vice-President of the 

Methodist Conference) 

2.21 A lot of energy is presently being 

committed to strategic conversations 

regarding future training within the 

denominations and how Missionshaped 

Ministry in particular 

could relate to this. This includes 

discussions with those developing 


477


the Common Awards within the 

Church of England and potentially 

with other ecumenical partners, as 

well as regular dialogue with those 

developing the new Discipleship 


With the URC, we are thinking how 

Mission-shaped Ministry can sit 

alongside the TLS programme. The 

good news is that all ecumenical 

partners remain firmly committed 

to Mission-shaped Ministry and 

recognise it as being one of the most 

effective training resources available. 

2.22 Mission-shaped Ministry continues 

to be widely used to teach the key 

skills required not only for forming 

new ecclesial communities as fresh 

expressions of church, but also 

developing evangelism, and building 

up church life. 

Mission-shaped Ministry Number of courses Number of participants 

UK 90 2853 

International 15 366 

Total 105 3219 

The publication of Mission-shaped 

Intro in book form has been 

warmly received. The resource has 

been sent out around the District 

Evangelism Enabler network. 

2.23 There has been a real revival of 

interest in vision days highlighting 

the ongoing need to keep presenting 

the vision and telling the story of 

what God is doing though fresh 

expressions of church. 

Vision days Number of days Number of participants 

UK 94 6723 

International 20 1301 

Total 114 8024 

2.24 As we head towards the 100 th vision 

day in the UK, we will stay true to our 

values and rather than having one 

‘come to us’ event we are planning 

a series of local contextual events 

deliberately organised in partnership 

with a fresh expression. We are 

looking at three days in: 

●● 

Chesterfield – in partnership 

●● 

●● 

with the Order of the Black 

Sheep 

Romford – in partnership with 

Re:gen 

Swansea – in partnership with 

Zac’s Place 

With CWM Europe, we are looking at 

translating the vision day materials 

into Welsh. 

478 



2.25 Fresh expressions in the Methodist 

Church continue to be a growing, 

vibrant and life-giving dimension of 

the Church’s mission and ministry. 

The headlines for this year’s 

statistics are distilled within the 

General Secretary’s Report and 

further expanded in the Statistics for 

Mission data. For particular note is 

the significant number of volunteers 

who support this ministry and their 

stories gathered through the year, 

expressing their joy of growth in 

discipleship through being engaged 

with new people with no previous 

church connection. 

2.26 At this year’s Fresh Expressions 

summit, the Vice-President of the 

Conference, Mr Michael King offered 

a wise reflection on how things are 

being received in the Connexion: “I 

am aware that there are debates 

surrounding the name of ‘fresh 

expressions’ – such as whether the 

label is correct or even the best 

descriptor. I am content to leave 

that discussion with theologians 

and ecclesiologists because, from 

my experience of the Methodist 

Church this year, what the label of 

fresh expressions has done is to give 

local churches, circuits and districts 

permission to think outside the box. 

I just want to thank God for anything 

that releases his people to reach 

those outside mainstream church 

circles.” Stories from grassroots 

Methodist fresh expressions are 

regularly gathered and added to 

the growing ecumenical economy 

on the fresh expressions website: 

http://www.freshexpressions.org. 

uk/stories where over 200 articles 

can be searched. Two encouraging 

Methodist stories recently added are 

summarised below. 

2.27 Cook@Chapel Update, Milton 

Keynes: Over the past four years, 

Cook@Chapel has grown and evolved 

as a fresh expression of church. This 

group of young people meets once a 

week to cook together, pray together 

and share a meal. By sharing food, 

hospitality and worship these young 

people can develop and deepen their 

faith and build a small missional 

community. In the past 18 months, 

the numbers of people attending has 

steadily increased as the turnover 

rate has decreased. This means 

that the group of young people 

attending has gradually stabilised. 

Before this period, people would 

join the group for a few months, or 

maybe a year, and then move on, 

whereas now they stay. As a result, 

the community has become more 

cohesive as faith has grown and 

worship has developed. This change 

has been a positive one which, in 

turn, has raised many questions, 

including “How do we cope with the 

increase in numbers?” and “How do 

we effectively disciple those who are 

new to the Christian faith, especially 

if Cook@Chapel is their only contact 

with church?” Most importantly, 

however, is the discipleship that 

happens while journeying alongside 

people, developing their faith as they 

go. As Cook@Chapel moves towards 

the start of its fifth year, other plans 


479


include a possible allotment where 

they can grow their own vegetables 

to cook for a fellowship meal. This 

is very much in the planning stage 

at present but would allow Cook@ 

Chapel to become more sustainable 

and to think more about where the 

food comes from. Love and care 

for God’s creation has been an 

important part of Cook@Chapel’s 

philosophy right from the start, so 

the allotment development would 

encourage stewardship of the Earth’s 

resources and the opportunity to 

work together as a community. 

2.28 Garden-City, Nottingham: Lay-led 

and part of the Methodist Church’s 

VentureFX pioneering ministries 

scheme, Tim and Hannah have been 

developing a community called 

Garden-City for the past 18 months. 

Tim described the first few months 

as a frustrating time, being keen to 

do something – an event, a project, 

anything! However, they sensed God 

calling them to let go of all ideas, 

agendas and dreams and instead 

to pray and discern what he was 

already doing in the area, by prayer 

walking (and cycling) every street in 

the area a number of times, keeping 

their eyes and ears open to what God 

might be doing. They slowly began 

to develop a picture of a place that 

was very open to spirituality, but at 

the same time was suspicious of 

anything formal or organised and in 

particular anything that appeared 

religious. They felt God prompting 

them to “love their neighbours,” 

which Tim said “took us by surprise 

as it seemed so obvious, but we 

came to appreciate that there was 

something inauthentic about going 

out and about ‘doing’ mission in 

the area if we didn’t even know 

the people we lived next door to. 

As a result we began to organise 

street parties and house parties for 

Christmas, Easter, the Jubilee or 

any other excuse we could come up 

with. Then slowly we began to invite 

people round to explore spirituality 

in informal and creative ways. At 

one of our gatherings, we took a 

small group of people through a 

guided meditation that ended by 

encouraging them to engage in a 

conversation with Jesus. One man, 

who had been brought along by his 

partner, began to experience a deep 

sense of darkness and fear. Rather 

than putting him off, however, this 

encounter with (what he described 

as) evil convinced him there must 

be something good and loving out 

there. All his previous intellectual 

objections to the faith disappeared 

and he began to pursue Jesus. We 

recently baptised him – just four 

months after that initial encounter.” 

2.30 Garden-City celebrated its first 

birthday by going on a retreat for 

the day. To help the group reflect on 

the journey, a timeline was made 

on which everyone wrote something 

about what being part of the 

community has meant to them. One 

of the main themes that emerged 

was people’s thankfulness for the 

sense of family they have found in 

Garden-City. Tim said: “that was 

480 



a sign to me that we are seeing a 

‘church’ emerge – a Jesus-centred, 

spiritual family.” 

2.31 The 2012 Conference affirmed 

a number of significant steps to 

encourage fresh expressions to 

increasingly become a core part 

of our mission and ministry. As 


Learning Network develops, each 

of the focused roles will incorporate 

encouraging fresh expressions in 

the relevant parts. The increasing 

expertise from these diverse 

ministries will be a rich benefit 

in equipping the huge number 

of volunteers involved in fresh 

expressions as they grow in their 

discipleship. 

2.32 Much has been achieved in nine 

years as a result of this joint 

ecumenical initiative. Methodism 

has gained greatly from being part 

of such a mission agency that 

continues to be a catalyst in the 

immense opportunity of sharing 

the good news of Jesus Christ. The 

recent census revealed that 59% 

of the population self-selected the 

identity Christian. However, less 

than 8% currently attend a church. 

Therefore, this equates to something 

like 40 million people who are 

spiritually interested in Jesus. So, in 

as many ways as you can, to as many 

people as you can, seek to hear what 

the Lord is already doing… and go 

and join in. 

3. The Discipleship and Ministries 

Learning Network 

3.1 The Ministries Committee continues 

to exercise scrutiny and oversight 

of specific areas of the formation 


Learning Network relating to 

the ministry of the whole people 

of God, in conjunction with the 

Methodist Council, the SRC and the 

Implementation Executive. In the 

following, information is provided 

about two key pieces of work for 

which the Ministries Committee has 

continuing oversight: practice-based 

formation and pathways for Local 

Preachers and Worship Leaders. 

Practice-based formation 

3.2 The Fruitful Field report (paragraphs 

102 and 128.3) stated: “A vision for 

a wider and more dispersed group 

of learners chimes with the desires 

expressed both by student ministers 

and also by institutions, colleges 

and centres for a greater proportion 

of formal learning activity to take 

place in local contexts. There will 

always be a place for institutions, 

colleges and centres configured 

as stable communities of faith and 

formation. However, qualitative 

evidence also suggests a growing 

desire within the Methodist Church 

for the development of distributive 

learning programmes, where learning 

for lay and ordained people has, 

as its primary locus, the context in 

which ministry is being exercised 

and in which disciples are being 


481


formed. As noted in paragraphs 

100-102 above, and as implied in 

the discussion of learning circuits 

and local churches in paragraph 

128.1, there is also much to be 

gained from the development of 

practice-based formational pathways 

for a number of those preparing for 

ordained ministry. Within this model, 

sometimes called “apprenticeshipstyle 

formation”, the primary (though 

not the sole) context of formation, 

learning and development is the 

context in which ministry is being 

exercised and in which disciples 

are being formed. There is a crucial 

role for centres and expert staff 

from outside the immediate context, 

as well as for learning circuits and 

local churches, in supporting and 

enabling practice-based formation. 

Work in this area will need to draw 

on learning and good practice 

from ecumenical partners, as well 

as identifying necessary internal 

cultural and organisational changes.” 

A great deal of preparatory work has 

been undertaken in consultation with 

the Implementation Management 

Team, the Chairs’ Meeting and the 

Ministries Committee to develop 

a specification for a formational 

and educational pathway for those 

preparing for ordained ministry 

which, following appropriate 

preparation, focuses the activities 

of formation and education usually 

within a circuit appointment but also 

possibly a pioneer or chaplaincy 

appointment. A detailed model 

has been discussed, reviewed and 

revised, and areas for further work 

and consultation identified. Under 

the oversight of the Ministries 

Committee, this work will continue 

to be taken forward by a small 

group, in consultation with a wide 

range of stakeholders, expert staff 

and connexional committees. It is 

hoped that a small initial cohort of 

presbyteral practice-based formation 

students will begin training in 2014 

and enter a practice-based formation 

appointment in 2015. 

3.3 The Committee continues to 

be excited and encouraged by 

the development of a practicebased 

pathway that will draw on 

characteristics of existing full-time 

and part-time pathways and share 

much in common with them, but it 

will also have particular emphases. 

Pathways for Local Preachers and 

Worship Leaders 

3.4 Over the past year, considerable 

progress has been made towards 

developing new pathways for 

Worship Leaders and Local 

Preachers. The Committee has 

seen and discussed proposals for 

a new modular programme of study 

with portfolio assessment drawn 

primarily from the student’s leading 

of worship. The new pathways adjust 

the balance between initial and 

post-accreditation learning, to be 

more realistic regarding the time 

commitment required for initial 

training, and seek to introduce 

greater rigour for continuing 

482 



development. The content of the 

course will take account of the 

diverse and developing range of 

contexts across inherited, emerging 

and fresh expressions of church. 

3.5 Resources for eight core modules, 

four of which will be core for Worship 

Leader training, are to be built 

around a reflective cycle framework, 

and will involve a mix of individual 

study, group discussion and practical 

application of learning. At present, 

study will run alongside practical 

experience in circuit. Modules will 

be flexible, supporting delivery in a 

range of contexts, including local 

peer- or tutor-led small groups, 

regional study days, and intensive 

courses (both residential and nonresidential). 

It is anticipated that 

students will have a choice with 

regard to delivery options. Existing 

‘alternative routes’ can continue to 

offer provision, and the process for 

students seeking APEL (Accreditation 

of Prior Experience and Learning) will 

be improved. 

3.6 It is anticipated that core resources 

will initially be made available online 

at Easter 2014, with hard copy 

provision to follow in 2015. A training 

package will be provided for new and 

existing tutors and mentors, and a 

generous period of time (three-four 

years) will be allowed for transition 

from Faith & Worship. Existing Local 

Preachers in training on the current 

Faith & Worship course may choose 

to complete Faith & Worship, or 

transfer to the new pathway, with 

credit given for Faith & Worship 

sections completed. The workshops 

to be held at the 2013 Conference 

will provide an opportunity to find out 

more about the new pathways. 

4. Local Pastoral ministry 

4.1 The General Secretary’s Report to 

the 2011 Conference noted that 

there are significant issues involved 

in the exploration of local pastoral 

ministry. The issues which were 

identified included the following; the 

appropriate place of sacramental 

ministry within patterns of local 

pastoral ministry; the appropriate 

relationship between patterns of 

local pastoral ministry and the 

ordained and itinerant ministries of 

the Church; links with the theology 

and practice of Methodist Partner 

Churches and partner denominations 

and locally-coordinated ministries 

in fresh expressions and fellowship 

groups; oversight, accountability and 

supervision; and the theology of local 

ministry. 

4.2 As part of the joint commitment of 

the Ministries Committee and the 

Faith and Order Committee to take 

forward work inspired by the General 

Secretary’s Report, in October 2011, 

the Ministries Committee, at a joint 

meeting with the Fresh Ways Working 

Group, set the terms of reference of 

the Local Pastoral Ministry Resource 

Group. The resource group met 

twice, for two days at a time, in 

September and December 2012. 

In preparation for these meetings, 


483


conversations were held with 

partners including colleagues from 

within the Connexional Team, district 

officers, ordained ministers, those 

exercising forms of local pastoral 

ministry, ecumenical partners from 

the Church of England, the Baptist 

Union of Great Britain and the United 

Reformed Church, and partners from 

Fresh Expressions and the Belonging 

Together diversity initiative. The work 

of the resource group broadened 

to include consideration of local lay 

leadership in fellowship groups and 

fresh expressions of church. 

4.3 The work of the resource group has 

been discussed by the Ministries 

Committee and proposals focusing 

on the need to recognise and 

resource a broad range of local 

lay ministries have been accepted 

in principle. The Committee has 

also agreed to establish an online 

forum through the Global Methodist 

Research Network for those currently 

involved in the development of local 

pastoral ministry schemes to share 

learning and good practice. 

4.4 The work of the resource group will 

be the subject of a workshop at the 

2013 Conference, and feedback 

from this discussion will inform a 

meeting of representatives from the 

Ministries Committee and the Faith 

and Order Committee in taking this 

work forward. Links have been drawn 

with the development of pathways 

and other areas of the Discipleship 


4.5 The resource group felt strongly that 

the development of a mechanism for 

better recognising and resourcing 

local lay ministry must not be merely 

a pragmatic response to the need 

for more flexible patterns of ministry, 

but grounded firmly in the Methodist 

theological emphases on the ministry 

of the whole people of God and the 

nature of collaboration between lay 

and ordained in the ministry of the 

Methodist Church. The Ministries 

Committee recognises the significant 

evidence of a desire in local 

churches and circuits to recognise 

and resource a diverse range of 

locally-focused lay ministries, and 

specifically those exercising pastoral, 

spiritual and/or missional leadership 

and oversight, and will continue to 

develop this area of work over the 

coming connexional year. 

5. The Common Awards 

5.1 Significant progress has been 

made in developing the partnership 

between the Methodist Church and 

the Church of England in relation to 

the Common Awards. The Common 

Awards is a partnership between the 

Archbishops’ Council of the Church 

of England and the University of 

Durham that brings together within 

one validating relationship a series 

of awards and pathways related 

to training for ministry (lay and 

ordained). Throughout 2012/13, 

members of the Connexional Team 

and Implementation Management 

Team have been in conversations with 

the Church of England concerning the 

484 



nature of Methodist participation in 

the awards programme, and this has 

resulted in appropriate recognition 

of the Methodist Church in the 

Framework Validation Agreement 

between the Archbishops’ Council and 

the University of Durham, and in the 

governance structures that oversee 

the awards. 

5.2 Methodist involvement in the 

Common Awards will be further 

consolidated in 2013/14 in a 

Standard Validation Contract 

between the University of Durham 

and the Queen’s Foundation. The 

commitments in the Anglican- 

Methodist Covenant called the 

Methodist Church and the Church of 

England to “... realise more deeply 

our common life and mission... 

taking steps to bring about closer 

collaboration in all areas of 

witness and service in our needy 

world.” Agreement concerning 

the Common Awards provides a 

tangible expression of the Covenant 

and a significant opportunity to 

enhance shared work in preordination 

training, and provision for 

probationer studies and continuing 

development in ministry and, in the 

future, offers potential for greater 

co-operation at a regional level in 

relation to a number of lay ministries. 

5.3 In addition, discussions are ongoing 

about a platform for virtual learning 

for the Common Awards that may 

help to support a number of the 

learning needs of the Network. 

Agreement regarding the Common 

Awards provides the Methodist 

Church with a significant degree 

of financial stability in relation to 

university fees in a period of great 

change in the Higher Education 

sector. The awards themselves 

begin in September 2014. Initial 

conversations have been held 

concerning the level of Methodist 

financial contribution to the Church 

of England to support the Church of 

England in meeting the core costs of 

the awards from which the Methodist 

Church will benefit enormously. 

6. Oversight of candidates, students 

and probationers 

6.1 The Ministries Committee has 

considered the need to ensure 

proper oversight of current student 

ministers and those to be allocated 

to pathways in September 2013, 

as the Discipleship and Ministries 

Learning Network develops. In its 

discussions, the Committee has 

noted that the Chairs of the Diaconal 

Candidates and Probationers 

Oversight Committee (DCPOC) and 

the Presbyteral Candidates and 

Probationers Oversight Committee 

(PCPOC), together with the Warden of 

the Methodist Diaconal Order, have 

agreed the need for closer working 

between the two committees and the 

potential bringing together of PCPOC 

and DCPOC. The Committee also 

identified critical issues relating to 

oversight in the DMLN. 

6.2 The Committee has voiced its 

confidence that it will be possible, 


485


through DMLN staff posts, to 

ensure that local and connexional 

oversight committees have adequate 

resources for the connexional 

years 2013/2015 to fulfil the 

responsibilities assigned to them 

under the Standing Orders. 

6.3 The Committee has noted that 

DCPOC, unlike PCPOC, currently 

acts as both a local and connexional 

oversight committee. The Committee 

believes that in seeking to ensure 

common processes between the two 

oversight committees, and in light of 

a reduction of resources available to 

the Diaconal Order, it is appropriate 

for the role of DCPOC as a local 

oversight committee to be reviewed. 

The Committee propose that district 

Probationers Committees should 

have oversight of pre-ordination 

training and probation for diaconal 

probationers from September 2013. 

It should be noted that the DCPOC 

would remain the body responsible 

for making recommendations to the 

Conference Diaconal Committee in 

respect of diaconal probationers to 

be received into Full Connexion with 

the Conference. In addition to the 

changes set out below to give effect 

to this change a minor amendment is 

proposed to SO 725(4)(c) to remove 

reference to “local committee” as 

upon consideration of SO 725 it was 

apparent that the inclusion of “local” 

was unnecessary and could lead to 

confusion as to which committee 

was being referred to. In making this 

change it will be essential to ensure 

that a district Probationers Committee 

includes within its membership a 

deacon. An amendment to this effect 

is set out below. 

The following Standing Order 

amendments are proposed:- 

484 Probationers Committee. 

(1) The Synod shall appoint a district Probationers Committee consisting of the 

Chair of the District, the secretary and (if appointed) the presbyteral secretary of the 

Synod, a district probationers secretary and eleven other persons of whom one may 

shall be a deacon, four shall be presbyters and the remainder lay. 

(2) The Superintendent and a circuit steward from each Circuit in which a presbyteral 

or diaconal probationer is stationed shall have the right to attend the committee 

when that probationer is being discussed and to speak, but not to vote. 

725 Oversight of Pre-Ordination Training and Probation. 

(4) (c) The district committee shall consider all the reports and other material 

submitted to it, and shall arrange for the probationer to be interviewed by an 

486 



individual, a panel or the full committee as required. The committee shall formulate 

a summary report each year about each probationer together with any particular 

recommendations that are appropriate. At least seven voting members of the local 

committee must be present when such reports and recommendations are agreed. 

(5) (a) In the case of diaconal probationers, the Warden shall ensure that each 

probationer writes a self-assessment and that reports are written about him or her, 

namely reports by: 

(i) the Superintendent, staff and stewards of the Circuit in which the probationer is 

stationed; 

(ii) any other reference groups appointed to monitor his or her work in chaplaincies or 

other institutions; and 

(iii) those responsible for overseeing his or her academic studies, engagement in 

group discussion, practical training, and personal development. 

The reports shall be completed according to the connexional criteria, guidelines and 

timetables and shall include evidence of the probationer’s exercise of ministry, the 

oversight and guidance exercised, the opportunities offered for study and fellowship 

with the circuit staff and peers, and of his or her suitability for the diaconate. The 

reports shall be discussed with the probationer and submitted to the Diaconal 

Candidates and Probationers Oversight Committee Warden together with the 

probationer’s self-assessment and any comments or representations about his or 

her work, training or general welfare that the probationer wishes to make. 

(b) If a probationer who has spent part of the probation overseas enters the home 

work the Team member responsible for probationers shall submit a report on 

each year of probation spent abroad to the Diaconal Candidates and Probationers 

Oversight Committee Warden. 

(c) The Warden shall submit the reports and other material received under (a) 

and/or (b) above, with any further comments of his or her own, to the district 

committee, which The Diaconal Candidates and Probationers Oversight Committee 

shall consider all the reports and other material submitted to it and shall arrange 

for the probationer to be interviewed by an individual, a panel or the full committee 

as required. The committee shall formulate a summary report each year about each 

probationer together with any particular recommendations that are appropriate. 

It shall present the report and recommendations to the Conference Diaconal 

Committee. At least seven voting members of the committee must be present 

when such reports and recommendations are agreed. 

(d) The district committee’s report and recommendations shall be forwarded 


487


to the Diaconal Candidates and Probationers Oversight Committee in time for it 

to review them, take any appropriate further action and prepare its report and 

recommendations for the Conference Diaconal Committee. 

728A Reception into Full Connexion and Ordination: Deacons. (1) (a) Before a 

diaconal probationer is recommended to be received into Full Connexion the district 

probationers secretary shall ensure that the Diaconal Candidates and Probationers 

Oversight Committee district Probationers Committee is provided with the reports 

stipulated in Standing Order 725(5)(a). 

(b) The probationer shall meet with the Diaconal Candidates and Probationers 

Oversight Committee committee for an oral examination conducted according to 

connexional guidelines which shall include questions regarding the probationer’s 

commitment to diaconal ministry, to the doctrines and discipline of the Methodist 

Church and to the Methodist Diaconal Order. 

(c) The committee shall consider all the records, reports and interviews and vote to 

decide its judgment upon them and its recommendations to the Conference Diaconal 

Committee. 

(d) The Warden shall present a summary of the reports presented to the district 

committee together with a report of the judgment of the committee and its 

recommendations to the Diaconal Candidates and Probationers Oversight 

Committee. 

(e) The Diaconal Candidates and Probationers Oversight Committee shall 

consider the reports, take any appropriate action and prepare its own report for 

the Conference Diaconal Committee. 

(2) The committee shall inform each Chair concerned as to the diaconal 

probationers who are recommended to be received into Full Connexion with the 

Conference. Each The Chair of District shall arrange for them diaconal probationers 

who are recommended to be received into Full Connexion with the Conference 

(the ordinands) to be presented to the Representative Session of the Synod and to 

be included in the public testimony service held under Standing Order 728(3). 

6.4 The Committee was also of the view 

that the current requirement for 

DCPOC to make recommendations 

as to the continuation of diaconal 

students and probationers should 

be amended to reflect the way 

such recommendations are made 

for presbyteral students and 

probationers. It is proposed that 

SO 030 be amended to ensure 

488 



that either the local oversight 

committee of the relevant 

training institution or the district 

Probationers Committee is able 

to make the recommendations for 

discontinuance of diaconal students 

and probationers. 



030 Scope of Section 

(2) The provisions of Standing Orders 031 to 034 shall apply when either of the 

oversight committees concerned recommends discontinuance (that is to say that 

a student cease training or that a probationer be not continued on trial or be not 

recommended for ordination, as the case may be) but there is no charge which 

would, if established, put in question his or her standing as a member of the Church 

or as a local preacher. 

(3) For the purposes of this Section the oversight committees concerned is are: 

(i) for presbyteral students the Presbyteral Candidates and Probationers Oversight 

Committee or and the local oversight committee appointed under Standing Order 

321(4); 

(ii) for diaconal students the Diaconal Candidates and Probationers Oversight 

Committee and the local oversight committee appointed under Standing Order 

321(4); 

(iii) for presbyteral probationers, including those who are in part-time circuit 

appointments, the Presbyteral Candidates and Probationers Oversight Committee or 

and the district Probationers’ Committee; and 

(iv) for diaconal students and probationers, the Diaconal Candidates and 

Probationers Oversight Committee and the district Probationers’ Committee. 

031 Initial Committee. (1) When this Standing Order applies a connexional 

Review Committee, consisting of five persons, shall be appointed by the Secretary of 

the Conference, who shall appoint one member of the committee to be its secretary, 

and that committee shall be convened by its secretary to consider the question of 

discontinuance and make a recommendation to the Presbyteral Session of the 

Conference or the Conference Diaconal Committee as appropriate. 


489


6.5 The Committee has noted the need 

for connexional committees to 

have access to accurate paperwork 

regarding ministers, however that the 

Conference has previously agreed to 

destroy files relating to candidates/ 

student ministers at the point of 

Reception into Full Connexion. 

The Conference is asked to revisit 

this decision to ensure that full 

information is available if required, 

to be stored within personal 

connexional portfolios for ministers. 

6.6 The Committee has noted that all 

student ministers being allocated to 

pathways in September 2013 will be 

allocated to the Queen’s Foundation, 

and that full-time students will 

receive oversight from the existing 

local oversight committee at the 

Queen’s Foundation. Existing 

oversight arrangements will remain 

in place for existing student 

ministers. 

The Committee agreed that, for 

new student ministers undertaking 

a part-time pathway, it would be 

appropriate for an additional local 

oversight committee to be appointed 

to oversee the training of parttime 

students. This committee will 

comprise a Chair and members 

appointed by DCPOC/PCPOC, 

predominantly from nominations 

from the Network regions. The small 

group that has taken forward work 

on oversight has asked two of its 

members to look at developing a 

common role for accompanists for 

those embarking on initial ministerial 

formation in 2013. The Standing 

Orders currently provide for there 

to be one oversight committee per 

training institution and it is therefore 

recommended that SO 321(4) be 

amended to enable more than one 

local oversight committee to be 

appointed by PCPOC in consultation 

with DCPOC, as and when necessary. 



321 Presbyteral Candidates and Probationers Oversight Committee. 

(4) The committee, in consultation with the Diaconal Candidates and Probationers 

Oversight Committee, shall appoint a one or more local oversight committees of at 

least seven people for each training institution. Where appropriate the same local 

committee may be appointed in relation to two or more training institutions. If a 

course of training approved under Standing Order 722 is attached to a theological 

college the oversight committee of the college shall have jurisdiction over student 

presbyters and deacons following that course. 

6.7 The Committee has agreed that the 

time is right for a wider review of 

oversight processes for candidates, 

students and probationers, and a 

490 



small group has been established 

to take this work forward. The 

results of this review and ensuing 

recommendations will be presented 

no later than the 2015 Conference. 

This review will include: 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

The potential integration 

of DCPOC and PCPOC into 

MCPOC; 

Candidates; 

Allocations; 

Oversight of students 

(connexional and regional 

oversight committees; 

connexional (and where 

applicable, local and regional 

tutors, pathways through 

training, withdrawal from 

training, discontinuance); 

Oversight of probationers 

(connexional and district 

committees (and where 

appropriate, regional 

committees), approval of 

studies, format and pathways 

of formation, expected 

competencies, supervision, 

withdrawal from training, 

discontinuance); 

Recommendations concerning 

Reception into Full Connexion, 

Ordination and (for deacons) 

membership of the Order; 

Arrangements for services 

of testimony and ordination 

retreats; 

Criteria for probationers, 

including practice-based 

formation, appointments. 

7. Availability of diaconal 

appointments for stationing 

Both the Ministries Committee and 

the Stationing Committee (see p259 

of the Agenda) have noted that 

projections indicate a significant 

shortfall of diaconal appointments 

for the 2014/15 connexional year, 

compared to the number of deacons 

who will be available for stationing. 

It has been noted that many current 

diaconal appointments will be closing 

due to a lack of resources. The 

Committee has noted this area of 

work as one which is significant and 

urgent, and therefore a small group 

has been established to take this 

work forward in parallel with work on 

the oversight of candidates, students 

and probationers. 

8. Presbyteral Candidates’ Selection 

Committee and Diaconal 

Candidates’ Selection Committee 

PCSC and DCSC have now been 

working in parallel in the same 

venue for five years in a spirit 

of mutual cooperation. It is the 

recommendation of the Co-Chairs 

and the Secretaries of these 

two committees that the two 

be formally merged, as soon as 

practically possible. The Ministries 

Committee has expressed its 

in-principle agreement to this 

decision, and wishes to encourage 

the two committees to continue to 

work closely together. Proposed 

amendments to Standing Orders will 

be brought to the 2014 Conference 


491


to enable the creation of a single 

candidates committee from 


9. Amendments to the Deed of Union 

9.1 The Committee has considered a 

report from a working group looking 

at the provisions of the Section 03 

of the Standing Orders, and agreed 

that certain matters (such as “how to 

develop best practice from ‘cradle to 

grave’ of a person’s offering for and 

time in the ministry” which involve 

policy processes and good practice 

as to how various situations are dealt 

with) required long-term consideration. 

9.2 A number of issues require 

exploration including the grounds of 

appeal in Section 03 cases and the 

possibility of bringing together the 

membership pool for a number of 

the ad hoc panels and committees 

into one common panel from which 

people with appropriate expertise 

and experience can be chosen 

respectively to be members and 

to chair such groups. Work on this 

by the Law and Polity Committee 

continues. However, prior to that 

work being undertaken and so 

as to enable some revision of the 

appeals process under Section 03 

it is necessary first to make some 

changes to the Deed of Union. 

9.3 The view of the Law and Polity 

Committee is that an amendment 

to Section 03 should be brought 

to the Conference so as to bring 

the treatment of students and 

probationers in line with the 

treatment of ministers following a 

decision by a discipline committee 

under Part 11(Complaints and 

Discipline). It is envisaged that 

there would still be an initial 

committee and a right of appeal to 

an appeal committee as currently 

set out in Section 03. This would 

be followed by a further right of 

appeal to the Conference, however 

the change proposed by both the 

Law and Polity Committee and the 

Ministries Committee would see 

each committee having the authority 

to make a final decision unless an 

appeal is brought. That is, as in 

Part 11, if a Committee concludes 

that a person should cease to be 

in training, such a decision would 

take effect immediately, unless the 

person exercised a right to appeal. 

9.4 Clause 23(d) of the Deed of Union 

provides: 

“The Conference in its Presbyteral 

Session shall have exclusive 

jurisdiction over the following 

business: 

(i) 

(ii) 

continuance or discontinuance 

in training or on probation or 

reinstatement of each student 

or probationer in training or on 

trial for presbyteral ministry; 

any appeal to the Conference 

arising out of any charge 

against a presbyter or 

probationer or a student 

in training for presbyteral 

ministry.” 

492 



9.5 The proposed Deed of Union amendments are: 

a) Presbyters 

Clause 23(d): 

The Conference in its Presbyteral Session shall have exclusive jurisdiction over the 

following business: 

(i) 

(iA) 

(ii) 

any appeal to the Conference arising out of a decision taken by the body 

authorised to do so by Standing Orders as to discontinuance in training or on 

probation of any student or probationer in training or on trial for presbyteral 

ministry; 

any decision, other than one referred to in item (i) above, as to the 

continuance or discontinuance in training or on probation or reinstatement of 

each student or probationer in training or on trial for presbyteral ministry; 

any appeal to the Conference arising out of any charge against a presbyter or 

probationer or a student in training for presbyteral ministry; 

b) Deacons 

Clause 25A(d): 

…. 

(i) When the committee meets to hear an appeal in a matter of discipline or 

discontinuance the person who shall preside shall be determined in accordance 

with the relevant Standing Order. 

(e) The committee shall, in relation to deacons and to students and probationers in 

training or on probation for diaconal ministry, have the responsibility and power, on 

behalf of the Conference, to: 

(i) hear and determine any appeal to the Conference arising out of a decision 

taken by the body authorised to do so as to discontinuance in training or on 

probation of any student or probationer; 

(iA) make all decisions, other than those referred to in item (i) above, as to 

the continuance or discontinuance in training or on probation of each student or 

probationer; 

(ii) consider and determine any application for reinstatement by a former student or 

probationer; 

(iii) hear and determine any appeal to the Conference arising out of any charge 

against a deacon, probationer or student; 

and its decisions on such matters shall be final. 

Other related matters have been identified for consideration by the Law & Polity 


493


Committee and the Ministries 

Committee over the coming 

connexional year. 

10. Responsibilities and reporting lines 

of the Ministries Committee 

10.1 The Committee wishes to propose 

that in future it should report 

to the Conference through the 

Methodist Council, whilst retaining 

representation on both the Council 

and the SRC and the Council. 

These proposals seek to ensure 

a mechanism for reporting that is 

more in keeping with our polity as 

it was determined by the creation 

of the Methodist Council, thereby 

ensuring that the Conference is 

appropriately served by a common 

route of reporting when financial 

and governance matters are under 

consideration. The recommendation 

to establish a Network Committee (as 

set out in report 41) which shall work 

collaboratively with the Ministries 

Committee, but report to the Council 

is a further reason for seeking this 

change in reporting lines. 

10.2 The following amendments to the 

Standing Orders are proposed: 

32A0 Ministries Committee 

(2) (ii) the Presbyteral and Diaconal Candidates and Probationers Oversight 

Committees, and the Stationing Committee and the Allowances Committee. 

32A1 General Responsibilities. 

(1) The committee shall report to and work collaboratively with the Methodist 

Council and the Strategy and Resources Committee to enable the Church to develop 

and maintain a strategic vision for the use of ordained, accredited, commissioned 

and informal ministries and offices throughout the Connexion. 

(2) The committee shall be accountable to the Conference through the Council 

for:... 

(v) overseeing connexional policy regarding its ordained ministries, including that 

relating to the processes for offering as a candidate, the oversight of students and 

probationers, and stationing and the setting of allowances, but without adjudicating 

on individual cases, which shall remain the task of the bodies appointed to fulfil that 

responsibility. 

(3) The committee shall report annually to the Methodist Conference in its 

Representative Session and, as appropriate, to the Presbyteral Session of the 

Conference and the Conference Diaconal Committee. As part of an annual may, in 

494 



consultation with the Methodist Council, report to the Conference the Committee shall 

present a consolidated report on matters of policy or process requiring the attention 

of the Conference that have been identified by the committee or by the connexional 

Allowances Committee the Presbyteral and Diaconal Candidates Selection Committees, 

the Presbyteral and Diaconal Candidates and Probationers Oversight Committees, the 

Stationing Advisory Committee and the Stationing Committee. 

(4) The committee shall report to the Methodist Council or the Strategy and 

Resources Committee as appropriate such details of procedures and activities as 

it deems appropriate or as the Methodist Council and the Strategy and Resources 

Committee may from time to time request. 

11. Membership of the Committee 

The Committee wishes to thank the 

consultants (Helen Cameron, Luke 

Curran, Stephen Lindridge, Philip 

Jackson and Helen Wareing) who 

have served the Committee faithfully 

over the past two years and to 

express its gratitude to the retiring 

members of the Committee itself, 

John Bell and Vernon Marsh. 



42/2. The Conference directs the Council to ensure that an annual report is made to 

the Conference on the development of Fresh Expressions across the Connexion. 

42/3. The Conference adopts the recommendations set out in paragraph 6.3 and 

amends SO 484, SO 725 and SO 728A as set out in paragraph 6.3 of this report. 


amends SO 030 and SO 031 as set out in paragraph 6.4 of this report. 

42/5. The Conference directs the Council to consider the recommendation in 

paragraph 6.5 of this report and to report to the 2014 Conference. 


amends SO 321 as set out in paragraph 6.6 of this report. 


495


42/7. The Conference adopts the recommendations set out in paragraph 8 of this 

report and directs the Law and Polity Committee to prepare the necessary 

amendments to the Standing Orders and, in consultation with the Ministries 

Committee to bring a report to the 2014 Conference. 

42/8. (Special Resolution – first year) 

The Conference adopts the recommendations set out in paragraph 9.3 of this 

report and amends clauses 23(d) and 25A(d) of the Deed of Union as set out in 

paragraph 9.5 of this report. 

42/9. To be moved only if 42/8 above is passed 

The Conference directs the Law and Polity Committee to prepare such changes 

to Standing Orders as will give effect to the proposals in paragraph 9 of the 

report and, in consultation with the Ministries Committee bring a report to the 

2014 Conference. 

42/10. The Conference adopts the recommendations set out in paragraph 10.1 of this 

report and amends the SO 32A0 and SO 32A1 as set out in paragraph 10.2 of this 

report. 

496 


43. Conference Arrangements 

A. Future Conferences 

The Methodist Council is required to print annually the plan for the locations of future 

meetings of the Conference. The venue is shown where known. 

2014 Birmingham (26 June – 3 July) 

2015 Southport (25 June – 2 July) 

***RESOLUTION 


B. Associate Members 

***RESOLUTION 

43/2. The Conference invites the following Conferences, Churches, and Christian 

bodies to appoint associate members of the Conference in 2014: 

The Church of England 

The United Reformed Church 

The Baptist Union of Great Britain 

The Church of God of Prophecy 

An Orthodox Church 

Pioneer 

Europe 

UMC Central Conference of Northern Europe - Nordic and Baltic 

UMC Central Conference of Central and Southern Europe 

UMC German Central Conference Evangelisch-methodistiche Kirche 

OPCEMI (Italy) 

Igreja Evangelica Metodista Portuguesa (The Evangelical Methodist Church in 

Portugal) 

Africa 

Methodist Church in Kenya 

Methodist Church in Zimbabwe 

Eglise Méthodiste du Togo 

Methodist Church the Gambia 


497


Methodist Church of Southern Africa 

Americas 

Iglesia Evangélica Metodista de Nicaragua (Evangelical Methodist Church of 

Nicaragua) 

Iglesia Metodista del Uruguay (Methodist Church of Uruguay) 

Iglesia Evangélica Dominicana (Evangelical Church of the Dominican Republic) 

Iglesia Metodista en Cuba (Methodist Church in Cuba) 

Methodist Church in the Caribbean and the Americas – MCCA 

Asia-Pacific 

Uniting Church in Australia 

Methodist Church in Samoa 

Methodist Church, Hong Kong 

Methodist Church, Sri Lanka 

The Korean Methodist Church 

C. Presbyteral Session 

1. The Presbyteral Session defines by resolution who may normally be present at 

closed sessions. Attendance when it sits as a court of appeal is governed by 

Standing Order 024A(4). 

2. For the sake of accuracy it is desirable that the Presbyteral Session delegates 

to the Representative Session the responsibility for adopting the Record of its 

Sessions, thus allowing time for members to check its details. 


43/3. (Presbyteral Session) The Presbyteral Session of the Conference resolves 

that whenever it goes into closed session its membership, except when 

Standing Order 1145(7) applies, or the Conference otherwise resolves, shall 

be confined to presbyters who are entitled to vote on the business under 

consideration, with the Conference Officer for Legal and Constitutional 

Practice and Secretary of the Faith and Order Committee in attendance as 

appropriate. 

43/4. (Presbyteral Session) The Presbyteral Session of the Conference delegates to 

the Representative Session the adoption of the printed and written portions of 

the Daily Record for both days of its meeting. 

498 



43/5. (Presbyteral Session) The Conference directs that the total time available for 

the Presbyteral Session of the Conference of 2014 shall not be less than eight 

hours. 

43/6. In accordance with Standing Order 105(1A) the Conference directs that the 

following Districts shall each elect at least one deacon to be a member of the 

Conference of 2014: 

Birmingham, East Anglia, Leeds, Manchester & Stockport, Lancashire, 

Nottingham & Derby, Northampton, Southampton, Wolverhampton & Shrewsbury, 

Scotland, Bedfordshire, Essex and Hertfordshire and London 

Reserves: Liverpool and Channel Islands. 


499

44. Methodist Council 


The Revd Gareth J Powell 

Assistant Secretary of the Conference 

and Secretary of the Council 

asc@methodistchurch.org.uk 

The Methodist Council is charged under 

SO 211(2) with responsibility to keep in 

constant review the life of the Methodist 

Church, to study its work and witness 

throughout the Connexion, to indicate what 

changes are necessary or what steps should 

be taken to make the work of the Church 

more effective, to give spiritual leadership 

to the Church and to report annually to the 

Conference, bringing to the notice of the 

Conference matters to which it believes the 

Conference ought to give urgent attention. 

The full range of papers presented to the 

Council and the outcomes of the Council’s 

deliberations on them are available on the 

Methodist Church website http://www. 

methodist.org.uk/ministers-and-officeholders/council-papers 

This report contains those items considered 

by the Council and not reported elsewhere 

in the agenda. 

1. Governance responsibilities 

1.1 In accordance with its governance 

responsibilities, the Council: 

●● 

●● 

●● 

approved the Special 

Resolutions referred to it by the 


adopted the work plan for 

the Connexional Team during 

2012/13; 

appointed connexional 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

committees, trusts and 

representatives for the year 

2012/13; 

received reports from a number 

of Committees and Trustee 

bodies; 

approved the appointment 

of Baker Tilly as auditors 

for 2013/14 and the 

establishment of an internal 

audit function; 

made various appointments 

to a range of bodies and 

institutions; 

approved the revised Terms of 

Reference of the Methodist- 

Roman Catholic Dialogue 

Committee; 

approved revised Terms of 

Reference for the Methodist 

Church House Management 

Committee, the Investment 

Committee and the Singing the 

Faith Reference Group; 

adopted the Anti-Bribery policy 

and the Appeals Policy for 

employees; 

made to the Conference a 

number of nominations in 

respect of membership of 

various Committees. (These are 

contained in the Appointments 

section of the Agenda); 

approved the Methodist 

Heritage Committee developing 

partnerships with the University 



●● 

●● 

of Manchester and the School 

of Oriental and African Studies 

Library, University of London, 

in order to improve access to 

and promotion of the extensive 

connexional archive collection; 

enhanced Maternity and 

Paternity pay in line with the 

Living Wage; 

amended the rules for the 

Methodist Ministers Pension 

Scheme and Pension and 

Assurance Scheme for Lay 

Employees of the Methodist 

Council as a result of autoenrolment. 

1.2 Other Business 

The Council also: 

●● 

●● 

●● 

●● 

heard reflections from the 

President and Vice-President 

on their year of office; 

witnessed the attestation 

of the Journal of the 2012 


received updates on the 

Supreme Court case, President 

of the Methodist Conference vs 

Preston; 

received a report on the 

progress of the Belonging 

Together project and engaged 

in discussions about the legacy 

of the project. 

2. Civil Partnerships and the legal 

definition of marriage 

2.1 The Council considered a report 

which provided an initial response 

to M29 (2012) (Blessing Civil 

Partnerships) and made proposals 

for the way in which the Methodist 

Church might respond to the 

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill. 

The Council noted that the Assistant 

Secretary of the Conference had, on 

behalf of the Methodist Church, given 

evidence to the House of Commons 

Bill Committee on 14 February 2013 

in respect of the Bill. This evidence 

made it clear that the Methodist 

Church considers marriage to be a 

life-long union in body, mind, and 

spirit of one man and one woman. 

2.2 The Council recommends to the 

Conference that a working group 

be established to consider whether 

the Methodist Church’s position 

on marriage needs revising in light 

of changes in society, undertaking 

this consideration with reference 

to scripture, tradition, reason and 

experience. The terms of reference 

for the working group would be:- 

a. To consider the implications 

for the Methodist Church of a 

change in legislation covering 

same-sex marriage; 

b. To consider whether the 

Methodist Church’s position on 

marriage needs revising in the 

light of changes in society; 

c. To undertake the work directed 

by the reply to Memorial 

29(2012); 

d. To make recommendations for 

any changes in practice or polity. 

2.3 The Council noted the importance 


501


of the membership of the working 

group taking account of the breadth 

of theology, age, race, gender and 

experience. 

3. Power to Appoint a Substitute 

3.1 The Council considered concerns 

raised by the Law and Polity 

Committee in respect of the power to 

appoint a substitute under Standing 

Order 510(7). SO 510(7) enables 

Church Councils to appoint up to two 

of its members as substitutes for 

the representatives appointed under 

SO 510(1)(viii). The substitutes will 

only attend a Circuit Meeting if the 

representatives cannot do so, but a 

substitute will be a member of each 

Circuit Meeting that they attend and 

have full voting rights for the duration 

of that meeting. The registration 

of many Circuits with the Charity 

Commission has highlighted the 

problem of permitting substitutes 

to attend Circuit Meetings. Charity 

law provides that all members of the 

Circuit Meeting are charity trustees. 

Any substitute attending a meeting 

in the place of a Church Council 

representative is also a charity 

trustee and will have to carry all the 

responsibilities of being a trustee 

even if only for one meeting. Charity 

law does not allow a charity trustee 

to transfer their obligations or 

responsibilities to someone else for 

the purposes of one meeting; each 

charity trustee retains their status 

even if they send someone as their 

substitute. 

3.2 The Methodist Council recommends 

to the Conference that in light of 

the requirements of charity law and 

the need to maintain a register of 

all charity trustees with the Charity 

Commission, SO 510(7) be amended 

to permit substitutes to attend and 

speak at a Circuit Meetings but not 

to allow them to vote. 

4. The Methodist Children and Youth 

Assembly 

The 2012 Conference having agreed 

that the name of the Youth Assembly 

should be amended to the Children 

and Youth Assembly, the Council 

recommends to the Conference that 

changes are made to SO 250 and 

SO 417A so as to ensure greater 

flexibility in respect of the age range 

of the sessions of the Assembly 

and that the Assembly is open to as 

many children and young people as 

possible. 

5. Reducing the Number of 

Officeholders as Managing 

Trustees 

5.1 In response to the Modified Circuit 

Constitution report the 2011 

Conference directed the Council to 

undertake further work to explore 

reducing the categories of officeholders 

required to be managing 

trustees on a Church Council or 

Circuit Meeting. Work has been 

undertaken by the Law and Polity 

Committee to explore the potential 

ways to reduce the number of 

categories of officeholders on a 

502 



Church Council and Circuit Meeting. 

The Council recommends to the 

Conference that the Standing 

Order 610 be amended to remove 

the requirement for all ministers 

(including supernumeraries) who are 

not appointed to the Circuit, to be a 

member of the Circuit Meeting. 

5.2 In respect of Church Councils, 

the Council recommends to the 

Conference that the number of 

presbyters, prebysteral probationers, 

deacons and diaconal probationers 

on a Church Council be limited and 

the Standing Order 510 be amended 

accordingly. This proposal would 

remove the need for all ministers 

appointed to the Circuit to have to be 

a member of every Church Council in 

the Circuit. 

6. Ministers being received into Full 

Connexion 

In 2011 the Conference referred to 

the Council a memorial (M3 Ministers 

being received into Full Connexion) 

which requested that those ministers 

who are received into Full Connexion 

by transfer be invited to attend 

the whole of the Conference in the 

same way as those being ordained 

are invited to attend the whole of 

the Representative Session. The 

Methodist Council has considered 

the matter and understands the 

benefit to those being received by 

transfer of seeing at first hand the 

working of the Conference to which 

they are ultimately accountable and 

recommends that the invitation to 

attend the Representative Session of 

the Conference be extended to those 

being received into Full Connexion 

by transfer or reinstatement with the 

cost of doing so being covered by the 

budget relating to the Conference. 

7. Inter Faith Relationships 

7.1 The 2012 Conference mandated 

that an expert group be established 

to consider the best means, within 

current constraints, of providing 

a framework for inter faith work 

at national and local levels. In 

accordance with its remit (Notice of 

Motion 101 (2012)) the group made 

recommendations to the Council as 

to the reallocation of the inter faith 

responsibilities and duties of the 

Inter Faith Officer and the Secretary 

for External Relationships. 

7.2 The Council did not accept the 

recommendation that a full-time Inter 

Faith Relations Officer be appointed 

for three years from 1 September 

2013. The Council did however 

direct the Connexional Grants 

Committee to consider making a 

grant for the holding of a residential 

conference to inform all District inter 

faith advisors of their role and to 

share their experiences. The Council 

also directed the Connexional Grants 

Committee to consider amending 

the criteria for assessing grants 

to include cross cultural and inter 

faith work. The Council assures 

the Conference that, along with the 

Strategy and Resources Committee, 

it has given considerable time to this 


503


matter and has concluded that the 

three main options for future inter 

faith work are; 

i) Ecumenical partnership with an 

Inter Faith agency 

ii) Building on and strengthening 

existing Inter Faith networks 

within the Methodist Church 

iii) Engagement of other 

Connexional Team Staff in Inter 

Faith work 

8. Nomination as Chair to the 

Conference Business Committee 

8.1 The Methodist Council, acting under 

Standing Order 136, nominates 

Mrs Ruth Pickles as the Chair of the 

Conference Business Committee 

(Representative Session) for a period 

of three years from 1 September 

2013. 

8.2 The Council believes that Ruth 

Pickles will bring considerable 

experience to the role of Chair of the 

Conference Business Committee. 

She has been a member of the 

Conference for many years, serving 

as Secretary of the Memorials 

Committee from 1990/97. In this, 

and many other roles across the 

Connexion, she obtained a clear 

understanding of the procedures of 

the Conference and the importance 

of the clear and timely transaction 

of its business. As Vice-President 

of the Conference in 2011 Ruth was 

involved in the agenda drafting and 

daily preparatory meetings and in 

presiding over the Business of the 

Conference displayed a graciousness 

that ensured business was 

transacted with care and sensitivity. 

Ruth’s ability to discern carefully the 

needs and work of the Conference 

will be invaluable both during the 

meetings of the Conference and in 

the planning of the agenda. 

9. Towards an Inclusive Church 

9.1 The Council received a report 

following on from the 2010 

Conference Report Towards an 

Inclusive Church. The report 

provided an introduction to the 

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) 

programme which will focus on four 

areas, (1) vision (2) architecture and 

infrastructure (3) transformation 

activities and (4) the Connexion and 

the Connexional Team. 

9.2 In considering the report the Council 

noted that one of the key areas for 

discussion around this agenda has 

been on language and terminology. 

The term equality and diversity can 

be perceived as focusing on the legal 

and secular whereas the Methodist 

Church is committed to go beyond 

the legal case and a key motivation 

for the development of the EDI 

Theological Statement is to ensure 

that these themes are firmly rooted 

in biblical values and the core beliefs 

of Methodism. 

9.3 Consequently the Council agreed 

that the language of this agenda 

needs to resonate, engage and 

inspire the Connexion as this 

504 



agenda is not just about protected 

groups, access and the law. It is 

about promoting the wholeness of 

the Kingdom, justice and inclusion. 

Therefore, as part of the journey it 

was agreed to move from ‘equality 

and diversity’ to ‘equality, diversity 

and inclusion’ (EDI). As the Faith 

and Order Committee’s 1992 

Conference report Inclusive language 

and imagery about God said: “we 

transmit values through language”, 

therefore, if we seek an inclusive 

Church, we must name it. 

9.4 The Towards an Inclusive Church 

report set out in broad terms the role 

of the E&D Resource Group. It would 

involve the discerning of issues and 

themes as a result of conversations 

it had with the EDI Stakeholder Fora. 

Honouring the fact that each equality 

stream is unique, the E&D Resource 

Group would begin to discern issues 

of commonality both in terms of 

practice and theology, with the aim 

being the articulation of a vision for 

equality and diversity by the group 

which springs from the grassroots 

experience and concerns of both 

individuals and groups. 

9.5 The Council noted that since its 

inception the E&D Resource Group 

has worked hard to embed EDI, 

moving the Church away from 

focusing on discrete particular 

single equality strands ie race, 

gender and disability to one in which 

inclusivity is more holistic. With 

the capacity and confidence of the 

E&D Resource Group developed, 

the time is now right to build on this 

work. It is therefore recommended 

that SO 336 (The Racial Justice 

Committee) be suspended for a 

further year. The Council agreed that 

the EDI Resource Group takes on the 

leadership, steers the EDI agenda 

and oversees the development 

and implementation of the EDI 

Programme. It was further agreed 

that the membership of the EDI 

Resource Group be supplemented 

by a District Chair, a member of the 

Connexional Team Senior Leadership 

Group, a past President/Vice- 

President and two members of the 

Council until further proposals are 

considered and presented to the 

Council for the oversight of EDI work. 

10. Southlands Methodist Trust – 

Amendments to Trust Deed 

The Council exercised its powers 

under the Southlands Methodist 

Trust deed to alter the trusts 

and reformulate the charitable 

purposes of the Trust. The 

Council agreed amendments to 

the charitable purposes of the 

Southlands Methodist Trust Fund 

in order to ensure the charitable 

purposes included reference to the 


Network. The Council also agreed 

amendments to the trustees’ powers 

and inserted a requirement for the 

Methodist Council to consent to any 

disposition of the property held on 

the Southlands Methodist Trust. 


505


11. Review of the Role of the Warden of 

the Methodist Diaconal Order 

11.1 The 2010 Conference adopted 

the following resolution which was 

one of the recommendations from 

the working party on Leading and 

Presiding: R 8/12 The Conference 

directs the Methodist Council to 

review the responsibilities of the 

Warden of the Methodist Diaconal 

Order in the light of this report 

and after consultation with the 

Convocation of the Order bring 

recommendations to the Conference 

of 2011. (Daily Record 7/8/6). 

11.2 For a variety of reasons, not least 

the decision of the 2010 Conference 

to refer to the Synods many of 

the matters raised in the report, 

the work was not undertaken on 

the original planned timetable. 

Nevertheless in 2012 the Methodist 

Council appointed a Working 

Party comprising the Revd Sheryl 

Anderson, Deacon Eunice Atwood, 

Dudley Coates and the Revd Jenny 

Impey which made recommendations 

to the Council in April 2013. This 

report deals with some of that 

group’s recommendations. On other 

recommendations the Working 

Party has been asked to consult 

the Convocation of the Methodist 

Diaconal Order and report further 

to the Council in October 2013. A 

further report will therefore be made 

to the 2014 Conference. 

11.3 At the heart of our British Methodist 

identity is our belief that we were 

raised up by God for specific 

purposes in a particular context. 

The Working Party argued, and the 

Council affirmed that the MDO in 

its present form is a response to 

the call of God in our contemporary 

context. It represents a distinctive 

approach to the role and identity 

of deacons and the diaconate, 

significantly different from the 

role and identity associated with 

that title in other Churches both in 

Britain and worldwide. The British 

Methodist Church has every reason 

to be proud of what it has done to 

create the MDO in its present form 

over the last 25 years. The MDO is 

making a substantial contribution 

to a discipleship movement shaped 

for mission and could and should 

continue to do so. But the time 

is now ripe for renewed work to 

be done on the theological and 

ecclesiological issues raised by the 

distinctive model we have adopted. 

Moreover, we should not merely 

celebrate the role of the MDO and 

its contribution within the universal 

Church; we should also engage with 

those in other ecclesial communities 

who have different understandings to 

explore what we and they can each 

learn from different approaches and 

experiences. 

11.4 The Council therefore recommends 

to the Conference that further work 

be done on these wider issues and 

that it should be led by the Faith 

& Order Committee. The Council 

envisages that the role of the Warden 

should be reviewed again when that 

506 



wider work has been done and the 

Council will initiate that process at an 

appropriate time. 

11.5 At this stage the Council brings 

two further specific matters to the 

Conference. The Working Party has 

drawn attention to the fact that 

at present there is no provision in 

Standing Orders for the application 

to the post of Warden of ministerial 

development review. The Conference 

is therefore invited to amend 

Standing Order 743 to correct this 

omission. 

11.6 Noting that at present there is no 

provision for the appointment of 

deputies to the Warden, the Council 

also accepted a recommendation 

that such provision should be made. 

The specific recommendation from 

the Working Party was linked to 

other recommendations which the 

Council will be considering again 

in the autumn. In the light of that 

work, the Council may offer different 

recommendations to the Conference 

of 2014. However, the Council agrees 

that some provision should now 

be made and therefore invites the 

Conference to add two new clauses 

to Standing Order 754 as set out in 

Resolution 44/13. 

11.7 The Council has asked the Working 

Party to undertake further work in 

consultation with the Convocation 

of the Methodist Diaconal Order 

and, so far as financial matters are 

concerned with the Strategy and 

Resources Committee of the Council, 

on its remaining recommendations 

which were as follows: 

a) that a new Standing Order be 

drafted creating an MDO Senior 

Leadership Team representing 

the whole Church who share 

leadership collaboratively 

with the Warden. The Working 

Party recommended that the 

team should comprise two 

presbyters, two lay people and 

two deacons meeting up to 

four times annually with the 

Warden and the Deputy Warden 

with the Warden and one of its 

members (presbyter, deacon 

or lay) who has served as 

President or Vice-President of 

the Conference as co-chairs; 

b) that the Methodist Council, in 

consultation with the Law and 

Polity Committee, brings to 

the Conference of 2013 new 

permissive provisions, parallel 

to those applying to Chairs 

of District in Standing Order 

426, allowing the MDO Senior 

Leadership Team to appoint 

deputies to the Warden. 

c) that the Methodist Council 

accept the case for a full 

time post of Deputy Warden 

recognising that in due course 

it will need to be funded from 

the Central Services Budget; 

d) that the Warden remain a 

member of the Connexional 

Leaders’ Forum and of the 


507


Stationing Committee but 

should cease to attend the 

Chairs’ Meeting except for 

agreed parts of the meeting 

which will forward collaborative 

ministry between Chairs and 

Warden; 

e) that the MDO Senior 

Leadership Team when 

established consider whether 

further work needs to be done 

in either or both of the following 

areas 

●● 

to clarify the shared oversight 

●● 

of deacons between the 

Warden and Chairs of District 

under Standing Orders 426 and 

754; and 

as to further mutual alignment 

of the candidating, training, 

probation and discipline 

processes relating to deacons 

and those for presbyters. 

The rationale for these 

recommendations was set out 

in some detail in the Working 

Party’s report and the Council will 

bring a further report to the 2014 




44/2. The Conference appoints a working group with terms of reference as set out in 

paragraph 2 of this report and directs the working party to make an initial report 

to the 2014 Conference. (members of the working group will be provided in the 

Order Paper) 

44/3. The Conference amends SO 510(7) as follows: 

510 (7) A Church Council may, when electing its representatives under head (viii) of clause 

(1), appoint not more than two of its own members as substitutes, who may to attend a 

meeting of the Circuit Meeting as members in place of representatives who cannot do so. 

If a substitute is to attend, the Superintendent and the secretary of the meeting shall, if 

possible, be informed before they prepare the list of members under Standing Order 514(2), 

and in any event any substitute shall ensure that the meeting is informed before it is asked 

to adopt that list. Such persons are not members of the meeting. They may speak, but 

not vote nor propose or second any resolution. 

44/4. The Conference amends SO 250 and SO 417A as follows: 

250 Methodist Children and Youth Assembly. 

508 



(1) There shall be an annual Assembly of children and young Methodists known as 

the Methodist Children and Youth Assembly which shall constitute the Methodist Youth 

Assembly for the purposes of clause 14(2)(xA) of the Deed of Union. 

(2) The Assembly exists to provide an opportunity within the Methodist Church to hear 

from and be informed by children and young people. 

(3) The Assembly shall be open to children and young people between the age of 8-23 

years old and the Assembly shall meet in sessions according to age. The age range of 

each session shall be determined annually by the Youth President’s Advisory Group. 

consisting of the following groups: 

(i) a 9–13 session for those aged between 9 and 13; 

(ii) a 14–17 session for those aged between 14 and 17; 

(iii) an 18+ session for those aged between 18 and 23; 

the references in each case being to the member’s age on the 31 st August preceding the 

date of the Assembly. 

(4) Any child or young person involved in the life of the Methodist Church within 

the relevant age range is eligible to be a member of the Assembly and to meet in the 

appropriate session. 

(5) The membership of the Assembly shall consist of those children and young people 

who, whether encouraged by a District under clause (6) or by some other body or of their 

own accord, have registered their intention to attend one of its sessions the Assembly in 

accordance with the procedure laid down for that session. 

(6) Each District shall take appropriate steps, including financial help where possible, 

to ensure that children and young people connected with the life of the Methodist Church 

within that District attend each of the sessions, the Assembly and in so doing shall have 

regard for the composition of eligible members as a whole with regard to gender, ethnic 

origin and membership of the Methodist Church. 

(7) ... 

(8) There shall be a Youth President elected in accordance with clause (10) of this 

Standing Order who shall be a member of the Conference and the Connexional Leaders’ 

Forum as a representative of the Assembly, and shall more widely act as an encourager and 

representative of children and young people in the life of the Church. 

(9) ... 

(10) The sessions of the Assembly shall through procedures agreed by all the sessions 

jointly elect the Youth President-designate, who will become the Youth President from the 

start of the next connexional year. To be eligible to be elected a person shall: 

(i) be a member of one of the sessions of the Assembly; 

(ii) ... 

(11) ... 

(12) The Assembly shall through procedures agreed by all the sessions nominate two 

representatives to be appointed by the Conference as members of the Methodist Council for 

the next connexional year. To be eligible to be nominated a person shall 

(i) be a member of the relevant session at which the nomination takes place 


509


Assembly; and 

(ii) if not already a member of the Methodist Church, have signified the intention 

of seeking to become a member. 

All such persons shall be nominated to serve for a period of two years. 

The Youth President, after consulting any former Council representatives still under 23, 

shall appoint an eligible person as a substitute for any nominee who at the time for first 

appointment by the Conference is ineligible by reason of not being a member of the 

Methodist Church. 

(13) Subject to Standing Orders, the each sessions of the Assembly defined in clause (3) 

(ii) and (3)(iii) of this Standing Order shall have the power to regulate their own procedures. 

417A Children and Youth Assembly Representatives. (1) The Synod shall make provision 

for ensuring that children and young people connected with the life of the Methodist Church 

within the District attend the sessions of the Children and Youth Assembly in accordance 

with Standing Order 250(6). 

44/5. The Conference amends SO 510 as follows:- 

510 Constitution. (1) Subject to clause (2) below and Standing Orders 511, 512 and 

512A the Circuit Meeting shall consist of: 

(i) ..... 

(ii) any other persons who are stationed or residing for the purposes of the stations 

in, or whose names appear under the number of, the Circuit in accordance with 

clause (4) of Standing Order 785, and who have informed the Superintendent by 

1 September of their wish to be members of the Circuit Meeting for the ensuing 

connexional year, except that any person stationed in one circuit but residing in 

another for the purposes of the stations is eligible to be a member, under this head, 

of the Circuit Meeting of the latter Circuit only; 

44/6. The Conference amends SO 610 as follows:- 

610 Constitution. (1) Subject to Standing Orders 511 and 611, the Church Council 

shall consist of: 

(4) The ministers, probationers and workers referred to in clause (1)(i) above shall be: 

(i) the Superintendent and the any other presbyters and presbyteral probationers 

appointed to the Circuit or, if there are more than two such other presbyters 

and presbyteral probationers, two of them, selected by the Circuit Meeting, 

but so that the presbyter in pastoral charge shall always be a member; 

(ii) ..... 

(iii) ........ 

(iv) the if any deacons and or diaconal probationers are appointed to the 

Circuit, and if the Circuit Meeting considers it appropriate for the council in 

question, up to two of them, selected by the Circuit Meeting; 

510 



44/7. The Conference directs that any person being received into Full Connexion by 

transfer or restatement shall be invited to attend the Representative Session 

of the Conference in the year of their reception and the cost of such shall be 

covered by the relevant Conference budget. 

44/8. The Conference appoints Mrs Ruth Pickles as Chair of the Conference Business 

Committee (Representative Session) for a period of three years from 1 


44/9. The Conference adopts the recommendation of the Council that the EDI 

Stakeholder Fora continue in place until 2015. 

44/10. (Two thirds majority vote) 

The Conference adopts the recommendation of the Council that SO 336 be 

suspended until the close of the 2014 Conference and notes that the subject 

matter of SO 336 shall be overseen by the Equality and Diversity Resources 

Group for the same period. 

44/11 The Conference directs the Faith & Order Committee, in consultation with the 

Methodist Diaconal Order, to undertake work on the theology and ecclesiology 

underpinning the diaconate in Methodism, its place within the British Connexion 

and its place within the universal church. 

44/12. The Conference amends Standing Order 743 as follows: 

743 Ministerial Development. (1) (a) This Standing Order applies to: 

(i) every […] presbyter or deacon in [...] circuit or district appointment, and every 

District Chair and the Warden of the Methodist Diaconal Order; 

44/13. The Conference amends Standing Order 754 (5) and (6) by adding the following 

clauses: 

(5) The Warden may at any time appoint a person to assist him or her in such way 

as he or she may think fit. 

(6) Unless the assistance is purely clerical or administrative, any appointment 

made under clause (5) above shall comply with the following requirements: 

(i) the person appointed shall be a deacon in the active work; 

(ii) if the person appointed is to act publicly on behalf of the Warden, the 

appointment shall not take effect until it has been approved by the Methodist 

Council; 

(iii) the duties to be performed by the person appointed shall not include duties 

expressly required to be performed by the Warden by any provision of the Deed of 

Union. 


511

45. District Resolutions 

Under Standing Order 419(2) a Synod may, 

in either of its sessions, decide to submit a 

resolution to be moved in the Conference 

on any matter of connexional interest. 

The District concerned is responsible for 

submitting to the Conference a reasoned 

statement that will assist the Conference 

in considering that matter. It is then 

the responsibility of the Chair of the 

District to determine which of the district 

representatives shall move and second the 

resolution in the Conference. 

This year two such resolutions have been 

submitted. 

Scotland District 

The Scotland District (Present: 80. Voting: 

For: 75 Against: 4) passed the following 

Resolution out of a deep concern for the 

connexional presence within the nation of 

Scotland. Specifically the Synod is anxious 

about the immediate effects of the decision 

to withdraw funding from 31 August this 

year for connexional work undertaken by the 

Connexional Liaison Officer post since its 

establishment some ten years ago. 

The Scotland District Synod requests the 

Conference to 

1. Reaffirm the principle that the 

representation of Methodism, 

its doctrines and emphases in 

the contexts of ecumenical and 

public/civic life within its nations 

and jurisdictions, is ultimately a 

connexional responsibility. 

2. Reconsider the decision to 

withdraw, with immediate effect, 

all connexional funding for this 

work in the nation of Scotland, 

presently exercised through the 

post of the Connexional Liaison 

Officer Scotland. 

3. Request that the Methodist Council 

undertake fuller consultation with 

the appropriate range of stakeholders 

as to means of support 

for a further year during which 

the necessary re-assessment 

of the various areas of the work 

undertaken by the current postholder, 

especially with ecumenical 

partners (notably in active 

consultation through the EMU 

Partnership between the Scottish 

Episcopal, Methodist, and United 

Reformed Churches) can be 

undertaken and thereby enable a 

suitably resourced arrangement for 

the effective future representation 

of Methodism in and from Scotland 

with effect from 1 September 2014. 

Cornwall District 

The Cornwall District Synod (Present 97. 

Voting: For 50 Against 38) welcomes some 

of the proposals of Fruitful Field – for 

example the envisaged ‘pathways’ for the 

whole Church, and the coordinating role of 

the two envisaged ‘hub’ institutions. 

Nevertheless, the Synod notes the 

widespread disquiet expressed through 

the Methodist Recorder, email networks 

and in other ways concerning many of the 

other proposals. It notes also the disquiet 

felt by many that so radical and far reaching 

a report should have been adopted by a 


45. District Resolutions 

single Conference without – for instance – a 

formal consultation with Synods. 

In consequence we urge the 2013 

Methodist Conference to further test and 

scrutinise the report, and in particular with 

respect to the following questions: 

a) Is the Conference persuaded 

of the wisdom of withdrawing 

completely from so many 

ecumenical partnerships for 

theological education? 

b) Apart from the intrinsic value of 

a theological education through 

ecumenical partnerships, 

with their larger and shared 

resources and larger peer 

groups, is the Conference 

persuaded that our Church has 

the ability largely alone (except 

through its ecumenical links 

at Queens) to deliver the high 

expectations of Fruitful Field? 

c) Is the Conference confident that 

it can assuredly withdraw from 

training in leading universities, 

internationally respected not 

least for their theology, without 

thereby significantly limiting the 

opportunities for our trainee 

ministers to engage with the 

rigours of interdisciplinary 

study? 

initial ministerial formation? 

e) Granted that some 

rationalisation of our provision 

may be necessary is the 

Conference persuaded that 

the closure of Wesley House 

Cambridge is wise given its 

place within the Cambridge 

Federation – arguably the 

leading centre for ecumenical 

theological education in the 

country - and given that its 

development may serve the 

whole vision of Fruitful Field 

and, not simply the initial 

formation of those preparing for 

ordained ministry? 

f) Is the Conference satisfied that 

the various financial projections 

contained in the report are 

adequately founded? 

Advice will be offered to the Conference on 

the Order Paper as to how this resolution 

will be dealt with. 

d) Is the Conference persuaded 

that the overall impact of 

the proposed changes will 

not result in a significant 

impoverishment of provision for 


513

46. Authorisations Committee 


The Revd Bruce Thompson 

Chair of the Authorisations Committee. 

revbrucet@yahoo.co.uk 

1. The Authorisations Committee has 

reviewed applications from Circuits for 

authorisations to preside at services 

of Holy Communion where there are 

insufficient ordained ministers to 

make this provision, or where the new 

missional criterion is met. 

2. The Committee has, as always, 

paid careful attention to the details 

in the applications, and given due 

consideration to the requests for 

help. We have not rejected any 

applications this year, but we did 

find it necessary to seek further 

information from one circuit where 

the extent of deprivation was not 

evident at first. 

3. The Committee was particularly 

grateful this year that we had the 

opportunity, for the first time, to 

consider applications made under 

the missional criterion approved 

by the Conference in 2012. We 

considered five applications made 

under this criterion, and we were 

impressed by the quality of the 

information provided in support, 

which helped us immensely in our 

decision-making. 

4. The Committee considered a total 

of 112 applications, comprising 

applications in respect of 45 

presbyter probationers, 3 deacons 

and 64 lay people, 5 of whom are 

applicants under the missional 

criterion. 

5. The Committee expressed concern 

at the lack of clarity with regards to 

the criteria applicable to diaconal 

applications, and requests further 

guidance from the Faith and Order 

Committee about whether or not 

deacons should be authorised to 

preside at the Sacrament of the 

Lord’s Supper. This year, in each 

case, we sought guidance from the 

Warden of the Diaconal Order, and 

we recommend that the applications 

in relation to deacons be approved 

for one year only. We urge the 

Conference to direct the Faith and 

Order Committee to address this 

issue as a matter of urgency and 

to provide clear guidance to all 

concerned in time for next year’s 

applications. 

6. The process of administration has 

passed to the Governance Support 

office at Methodist Church House 

this year and this will continue 

for the future. Separate revised 

application forms are now available 

for authorisation of probationer 

presbyters, deacons, lay persons, 

missional applications and renewals. 

These will be available to District 

Chairs in October. Applications 

need to be considered by Circuit 

Meetings, District Policy Committees 



and Synods before submission. 

Subject to the views of the Faith 

and Order Committee on the 

principles of applications on behalf 

of deacons, any applications in 

respect of deacons will also need 

to be the subject of comment from 

the Diaconal Order. All applications 

for consideration in 2014 should be 

submitted to Governance Support by 

Friday 11 April 2014. The Committee 

will meet at the end of April to 

consider the applications received. 

7. Authorisations, when granted, are for 

one year and their scope is limited 

to the Circuit in which the person is 

a member. They automatically renew 

each year up to three (see lists B and 

C below) unless the Committee is 

informed that the authorisation is no 

longer required. 

8. The Committee draws attention to 

the provisions in SO 011(7) whereby 

in emergencies arising after the 

meeting of the Conference by the 

death of a presbyter or otherwise, 

the President, or the Vice-President 

on his or her behalf, may grant an 

authorisation having immediate 

effect and continuing until the 31 st 

August following the next meeting of 


9. The Committee welcomes informal 

consultations with any Circuit 

considering making an application 

for an authorisation. 



46/2. The Conference directs the Faith and Order Committee, in consultation with 

the Methodist Diaconal Order and the Authorisations Committee, to provide as 

a matter of urgency greater clarity on the appropriateness of authorisations to 

preside at the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper being granted to deacons. 

46/3. The Conference authorises the following persons to preside at the Lord’s Supper 

for the year commencing 1 September 2013 in accordance with the provisions of 

SO 011: 


515


AUTHORISATIONS TO BE PRESENTED TO THE 2013 CONFERENCE 

Key: P = Probationer Presbyter; D = Deacon; L = Lay Person; M = Missional 

LIST A – New applications for authorisations for three years 

Circuit No Circuit Name Application Cat 

1/1 Cymru Elizabeth Jones L 

1/1 Cymru J Philip Davies L 

1/1 Cymru Goronwy Ellis L 

1/1 Cymru Vera Jones L 

1/1 Cymru Maryl Rees L 

1/1 Cymru Mavis Williams L 

1/1 Cymru Eluned Williams L 

1/1 Cymru Merfyn Jones L 

1/1 Cymru Stephen F Roe D 

1/1 Cymru John Ellis L 

1/1 Cymru Tom Ellis L 

2/3 Bangor and Holyhead Howard Jackson L 

2/13 Gwent Hills and Vales Catherine Lewis P 

2/20 Pembrokeshire Lorette Hinson P 

5/1 Birmingham Caroline Hague P 

5/1 Birmingham Deborah Humphries P 

5/1 Birmingham Karen Webber P 

5/6 Birmingham (West) and Oldbury Dr Michael Hall L 

7/2 Bristol & South Gloucestershire Peter Brazier P 

9/3 Kirkoswald & Alston Moor Christopher Blackshaw P 

9/3 Kirkoswald & Alston Moor Brian Thornton L 

9/4 Whitehaven Lyn Edwards M 

9/4 Whitehaven Douglas McDevitte L 

9/4 Whitehaven Alan Moore L 

9/15 Ulverston with Ambleside & Windermere John Biggs 

L 

(South Lakes) 

9/15 Ulverston with Ambleside & Windermere Bryan Bucknell 

L 

(South Lakes) 

9/16 South West Cumbria United Area Bob Mantle L 

11/08 Cheshire South Jennifer Matthews P 

11/18 Stoke-on-Trent (Burslem Mission) Philip Barber L 

12/1 Camborne - Redruth Marquis Honeychurch L 

12/3 Falmouth and Gwennap Mike Ely L 

12/4 Truro Mary Mawonera P 

12/7 St Austell Tony Warren L 

516 



12/20 Camelford & Week St Mary Glenton Brown L 

12/20 Camelford & Week St Mary Robin Heywood L 

12/20 Camelford & Week St Mary Brian Parkman L 

13/7 Barnard Castle and Teesdale Audrey Williams L 

14/20 West Norfolk Catherine Dixon P 

16/17 Aire and Calder Barry Owen P 

16/17 Aire and Calder James Robinson-Morley P 

17/1 Epworth and Scunthorpe Ruth Simpson P 

17/4 Mid-Lincolnshire Eleanor Smith P 

17/5 Grimsby & Cleethorpes Katie Deakins P 

17/14 Louth Deryck Hand L 

17/14 Louth Roger Maidens L 

17/19 East Lincolnshire Keith Locke L 

17/22 Boston Michael Richard Simpson P 

18/8 Crosby David M R Somerville P 

19/1 Manchester Lyn Gallimore D 

19/7 Stretford & Urmiston Dr Margaret Curtis L 

19/12 Shaw & Royton Rachel Hope P 

19/15 Bramhall and Wythenshawe Timothy Colin Nicholls P 

19/24 Macclesfield Helen Boardman P 

20/13 Bede Neil Andrew Maynard P 

21/1 Burnley Sharon Thraves 

Pennington 

P 

22/2 Nottingham South Simon Andrew Rose P 

22/4 Nottingham Trent Valley Christine Anne Margaret P 

Fox 

22/13 Borders Mission Jonathan Reeve L 

22/20 Erewash Valley John Moorley L 

22/20 Erewash Valley Valerie Rollison L 

23/2 Wantage and Abingdon Katherine Pickering P 

23/8 Leicester North Jo Kay L 

23/8 Leicester North Sue Moore L 

23/8 Leicester North Susan Smith L 

23/8 Leicester North Roger Wilson L 

23/9 Leicester West David Lawton P 

23/13 Northampton John Atkin L 

23/13 Northampton Norma Baxter L 

23/13 Northampton David Houghton L 

23/13 Northampton Linda Leathersich L 

23/13 Northampton Maggie Munday L 

23/13 Northampton Paul Wilson L 


517


23/14 Rugby and Daventry Janet Thomas D 

23/23 Nene Valley Marie Armitage L 

23/23 Nene Valley Jean Hinchliffe L 

23/23 Nene Valley David Hudson L 

23/23 Nene Valley Barbara Smith L 

23/23 Nene Valley Jonathan Thompson L 

23/26 Milton Keynes Ben Richard Haslam P 

24/3 Exeter Coast and Country Bruce Sawyer P 

24/18 South Petherton & Crewkerne Anna Flindell P 

24/20 Ilfracombe and Barnstaple Geoffrey Harding L 

24/25 West Somerset Mollie Brooks L 

25/14 Doncaster Donald Reasbeck L 

25/14 Doncaster Barry Parker L 

25/17 Rotherham & Dearne Valley Karen Beecham P 

25/17 Rotherham & Dearne Valley Anne Holmes L 

26/8 Romsey Stephen Ings L 

26/16 Isle of Wight Helen Millward P 

26/16 Isle of Wight David Masters L 

26/16 Isle of Wight Margaret Potts L 

26/16 Isle of Wight Jeff Ryall L 

26/16 Isle of Wight John Wells L 

27/18 Skipton and Grassington Glennis Hobbs L 

27/35 Huddersfield Timothy Francis P 

27/35 Huddersfield Sally Spencer P 

28/1 Wolverhampton Christopher J Collins P 

28/4 Walsall Linda Joy Brown M 

28/5 Vale of Stour Ruth Childs P 

28/9 Stafford Nathan Falla P 

28/14 Gornal & Sedgley Jemima Strain P 

28/20 Kidderminster and Stourport Denise Elaine Williamson P 

28/21 Telford Gabriele Britton-Voss P 

31/13 Scotland David Saunders M 

34/1 North Bedfordshire Graham Keith 

P 

Claydon-Knights 

34/1 North Bedfordshire Gillian Rosemary 

P 

Baalham 

34/10 Southend and Leigh Hannah Mary Bucke M 

34/14 West Herts and Borders Derek John McLean P 

35/12 London NW Mission Audrey Browne P 

35/34 Enfield Alan Combes P 

35/37 Teddington Victoria Elizabeth 

Davidson 

P 

518 



36/21 North Kent Bart Woodhouse M 

LIST B – Renewals after one year initially granted in 2012 

Circuit No Circuit Name Application Cat 

1/1 Cymru Philip Davies L 

1/1 Cymru Elizabeth Jones L 

2/9 Cardiff Catherine Reynolds P 

2/18 Neath Port Talbot Christopher Jones L 

2/13 Gwent Hills & Vales Leslie Jones P 

5/9 Tamworth and Lichfield Timothy Flowers P 

6/4 Rochdale and Littleborough Helen Johnson P 

7/2 Bristol & South Gloucestershire Debra M Chidakwa P 

7/2 Bristol & South Gloucestershire Josette A Crane P 

9/10 Kirkoswald Brian Thornton L 

9/16 South West Cumbria Rachel L Williams P 

11/15 Stoke on Trent Joyce E Smith P 

11/16 Kidsgrove Lester J Meredith L 

12/3 Falmouth and Gwennap W Gerald Triggs L 

12/5 Newquay, Perrenporth & St Agnes David Parker L 

12/5 Newquay, Perrenporth & St Agnes Michael Fairhead L 

12/8 Bodmin, Padstow & Wadebridge Penny Manders L 

12/8 Bodmin, Padstow & Wadebridge Jill Garbett L 

12/8 Bodmin, Padstow & Wadebridge Alan Priestley L 

12/14 Lizard & Mounts Bay Geoffrey W Tamblin D 

12/14 Lizard & Mounts Bay William T Reed L 

14/2 Ipswich Kathryn A Flynn P 

15/1 Isle of Man Andrew Emison P 

16/15 Wharfedale & Aireborough Richard Ormerod P 

17/12 Sleaford Ann L Lett P 

17/13 Market Rasen & Caistor Ann R Coates P 

18/3 Liverpool (North Central) David W Smith D 

18/13 Sankey Valley Stephen D T Froggatt P 

20/2 Newcastle upon Tyne (West) Nicola K Hilmy-Jones P 


519


22/19 Dove Valley Stella F Mills P 

23/4 Chipping Norton & Stow on the Wold Christine Cond L 

23/11 Hinckley Circuit Philip J Osborne D 

23/28 Amersham Pamela Sitford L 

23/28 Amersham John Poston L 

24/7 Tavistock John M Swanston P 

24/11 Bude and Holdsworthy Muriel Hodge L 

24/11 Bude and Holdsworthy Clive Smale L 

24/20 Ilfacombe & Barnstable Martin Reardon L 

25/14 Doncaster Ian S Rutherford P 

26/2 Eastleigh Andrew Bird P 

26/3 Kennet & Test Valley Christine Thomas L 

26/3 Kennet & Test Valley Dorothy Regan L 

26/3 Kennet & Test Valley Muriel Wood L 

26/3 Kennet & Test Valley Helen Watson L 

26/10 Wimborne and Christchurch David Hollingsworth P 

26/12 East Wight Mary White L 

27/31 Airedale Saidu Kanu P 

27/36 North Kirklees & Morley Alison L Crookes P 

28/2 Brownhills and Willenhall Michael S Smith L 

28/3 Shropshire & Marches Heather Wilson P 

28/5 Vale of Stour Gillian M Daniel P 

28/12 Tipton Denise Williams P 

34/7 Tendring Etleva Walker P 

34/10 Southend and Leigh Phillip J Warrey P 

34/17 Watford Geoffrey F J Farrar P 

35/24 Ealing Trinity Suva Catford P 

35/28 Blackheath and Crystal Palace Imran B Malik P 

35/42 Bromley Rachel M Parkes P 

36/4 Thames Valley Margaret E Dudley P 

36/5 Staines and Feltham Mark Conlon L 

36/13 Central Sussex United Area Peter G Rayson P 

36/25 South Kent Hugh Burnham L 

LIST C: Renewals after two years initially granted in 2011 

Circuit No Circuit Applicant Status 

2/18 Neath Port Talbot Clement Raymond L 

10/1 Bailiwick of Guernsey Karen le Mouton L 

520 



11/8 Cheshire South Rebecca J Ingrouille P 

11/15 Stoke North Circuit Paul Owen L 

12/1 Camborne - Redruth John Bailey L 

12/7 St Austell Catherine A Ward L 

12/11 St Ives & Hayle Kenneth Bassett L 

12/11 St Ives & Hayle Mary Rogers L 

12/12 St Ives (Fore Street) William R Orr L 

13/17 Barnard Castle and Teesdale William Bartle L 

13/17 Barnard Castle and Teesdale Tracey Cooke L 

22/13 Borders Mission Harry Smith L 

22/13 Borders Mission Andrew Leam L 

22/13 Borders Mission David Hopkinson L 

23/11 Hinckley Circuit Tim Lea L 

24/11 Bude and Holsworthy Michael Reeves L 

24/16 Tiverton & Wellington Hilary Young L 

24/16 Tiverton & Wellington David Parkin L 

24/20 Ilfracombe & Barnstable Sylvia Edwards L 

24/20 Ilfracombe & Barnstable Arthur Mildon L 

24/22 South Molton and Ringsash Gloria Manning L 

24/25 West Somerset Margaret Morris L 

24/27 Ringsash Colin Rice L 

25/3 Sheffield (Brunswick) Richard Wilshaw L 

25/17 Rotherham and Dearne Valley Rita Edwards L 

25/17 Rotherham and Dearne Valley Wayne Ashton L 

26/5 Gosport & Fareham Anna M Bishop P 

26/26 Sherborne & Yeovil Jennifer Gardener L 

26/27 Basingstoke Tim Hedgecock L 

26/27 Basingstoke Steve Smith L 

27/21 Settle Wendy Holt L 

28/3 Shropshire & Marches Betty Hughes L 

28/3 Shropshire & Marches Christine Jones L 

28/3 Shropshire & Marches Jean Susan Matthews L 

28/3 Shropshire & Marches Brian Wallace L 

36/26 South Kent Edward Rumsey L 

36/26 South Kent Dudley Shipton L 


521

47. Appointments of District Chairs 


47/1. The Conference appoints the Revd Paul H Davis as Chair of the Lancashire 

District for a period of six years from 1 September 2013. 

47/2. The Conference appoints the Revd Dr David P Easton as Chair of the Scotland 


47/3. The Conference appoints the Revd Julian M Pursehouse as Chair of the East 

Anglia District for a period of six years from 1 September 2014. 

47/4. The Conference appoints the Revd Dr Sheryl M Anderson as Chair of the Liverpool 


47/5. The Conference appoints the Revd Gillian M Newton as Chair of the Sheffield 


47/6. The Conference appoints the Revd Peter E Barber as Chair of the Chester and 

Stoke-on-Trent District for a further period of five years from 1 September 2014. 

47/7. The Conference appoints the Revd Steven J Wild as Chair of the Cornwall District 

for a further period of five years from 1 September 2014. 

47/8. The Conference appoints the Revd Richard J Teal as Chair of the Cumbria District 


47/9. The Conference appoints the Revd Ruth M Gee as Chair of the Darlington District 


Reasoned Statements 

The Revd Paul H Davis 

Paul has been a minister in the active work 

since 1982. He has served in the following 

circuits: Farnworth, Bolton (Bolton & 

Rochdale District), and as Superintendent in 

the Tamworth & Lichfield Circuit (Birmingham 

District), Superintendent in the South Ribble 

Circuit and in the Preston Ribble Circuit from 

2010 (Lancashire District). 

After studying for a degree in Biblical 

Studies and Christian Doctrine (at Durham) 

he trained for the ministry at Queen’s 

College, Birmingham. He has held offices in 

the Districts he has served: Synod Secretary 

in two Districts, Conference Arrangements 

Secretary, various chaplaincies. He is a 

Director of Methodist Insurance. 

Paul’s vision for the District is ‘to Continue, 

to Consolidate and to Challenge’. He 

believes the District needs leaders who can 



see clearly what helps churches and Circuits 

as well as the Connexion. Paul has many 

gifts to encourage, influence and inspire 

people to make decisions that will in turn 

equip the Church now and for the future. 

Paul has a passion for team-building which 

is proven in his work at circuit level. Paul 

uses the gifts and graces of team members 

to create a cohesive and productive 

partnership. He recognises the value of 

Circuit Stewards and wants to build on the 

support that is already offered to them by 

the District. He is committed to pastoral 

care across the District and will be very 

effective in this area of ministry. 

Paul is enthusiastic about the Chair’s role 

of supporting the schools and believes that 

the ethos within our maintained schools has 

beneficial effects for both pupils and staff 

and believes that this is an effective means 

of evangelism. 

Having trained at The Queen’s College, 

Birmingham ecumenism is in his nature 

and Paul sees himself as a bridge-builder 

in ecumenical matters. He was a leading 

member of the Church Leaders Group 

leading up to Preston Guild in 2012. 

As Synod Secretary, Paul is very well known 

throughout the District. The Synod strongly 

believes that upon appointment he will 

inhabit the role of Chair, making it his own. 

The Synod recommends to the Conference 

that Paul H Davis be appointed to serve as 

Chair of the Lancashire District for a period 

of six years from 1 September 2013. 

The Revd Dr David P Easton 

David Easton is currently Superintendent 

of the Ceredigion Circuit in Wales Synod 

and concurrently Area Minister of Ardal 

Ceredigion in Synod Cymru, where he has 

been since 2009. This follows a period 

of 22 years in the Cornwall District in 

three different Circuits, two of them as 

Superintendent, while from 1981 to 1987 

he served in the Motherwell and Wishaw 

Circuit. 

David studied History and Comparative 

Education at Westminster College, Oxford, 

and proceeded to ministerial training at 

Wesley House, Cambridge. More recently 

he completed a PhD from the University of 

Wales, Lampeter, entitled The Reunion of 

British Methodism, 1860-1960. 

As one brought up in, as well as serving 

in, Cornwall, along with his experience in 

Scotland, and now in his unique role in two 

Districts in Wales, where he has learnt to 

speak Welsh, David brings an unrivalled 

insight into working in different jurisdictions 

within the Connexion. He has gained much 

respect for his role along with others in the 

Policy Committee’s re-shaping of the role 

for the new Synod Cymru Chair. His ministry 

and leadership have been recognised 

locally, particularly in relation to probationer 

support, Safeguarding issues, work with 

students, particularly where there was an 

urgent need for pastoral support, rapport 

with a range of ecumenical colleagues, and 

his demonstration of a vision for mission. 

His ability to delegate and work as part of 

a team has been cited, as has his balance 

between leadership and moderation of 

differing views in meetings. His creativity 


523


in writing hymns and a dry sense of humour 

add to the person who is much appreciated 

in his current Circuit, as a preacher, pastor, 

leader and challenger. 

The Scotland District welcomes someone 

who views the opportunities for change 

that are faced, both within the Methodist 

Church and more widely in the nation, 

with enthusiasm, and who brings a fresh 

perspective to the issues facing us today. 

His encouragement of the District to 

“wrestle in the power of the Spirit at the 

interface” will be exciting and challenging 

for all of us, while at the same time his 

valuing our connexional identity as a Church 

and a Chair’s place within that Connexion 

will ensure that we maintain our Methodist 

vision as a discipleship movement, and 

continue to work together in further 

enabling that aim. 


that David Easton be appointed to serve as 

Chair of the Scotland District for a period of 

six years from 1 September 2013. 

The Revd Julian M Pursehouse 

Julian Pursehouse is presently the 

Superintendent Minister of the Wharfedale 

and Aireborough Circuit and Deputy Chair of 

the Leeds District. He was the acting Chair 

of District for several months during 2012. 

The son of a Methodist Minister, Julian 

candidated from the East Anglia District and 

after initial training at Lincoln Theological 

College has served in three Districts: 

Nottingham and Derby, Northampton and 

Leeds. In each of these appointments 

he has inspired and encouraged people 

to think strategically and theologically, 

and to focus on appropriate patterns of 

ministry and mission. He has experience of 

a number of contexts of ministry, including 

rural experience, apt for the varied contexts 

found in the East Anglia District. 

Julian is known as a person of deep 

spirituality, a careful listener and a 

thoughtful, reflective and caring pastor. He 

is committed to teamwork and encouraging 

and enabling others to participate with 

confidence to the benefit of all is natural 

to him. He is a gifted communicator and 

leader of worship, known for his clarity and 

insightfulness. 

Julian is excited about, and committed to, 

sharing and taking a leading part in shaping 

the District. 


that Julian Pursehouse be appointed to 

serve as Chair of the East Anglia District 

for a period of six years from 1 September 

2014. 

The Revd Dr Sheryl M Anderson 

Sheryl Anderson is an experienced 

presbyter having exercised effective and 

visionary pastoral charge in town centre, 

housing estate and city mission contexts. 

She also has considerable experience of 

diverse and multicultural communities and 

has both chaired a City Churches Together 

group and served as a Deputy Chair of 

District. 

Sheryl’s current appointment within the 

Connexional Team involves participation in 

local, district and connexional processes 

524 



involving delicate and confidential 

relationships, and she is adept and skilled 

at connecting ministry, care, vision, strategy, 

oversight and encouragement in creative 

tension. 

She has interests in a variety of projects 

and causes expressing the social witness 

of the Church, in particular including 

homelessness and poverty issues. 

Her capacity for clear but sensitive 

leadership, strategic thought, team building 

and working, pastoral care and the leading 

of inspirational worship is recognised widely 

both within and beyond the Connexion as 

is her deep and reflective faith in God as a 

disciple of Christ. 


that Sheryl Anderson be appointed to serve 

as Chair of the Liverpool District from 1 


The Revd Gillian M Newton 

Following a career in banking Gill Newton 

trained for ministry at Wesley College 

Bristol between 1995–1997 and in 1999 

graduated with a BA Degree in Ministry and 

Theology. 

Gill was a probationer in the Barnsley Circuit 

in 1997 becoming Joint Superintendent 

of the Circuit with her husband, the Revd 

Leslie Newton, in 2002. In 2006 she 

became Superintendent of the Bramhall 

Circuit, in the Manchester and Stockport 

District, which she led through a merger 

with the Wythenshawe Circuit through a 

Regrouping for Mission project. As such 

she has facilitated a developing and yet real 

sense of cohesion between the District’s 

wealthiest and poorest circuits. A feature of 

Gill’s ministry is managing change. 

Gill has experience of District and 

connexional ministry. She served as 

Synod Secretary in the Sheffield District 

(2002/2006) and occasionally acted as 

Deputy Chair. This experience ensures a 

quick grasp of the needs and opportunities 

of the District. It also means that she comes 

with a real pastoral concern and affection 

for the Sheffield District. Gill has also served 

in various District posts in the Manchester 

and Stockport District including being a 

District representative to the Conference 

in 2011 and 2012. She is currently District 

representative on the Methodist Council. 

Gill’s ministry focuses on mission-shaped 

discipleship with an interest in fresh 

expressions and deepening spirituality and 

community based initiatives. Gill enters fully 

into community life outside of the Church in 

both the public arena and extra-Methodist 

contexts. 

Gill is a highly approachable person with 

a collaborative approach to leadership 

combined with an ability to take the 

initiative when necessary. Her pastoral 

heart gives her good people skills along 

with task focus characterised by an 

excellent attention to detail. She is known 

for her sensitivity and creativity. She is also 

committed to service on the ecumenical 

and inter-faith platforms. 


that Gillian Newton be appointed to serve 

as Chair of the Sheffield District from 1 



525


The Revd Peter E Barber 

Peter Barber took up the role of Chair 

of the Chester and Stoke-on-Trent 

District in September 2008 at a time of 

challenging organisational change across 

the Connexion, not least of which was 

the consideration of district mergers, 

but also the move towards fewer, larger 

Circuits. He has shown natural leadership 

skills with regard to change, thinking 

imaginatively about possible ways forward, 

and encouraging those charged with 

effecting change. He quickly perceives 

and evaluates difficult situations and 

positively offers a way forward which he has 

clearly thought through. Within this, Peter 

has demonstrated his deep spirituality, 

a real depth of faith and an undergirding 

with prayer of all that is being done. His 

pilgrimage across the District was felt to be 

hugely affirming of each Circuit. 

Also much appreciated has been his leading 

of worship and preaching, in many differing 

contexts from Synod to small chapels. 

His preaching style has been described 

as ‘challenging but gentle’. His leading of 

retreat days and small discipleship groups 

has enriched those present and deepened 

their discipleship, and his contribution to the 

development of local preachers in training 

has been significant. 

Peter has shown a very active 

encouragement to emerging forms of 

church, and to those who lead them, giving 

them both space to experiment and ongoing 

support. He is passionate about the cultural 

relevance of the church to its context. 

Pastorally, Peter has an obvious and 

genuine concern for people; his warmth, his 

ability to listen and offer a wise word have 

been much appreciated, as has his down to 

earth approach and sense of humour. 

In a landscape that is continually shifting, it 

is acknowledged that the best way forward 

for the district is continuity of leadership; 

and for Peter to continue to offer his gifts 

as Chair through what will undoubtedly be 

challenging times as the church seeks to 

provide an authentic and prophetic Christian 

voice in the twenty first Century. 


that the appointment of Peter Barber be 

extended for a further period of five years 

from 1 September 2014. 

The Revd Steven J Wild 

The Revd Steven J Wild has served as Chair 

of the Cornwall District since 2008. He 

has entered into the life of the District with 

characteristic enthusiasm and a real pastor's 

heart. We believe he represents our District 

well at connexional level, and has earned the 

respect of his fellow Chairs of District. He 

has developed a close working relationship 

with the Bishop of Truro, and it is probably 

fair to say that increasingly he is a person 

recognised throughout the county by people 

who have no church connections. He has 

a great affection for the county and a great 

interest in, and knowledge of, its Methodist 

heritage. At a time when many changes 

are taking place, and more are likely, within 

the Methodist Church, and at a time when 

district structures are under review, we 

believe that our District will be best served 

by the continuity which will result from the 

extension of Steve's appointment. 

526 




that the appointment of Steven Wild be 



The Revd Richard J Teal 

Richard began the role of chair of Cumbria 

Methodist District in 2008 and when 

approached, indicated a willingness to 

serve for a further five years from 2014. The 

District Nomination Committee undertook 

a wide ranging consultation across the 

District, the Connexion and with ecumenical 

partners. The result of the consultation 

is overwhelming affirmation of Richard’s 

ministry as District Chair in Cumbria and 

a very strongly stated desire for him to be 

invited to continue in this role. 

Richard’s sense of humour and 

approachable personality are valued 

alongside the empathy he demonstrates 

in his special pastoral interest in, and 

knowledge of, individual people and their 

needs. His ability to respond and offer help 

in difficult situations has been seen in the 

support he gave in the painful community 

crises of shootings and flooding as well as 

his support of connexional and ecumenical 

colleagues, supernumeraries, circuit 

stewards and circuit ministers, including 

special care for stationing needs. 

Richard’s particular gifts in building 

relationships and working collaboratively 

with others, together with wise, sensitive 

and strategic thinking, have been 

highlighted in the part he has played in 

taking forward the Declaration of Intent 

towards Cumbria becoming an Ecumenical 

County and his work supporting the 

covenant between the Methodist Districts 

in the North West Region. His vision for 

Cumbria and passion for mission show real 

insight and knowledge of rural communities. 

This is expressed through strong spiritual 

leadership and the encouragement of the 

development of exciting new church and 

community initiatives. His vital contribution 

within Cumbria and in the wider Connexion 

is marked by the consistent request for 

continuity in his appointed role, where he 

is seen as one who leads by example and 

is a valuable advocate for Cumbria, for 

Methodism and for the whole ministry and 

mission of the church. 

In Richard’s commitment to this demanding 

role, we recognise the importance of 

identifying and ensuring that there is always 

appropriate support and opportunity for 

personal development that will enable 

Richard to continue to respond effectively 

to the diverse and complex range of 

responsibilities that are part of the role of a 

District Chair. 


that the appointment of Richard Teal be 



The Revd Ruth M Gee 

The Revd Ruth Gee has served as Chair 

of the Darlington District since 2008. In 

that time she has overseen not only some 

geographical re-structuring but also a reordering 

in the committees and systems 

of the District in order to make them more 

effective in furthering the worshipping and 

missional nature of our Circuits. 


527


Ruth's style of leadership is collaborative 

and encouraging and her pastoral skills are 

frequently commented on as being greatly 

appreciated. She is also highly regarded by 

ecumenical colleagues across the region 

and has been described as bringing a 

'gentle and gracious passion' to the role. Her 

involvement in a number of different groups 

from Lindisfarne Training to Tees Valley 

Ministry, to her leadership of retreats and 

quiet days show the breadth of skills Ruth 

brings to her role as Chair. In committee 

work, Ruth is always well prepared and pays 

attention to detail which enables informed 

decisions to be made. 

Alongside this lies her creative nature and 

her enthusiasm for embracing new ways of 

making the Gospel known which has played 

its part in furthering such things as the 

Dales Biblical Literacy Project. 

At the heart of all of this seems to be Ruth's 

thoughtful prayerfulness which enriches her 

own spirituality in order that she might be 

used to enrich others through all she does. 


that the appointment of Ruth Gee be 



528 


48. Supreme Court case 





The President of the Methodist 

Conference (Appellant) v Preston 

(Respondent) [2013] UKSC29 

1. The 2012 Conference received a 

report on an appeal to the Supreme 

Court in the matter of the President 

of the Methodist Conference v 

Preston (formerly Moore). The 

focus of the appeal was on whether 

ministers were employees and, if so, 

who was the employing body. 

2. Ms Preston, a former Superintendent 

Minister, had brought a claim 

against the Methodist Church in 

the Employment Tribunal for unfair 

dismissal. The Tribunal held Ms 

Preston was not an employee so 

it had no jurisdiction to hear her 

claim. Ms Preston appealed to the 

Employment Appeal Tribunal. Both 

the Appeal Tribunal and the Court 

of Appeal held Ms Preston was an 

employee. The Methodist Church 

appealed to the Supreme Court. 

The Supreme Court allowed the 

appeal by a majority of four to one 

and the decision of the Employment 

Tribunal was restored. The Supreme 

Court therefore held that Methodist 

ministers are not employees as 

the arrangement between the 

Conference and a minister does not 

amount to a contract of employment. 

3. Lord Sumption gave the main 

judgment of the Court with whom 

Lords Wilson and Carnwath agreed, 

as did Lord Hope going on to make 

a number of additional points. Lady 

Hale dissented. A summary of the 

judgment is provided within this 

report but the full judgment can be 

found at www.supremecourt.gov.uk. 

4. The Court considered a number of 

authorities including the President of 

the Methodist Conference v Parfitt 

(1984) ICR 176 and Percy v National 

Mission of the Church of Scotland 

(2006) 2 AC 28. The Court also 

considered the detailed facts of Ms 

Preston’s ministry and the provisions 

of the Deed of Union and Standing 

Orders. Lord Sumption recognised 

that the modern authorities 

made clear that the question of 

whether a minister serves under an 

employment contract can no longer 

be answered by classifying the 

minister’s occupation by type: office 

or employment, spiritual or secular. 

5. Nor can it be answered by any 

presumption against the contractual 

character of the service of ministers. 

The primary considerations were 

the manner in which a minister was 

engaged, and the rules governing his 

or her service. This depends upon 

the intentions of the parties and, 

as with all such exercises, any such 

evidence of the parties’ intentions 


529


falls to be examined against the 

factual background. Part of that 

background is the fundamentally 

spiritual purpose of the functions of 

a minister of religion. 

6. The Deed of Union and Standing 

Orders show that (1) a minister’s 

engagement is incapable of being 

analysed in terms of contractual 

formation. Neither admission into 

Full Connexion with the Conference 

nor ordination are themselves 

contracts. (2) A minister’s duties 

thereafter are not consensual but 

depend on the unilateral decisions of 

the Conference. (3) The stipend and 

manse are due to a minister by virtue 

only of admission into Full Connexion 

or ordination, and while a minister 

remains in Full Connexion and in the 

active work, these benefits continue 

even in the event of sickness or 

injury. (4) The disciplinary rights 

under the Deed of Union and the 

Standing Orders which determine 

the way a minister may be removed, 

are the same for members as well 

as ministers. (5) The relationship 

between the Church and ministers 

is only terminable by the Conference 

and there is no unilateral right to 

resign, even on notice. 

7. Lord Sumption held that “the 

ministry described in these 

instruments is a vocation, by which 

candidates submit themselves 

to the discipline of the Church for 

life.” Unless there is some special 

arrangement with a minister, “the 

rights and duties of ministers arise, 

as it seems to me, entirely from 

their status in the constitution of the 

Church and not from any contract.” 

8. Lord Sumption’s view was that 

Standing Orders showed that the 

invitation issued by the circuit is 

no more than a proposal to the 

Stationing Committee that they 

should recommend a minister to the 

Conference for stationing to that 

circuit. Whilst every effort is made to 

meet the preferences of circuits and 

ministers, the final decision rests 

with the Conference, alone. The 

relevant relationship is between the 

minister and the Conference and the 

Conference has the ability to move a 

minister from one circuit to another 

even before the end of the period of 

the invitation. It was confirmed that 

Ms Preston was serving as a minister 

at Redruth not pursuant to the five 

year relationship envisaged by the 

invitation, but pursuant to the lifelong 

relationship into which she had 

already entered when received into 

Full Connexion and ordained. 

9. The judgment of the Supreme 

Court has been a relief to many 

Methodists, not least very many 

of those in Full Connexion with the 

Conference. However, there is still 

some work to be undertaken in 

response to the judgment and some 

of the points raised both during the 

hearing and in the preparatory work. 

Further reports will be made to the 

Council and to the Conference by 

the Law and Polity Committee and 

other relevant committees once due 

530 



consideration has been given to 

the judgment and these additional 

matters. Far from placing the 

Conference beyond the law, as has 

been suggested by some less than 

detailed press reports, the judgment 

makes implicit both the nature of 

the life long relationship between 

a minister and the Conference on 

the one hand, and on the other the 

heavy responsibilities placed upon 

the parties in that relationship. For 

its part the Conference must always 

ensure that its processes are fair 

and able to withstand detailed 

scrutiny. In short ‘the fundamentally 

spiritual purpose of the functions of 

a minister of religion’. 

10. The case has attracted a good 

deal of attention and required 

the commitment of a number of 

members of the Law and Polity 

Committee. Much of this work 

has been borne by two people in 

particular. Mrs Louise Wilkins, who in 

her first year as Conference Officer 

for Legal and Constitutional Practice, 

inherited a matter of considerable 

urgency and set about understanding 

it with customary patience and 

grace. His Honour John Hicks QC, 

gave freely of his considerable 

wisdom and skill, as ever with 

patience and care. 

***RESOLUTION 



531

49. Review of the Membership of the Conference 


Background context and 

relevant documents 

Mrs Ruth Pickles 

Chair of the Working Party 

ruth@rdpickles.co.uk 

By Resolutions adopted by the Conferences of 2007 and 

2008, SO 100 was amended to read: 

(1) The representative session shall number 306 persons 

of whom at least 14 shall be deacons, one of those 

deacons being the Warden of the Methodist Diaconal 

Order. 

(2) The Conference shall from time to time, and not 

less than once in every five years, review the numbers 

specified in clause (1). 

In compliance with clause (2), the 2012 Conference (by 

Resolution 67/1) appointed a working party (hereinafter 

‘the Working Party’) to undertake the required review of 

the number of members of the Conference specified in 

SO 100(1), and to report to the 2013 Conference. 

Additionally, the Working Party was directed (by 

Resolution 66/3) to consider whether the senior leaders 

responsible for the areas of Discipleship and Ministry, 

Mission and Advocacy and Support Services should be 

voting members of the Conference. 

Working Party Membership: 

Mrs Ruth Pickles Ex Vice-President 

The Revd Jenny Dyer Journal Secretary 

The Revd Gareth Powell Assistant Secretary of the 

Conference 

The Revd Catrin Harland Sheffield West Circuit 

Mr David Ridley Synod Secretary South East District 

1 Introduction 

1.1 The Working Party began by 

considering the thorough work 

undertaken by the Review Group 

which met from 2004 to 2008 and 

which scrutinised each constituent 

of membership for the importance 

of contribution of its presence 

and the appropriate numbers. 

This work was key to ours, and 

its recommendations gave the 



foundations for our deliberations. 

An interim report was presented in 

2005 and a further report in 2006 

recommended that the membership 

of the Conference be reduced to 

between 290 and 300 full members 

with 24 associate members. The 

Conference directed that more 

work be done and in 2007 the 

group recommended that the final 

number of full members be 306. 

This was adopted. Other resolutions 

determined the numbers of various 

categories of membership. 

1.2 The Working Party was charged with 

considering whether the overall 

size of membership should remain 

at 306. This could be approached 

in two ways: a consideration of 

the overall size of the Conference 

membership could either lead or be 

led by a consideration of the size 

of each constituent part. In other 

words, if it was thought that the 

overall size of the membership was 

too high, the constituent parts would 

need to be looked at to see where 

a reduction could be achieved. On 

the other hand, if a reduction in the 

size of various constituent groups 

appeared appropriate, this might 

lead to the conclusion that the 

overall size of the Conference was 

too large; or alternatively that the 

size of a different group should be 

increased. 

2 Overall size of Conference 

membership 

2.1 Though it was the 2007 Conference 

that changed the number in SO 

100(1) from 384 to 306, the 

Conference membership took a few 

years to fall to that level, because 

the number of Conference-elected 

members reduced gradually. In 

2008 there were 312 Conference 

members, and in 2009 there were 

309. In 2010 the target level of 306 

was reached. 

2.1 The Working Party considered 

whether this level was still 

appropriate, and concluded that 

there was no pressing need to 

recommend a further reduction in 

the size of the membership of the 

Conference per se at this time, so 

soon after the significant reduction 

that had taken place between 2007 

and 2010. Whilst the costs of the 

Conference have constantly to be 

kept under review, the Working Party 

understood that a great deal of the 

costs arise from the need to have a 

venue large enough to accommodate 

the number of visitors who attend 

the opening of the Conference and 

the Reception into Full Connexion. 

A reduction in the membership of 

the Conference will not necessarily 

achieve a significant cost saving. 

It might also be argued that the 

size of the Conference makes it 

an unusually large trustee body. 

However, it would have to be reduced 

out of all recognition if this were to 

be addressed. 


533


2.2 The Working Party then moved 

on to consider each category of 

Conference membership in turn, and 

to consider whether to recommend 

a reduction in the size of any 

category. In each case it considered 

whether, if it were to recommend a 

reduction in the size of a category, 

it would recommend that the total 

Conference membership be reduced 

by the same number, or whether the 

places in question would be released 

to be filled by representatives 

elected by the districts. 

2.3 Of the 306 Conference members, 

a number are what might loosely 

be described as ‘ex-officio’ 

(including not only officers of the 

Conference but District Chairs, 

representatives of various bodies 

and Conference-elected members). 

All the remaining places are divided 

between the districts, to be filled 

by representatives elected by the 

Synods. The number of ex-officio 

members varies slightly from year 

to year, as changes are made to 

the number of, say, District Chairs 

or Connexional Secretaries, and 

also depending on how many of the 

ex-officios are dual qualified. The 

President, for instance, may also 

be a Chair. The number of District 

representatives to be elected by 

the Synods therefore rises and falls 

depending on the number of exofficios. 

For instance, in 2010 there 

were 85 ex-officios (as understood 

above) and 221 representatives 

elected by the Synods. In 2011 the 

equivalent numbers were 86 and 

220. In 2012 they were 85 and 221. 

In 2013 they are 83 and 223, the 

number of Connexional Secretaries 

having dropped from three to one. 

To consider then each of the exofficio 

categories in turn: 

3 Presidency, Secretariat and other 

Officers of the Conference 

3.1 DU 14(2)(i)-(iii) The Presidency 

(those who are at the opening 

of the Conference the current, 

ex- and designate- President and 

Vice-President) and Secretary of 

the Conference (plus designate if 

applicable). 

The Working Party saw no reason to 

suggest any change here. 

3.2 DU 14(2)(iv) SO 101(1) The 

Conference Secretariat and other 

Officers of the Conference: the 

Assistant Secretary; Conference 

Officer for Legal and Constitutional 

Practice; Record Secretary; Journal 

Secretary; Chair of the Business 

Committee and Memorials Secretary. 

The Working Party considered 

whether it was appropriate for all 

these officers to be voting members 

of Conference, and concluded that 

it was. The Working Party noted 

that they have a representative role 

between Conferences, and that they 

give some stability to a fluid trustee 

body, thus giving some reassurance 

to the Charity Commission. The 

Working Party considered in 

particular the membership of 

534 



the Memorials Secretary whose 

role is far less active during the 

Conference than has historically 

been the case. Nevertheless, the 

Memorials Secretary has a pivotal 

role in representing the circuits and 

districts to the Conference and vice 

versa. It did appear to the Working 

Party, however, that the Memorials 

Committee itself is a large body 

whose membership does not always 

have the necessary experience of the 

Conference or of connexional issues. 

This matter is addressed in 3.8.3 

below. 

3.3 DU 14(2)(v) the Chair of each 

Home District. The Working Party 

considered that each District Chair 

should continue to be a member of 

the Conference. It considered the 

possibility that the Larger than Circuit 

process might result in fewer districts 

and fewer Chairs, and whether in this 

case the overall size of Conference 

should be reduced. However, this 

did not seem appropriate given that 

the Districts would be larger, and 

it would therefore be appropriate 

for each to be able to elect more 

representatives. The Working Party 

considered whether, if more districts 

have co-Chairs, all co-Chairs should 

be members of Conference, but felt 

that a decision could not be taken on 

this hypothetical situation at this time. 

3.4 DU 14(2)(vi) The Warden of the 

Diaconal Order. This seat should 

remain as one of the required 

minimum of 14 deacons as at 

present. 

3.5 DU14(2)(vii) The President of the 

Methodist Church in Ireland and the 

Secretary of the Irish Conference; 

and DU14(2)(viii) and (3) Two persons 

appointed by each of the Conference 

of the Methodist Church in Ireland 

and the General Conference of 

the United Methodist Church . In 

recognition of the warm relationship 

with these sister churches, and 

the reciprocal arrangements for 

representation at Conferences, the 

Working Party considered it to be 

important that these categories 

continue. 

3.7 DU 14(2)(viii) and (4)(d) Two from the 

associate members of autonomous 

conferences. Each year, these are 

elected from among the overseas 

representatives, who otherwise are a 

non-voting constituency. The Working 

Party considered it important that 

this representation is continued; 

it affirms our belief in global 

Methodism. 

3.8 DU 14(2)(ix) and (5) SO 103 The 

Conference–elected representatives. 

The Working Party noted that in 

2006 The Review of the Conference 

Report recommended that this 

category be discontinued, on the 

grounds that the continuity for 

which the category is intended to 

provide can be met by the Districts 

electing some representatives 

for three years. The Conference 

declined the recommendation, 

on the grounds that this category 

of membership enables a richer 

mix of wisdom and expertise to be 


535


brought than might otherwise be 

the case. The subsequent Report 

in 2007 recommended that over a 

period of three years the number of 

Conference-elected representatives 

be reduced from eighteen to nine; 

four of whom should be presbyters, 

four lay and one a deacon. This was 

accepted, and is now the case. 

3.8.2 The Working Party considered 

whether the time had come to 

propose abolishing this category of 

membership. A questionnaire was 

sent to Synod Secretaries in order 

to capture how much continuity of 

membership is provided by some 

district representatives serving for 

three years. All but 6 of 31 responded. 

The results show that approximately 

25% of district representatives are 

elected for a term of three years. 

Additionally, some districts elect a 

number of representatives for two 

years and other districts report that 

representatives elected for one year 

often stand again. Overall, it seems 

that districts find it easier to elect a 

small number for three years than a 

larger number for one year. There is 

therefore a considerable measure 

of continuity, and consequently 

experience, among Synod-elected 

representatives that makes it difficult 

to argue for the continuation of the 

category of Conference-elected 

members, on these grounds. The 

argument that might weigh in favour 

of retaining it is that Conference 

can by this means elect people who 

have specific areas of experience or 

expertise that can add value to the 

business of the Conference. Both 

circuit meetings (SO 510(1)(ix)) and 

church councils (SO 610(1)(xi)) are 

entitled to elect people with particular 

skills or experience onto their 

membership. On balance, the Working 

Party concluded that the category 

should remain, and at the current 

number of nine. 

3.8.3 At this point we return to the subject 

of the Memorials Committee. 

Careful and informed scrutiny of the 

draft replies to memorials requires 

experience and knowledge. Some 

members appointed by the Districts 

to the Memorials Committee have 

not yet attended the Conference 

and may never have served on a 

connexional committee. They are 

often nominated because they 

are willing and able to attend. The 

Working Party consider that the 

Committee is too large and often too 

inexperienced to work effectively. 

Although this is strictly outside our 

remit, the Working Party would like to 

test the mind of Conference on the 

possibility of asking the Conferenceelected 

representatives to contribute 

their expertise and experience by 

serving on the Memorials Committee 

in place of representatives appointed 

by district Policy Committees. 

Accordingly we have included a draft 

Resolution to this effect. 

4 Representatives of connexional 

and other bodies 

4.1 DU 14(2)(x) and SO 102(1) For the 

reasons given below, we recommend 

536 



that the following should continue to 

be members of the Conference: 

a. The Chairs of the Methodist Council, 

the Strategy & Resources Committee 

and the Stationing Committee 

together with the Connexional 

Treasurer. Each represents 

important areas of governance and 

management. 

b. The Connexional Secretary 

represents the Connexional Team 

and brings considerable knowledge 

and expertise concerning the 

background development of many of 

the reports. (We note the reduction 

from three Connexional Secretaries 

to one, and thus the reduction by 

two in the ex-officio posts on the 

Conference membership.) 

c. One Representative each of the 

Faith and Order, and Law and Polity 

committees are included to ensure 

that any decisions taken do not 

diverge from our stated beliefs and 

polity. 

4.2 The following categories were also 

considered: 

4.2.1 SO 102(1)(i)(e) The Forces Chaplain. 

The Working Party concluded that 

this category represents an important 

area of work that cannot adequately 

be represented through the districts, 

unlike other spheres of chaplaincy. It 

should therefore continue. 

4.2.2 SO 102(1)(i)(f) The two members 

who represent overseas work. The 

Working Party concluded that these 

add a worldwide dimension to our 

conferring and should continue. They 

are selected from those who are on 

furlough and they help to facilitate 

the pre-Conference consultation 

with representatives from other 

autonomous conferences, as well as 

at the Conference itself. 

4.3.3 SO 102(1)(i)(g) Six people 

representing the area of Racial 

Justice, two of whom should be 

under the age of twenty six. This 

category exists to address an 

imbalance that certainly used to 

exist between the ethnic mix of the 

membership of the Conference and 

the ethnic mix of the Connexion. 

The Working Party felt that it was 

a matter for rejoicing that the 

ethnic mix of the membership of 

Conference has improved over 

the years, and looked into the 

question of whether six is still 

an appropriate number in this 

category. However, it is difficult to 

determine from the statistics of the 

Conference demographics whether 

representation from BME groups 

is yet proportional to that in the 

Methodist Church as a whole. The 

latest data available (2010) showed 

11 per cent of the membership of 

Conference plus Associates to be 

in this category. This cannot be 

compared with the Methodist Church 

as a whole since statistics are not 

gathered in the same way. Were 

such data to be available we could 

properly judge whether or not to 

propose a change in this category. 


537


It is proposed that this category be 

continued but the Working Party 

trusts that the day will soon come 

when it will no longer be necessary. 

4.3.4 SO 102(1)(vii) Methodist Women in 

Britain representative. (MWIB)Whilst 

it is easy to observe that there are 

far more women than men in most 

local churches, this proportion is not 

reflected in the membership of the 

Conference. The 2010 Conference 

data shows a 56:44 men to women 

ratio overall; amongst presbyteral 

members it was 66:34. In 2012, out 

of 53 officers or leaders having seats 

on the Conference (‘ex-officios’ not 

including Chairs), 13 were women. 

For reasons of gender justice, we 

consider that MWiB should continue 

to be represented at the Conference 

but trust that by the time of the 

next review this will no longer be 

necessary. 

4.3.5 DU 14(2)(xA) SO 102(5) 

Representatives of the Children and 

Youth Assembly. This currently stands 

at 4, including the Youth President 

who must be aged at least 18 and not 

older than 23 at the time of taking 

office. Three other representatives 

are elected annually by the Children 

and Youth Assembly. Currently these 

are chosen from the 14 -17 age 

group, with the reasoning that those 

18+ can be nominated for election 

by their district synod. Whilst there is 

cause for joy that people of this age 

group want to represent their peers 

at the Conference, it does present 

a difficulty in that only those aged 

18 and over may be trustees of a 

charity, and therefore those under this 

age will not have a vote on matters 

of trusteeship which arise at the 

Conference. The Working Party is of 

the opinion that youth representatives 

make important contributions to the 

life and work of the Conference; that it 

is likely to be some considerable time 

before this category is unnecessary, 

and urges local churches to 

encourage the lively participation of 

young people in the wider life of the 

Church. We propose that the status 

quo be upheld. 

4.3.6 The Working Party did receive 

a request to create a category, 

for people representing 

Fresh Expressions. After due 

consideration, the Working Party felt 

that they could not recommend this. 

Whilst affirming the importance of 

Fresh Expressions, the Working Party 

did not believe that the intention 

behind SO 102 is to provide places 

to represent particular areas of the 

mission and life of the Methodist 

Church, but to give seats to those 

who can either assist the Conference 

in its deliberations, and or help 

correct an imbalance in the age, 

gender and racial make-up of the 

Conference. To allow extra seats for 

Fresh Expressions would mean either 

an increase in the total membership 

of the Conference, or a reduction 

in the number of places available 

to district representatives, either of 

which seemed a move in the wrong 

direction. In addition, it could open 

the door to requests for further 

538 



places representing other areas of 

the life and work of the church. The 

Working Party saw no reason why the 

concerns of Fresh Expressions could 

not be represented by those elected 

to the Conference in the usual ways, 

nor any clear evidence that they are 

at the moment under-represented. 

5 Associate members 

DU 14(2)(viii) and (4), SO 107 We 

simply note that there is provision for 

six ecumenical associate members 

and eighteen from overseas 

churches. These may participate in 

debates but do not have the right to 

vote. We do not see any argument for 

reducing this number. 

6 The question of voting 

membership of the members of 

the Senior Leadership Group of the 

Connexional Team who are Cluster 

Heads. 

Resolution 66/3 (2012) directed 

that the Working Party consider 

whether or not the three members 

of the Senior Leadership Group of 

the Connexional Team who are the 

Cluster Heads of Discipleship & 

Ministries, Support Services, and 

Mission & Advocacy should be voting 

members of the Conference. The 

Working Party noted that previously 

the three Connexional Secretaries 

were voting members of the 

Conference, and believed that this 

was appropriate given that they were 

appointed by the Conference. The 

Cluster Heads are neither appointed 

by the Conference nor are they voting 

members. The Working Party does 

not see any compelling reason to 

change this status. Indeed, if the 

Cluster Heads were to be voting 

members of the Conference then 

there would be understandable 

pressure for such persons to be 

Methodist members and the Working 

Party did not consider this to be 

desirable. Provision is made in SO 

102(7) for members of the Senior 

Leadership Group to attend and 

speak at the Conference but not to 

be a voting member. It was noted 

that the Head of the Governance 

Support Cluster is a member of 

the Conference in her/his role 

as the Assistant Secretary of the 

Conference, a post which must be 

filled by a Methodist presbyter. 

7 The proportion of lay to ordained 

representatives 

7.1 By Special Resolutions passed in 

2006 and 2007, the Conference 

amended the Deed of Union Clause 

14(1) to say that the membership of 

the Conference should be at least 

50% lay, with effect from 2010. 

Further Special Resolutions in 2008 

and 2009 amended the wording 

but kept the principle. In addition 

however, as a result of a Notice of 

Motion, the Conference of 2008 also 

amended SO 105(3) to say that, after 

half the seats had been allocated to 

lay people and the required minimum 

number to deacons, the “remaining 

seats shall each be open to be 

filled by a minister or a deacon”. 


539


In 2010, the words “open to be” 

were removed, to better express 

what was believed to be the mind 

of the Conference in 2008. It was 

recognised at the time of these 

debates that making the Conference 

one half lay (as opposed to one third 

as it was before) was likely to have 

an impact upon the age profile of the 

Conference, as lay representatives in 

employment outside the church, and 

in some cases within, would need to 

use annual leave in order to attend. 

This perhaps explains why Synod 

Secretaries report that it is typically 

harder to fill the places for lay 

representatives than for ordained, an 

imbalance further compounded by 

the fact that the majority of the exofficio 

members of the Conference 

are necessarily presbyters, meaning 

that comparatively few places are 

available for presbyters to be elected 

by the Synods. 

7.2 It might also be seen as anomalous 

that the category of ‘ordained’ 

representatives includes both 

presbyters and deacons, meaning 

that there is parity only if these two 

orders of ministry are considered 

together. On the other hand, it may 

be noted that the proportions of lay 

and ordained are not reflective of 

the Methodist Church as a whole. 

These concerns remain as real now 

as they did in the years in which 

these debates were taking place. 

Nevertheless, the Working Party did 

not consider that there is sufficient 

reason to disturb the principle 

established then that Conference 

should be one half lay and one half 

ordained. 

8 The ratio of ex-officio members to 

district representatives 

8.1 As has previously been noted this 

year the ratio of ex-officio to district 

representatives is 83:223, that being 

slightly fewer ex-officio members 

than for the last few years. The 

Working Party is aware that the 

Review Group that met from 2004 to 

2008 made great efforts to reduce 

the number of ex-officio members, 

in order that there might be as many 

places as possible for Synod-elected 

representatives. The Working Party 

considers that care should be taken 

over the coming years to ensure 

that the ratio of ex-officio to Synod 

elected representatives goes down 

wherever possible rather than 

up, so that Conference remains 

as representative of the wider 

Connexion as possible. 

9 The district allocation of deacons 

9.1 In 2008, the minimum number of 

deacons specified in SO 100(1) was 

reduced from 21 to 14, and it was 

specified that that number should 

include the Warden of the Methodist 

Diaconal Order. The minimum exists 

to ensure that there are sufficient 

deacons at the Conference for a 

diaconal perspective to be heard, in 

spite of the relatively small size of 

the Order. It is a matter for rejoicing 

that the Order has been growing 

quite rapidly over the last few years, 

540 



and the Working Party considered 

the possibility that a minimum was 

no longer necessary. It concluded 

however that that time had not yet 

come. It considered a reduction in 

the minimum, especially in the light 

of anecdotal evidence that some 

districts, when required to elect 

a deacon to come to Conference, 

find it difficult to find one willing to 

come. However, the Working Party 

understands from the Warden that 

this is not a significant problem, 

and that the minimum of 14 is still 

welcome to the Order and valued 

by them. On balance, the Working 

Party proposes that it continue at the 

present level. 

9.2 The Working Party did note however 

that the method set out in Standing 

Orders for deciding which districts 

should elect deacons to come to 

the Conference has never been 

implemented, and is not considered 

workable by the Order. SO 105(1A) 

requires that the allocation be 

made in accordance with a rota 

which ensures that, over a period of 

time, all districts with deacons are 

represented. If districts with only 

one or two deacons are required to 

send a deacon to the Conference, 

they may have difficulty finding 

one available and willing to go. The 

Working Party therefore proposes the 

change to SO 105(3) set out in the 

resolution at the end of this Report, 

requiring only those districts with 

the most deacons to elect one. This 

will not of course prevent a deacon 

serving in a District with few deacons 

from standing for election. 

10 Conclusion 

10.1 The Working Party is of the view 

that now is too soon after the last, 

extensive, review to make a further 

reduction, or addition to, the size of 

the membership of the Conference. 

Should changes occur as a result of 

the Larger than Circuit process, then 

there will need to be further work 

done at that point. That may also be 

the time to review the relationship 

between the governance bodies 

of the Methodist Church and their 

relative responsibilities. What size 

will each need to be, and what 

responsibility will each have? In 

all of this it must be remembered 

that the Conference is more than a 

governance body; it embodies our 

connexional identity and serves to 

inspire and inform as well as decide. 



49/2. The Conference concurs with the recommendation of the Working Party to make 

no change to the numbers in SO 100(1) at this time, and notes that in no later 


541


than 2017 the Conference should appoint a further working party to review the 

membership of the Conference in accordance with SO 100(2) and report to the 

Conference no later than 2018. 

49/3. The Conference adopts the recommendation regarding the Memorials 

Committee contained in paragraph 3.8.3 of the Report, and amends Standing 

Order 138 as follows: 

138 Memorials Committee. (1)… 

(2)… 

(v) the Conference-elected representatives elected by the Conference under 

clause 14(5) of the Deed of Unionthree ministers […] and ten other persons, each 

nominated by a district Policy Committee according to a rota. 

(3) Each member nominated by a district Policy Committee shall serve for a period 

of three years and shall in the first year of appointment be an elected representative 

of the District to the ensuing Conference. If any such member should cease to be 

a church member or minister […] in the District or should otherwise be unable to 

complete the full term of membership, the district Policy Committee shall nominate a 

substitute for the remainder of the term. 

49/4. The Conference amends Standing Order 105 as follows: 

105 District Allocations. (1)… 

(1A) The allocation of diaconal representatives required in order to comply with 

Standing Order 100 shall first be made in accordance with a rota approved annually 

by the Methodist Council. The rota shall take into account the proportion of deacons 

in the active work and diaconal probationers expected to be stationed in the various 

Districts and shall ensure that, over a period of time, all Districts with eligible 

persons are representedby listing those Districts which are expected to have 

the highest numbers of deacons in the active work and diaconal probationers 

stationed in them. In the event that one of these Districts proves unable to elect 

a deacon to attend Conference, the District with the next highest number of 

deacons in the active work and diaconal probationers will be asked to do so. 

542 


50. Report of the Presbyteral Session Business Committee 





1. The Presbyteral Session proceeds 

for much of its business by way of 

conversation. Under Clause 23(m) 

of the Deed of Union the Presbyteral 

Session may discuss any subject in the 

Agenda of the Representative Session 

or any subject within the jurisdiction of 

the Conference and communicate its 

views thereon to the Representative 

Session by resolution or otherwise. 

2. Members of the Presbyteral Session 

of the Conference may submit 

Notices of Motion for the Conference 

to consider (see below for the 

procedures). They may also ask that 

the Session be able to confer from 

a presbyteral perspective about 

particular items in the published 

Agenda of the Conference. All such 

requests will be considered by the 

Business Committee and time found 

for them where possible. So far the 

following has been identified by the 

Committee: 

●● 

●● 

●● 

Supreme Court Case (Status of 

Methodist Ministers)– Item 48 

Personnel Files for Ministers 

- Item 16 

Supporting Ministers with ill 

health – Item 20 

3. The Presbyteral Session of the 

Conference will meet in closed 

session from 11.30am to 12.45pm 

on Friday 4 July. 

The Presbyteral Session defines 

by resolution who may normally 

be present at closed sessions. 

Attendance when it sits as a court of 

appeal is governed by Standing Order 

1145(7). 

The Conference is reminded of a 

distinction made in Section G of the 

Law and Polity Committee report 

to the 2008 Conference entitled 

Attendance at the Closed Session 

of the Ministerial Session of the 

Conference. There is a difference 

between the Conference’s conferring 

on general questions of policy and 

principle on the one hand, and its 

decision-making on particular cases 

to do with identifiable individuals 

on the other. Because of the need 

for confidentiality and for other 

legal reasons, the latter needs to 

be dealt with in closed session, 

and only those who will bear the 

responsibility for the decisions that 

are made should hear or otherwise 

receive the information about the 

cases concerned. This means that 

those ministers (presbyters) who are 

not members of the Representative 

Session of the Conference but are 

attending the Presbyteral Session of 

the Conference with the permission 

of a Presbyteral Session of a Synod 

and at their own expense are not 

able to be present in the closed 

sessions of the Presbyteral Session 


543

50. Report of the Presbyteral Session Business Committee 

of the Conference: in other words, 

they do not participate in the 

decision-making in those closed 

sessions, nor do they hear the 

information that is shared within 

them. 

At an appropriate point 

Resolution 43/3 will therefore 

be moved. 

4. Details about candidates, 

probationers, those proposed for 

transfer and other permissions and 

authorisations will be made available 

to members of the Conference in 

the closed session on Friday. The 

information is confidential to those 

who are present in the closed 

session and the booklet of details 

will be collected in at the end of 

that closed session. If there are any 

questions, please contact the Revd 

Dr Sheryl Anderson (andersons@ 

methodistchurch.org.uk) as soon 

as possible in advance in order 

that any necessary information can 

be collated in time for when the 

business is dealt with. 

5. The Record 

For the sake of accuracy it is 

desirable that the Presbyteral 

Session delegates to the 

Representative Session the 

responsibility for adopting the Record 

of its session, thus allowing time for 

members to check its details. 

At an appropriate point Resolution 

43/4 will therefore be moved. 

6. Notices of Motion 

6.1 The procedure for the submission 

of Notices of Motion is set out in SO 

132, which can be found on page 

11 of volume one. The deadline for 

submission of notices of motion is 

17:15 on Thursday 4 July; however 

it would assist in the planning of the 

session if notices of motion could be 

submitted to the Assistant Secretary 

by 16:00 on Wednesday 3 July. 

***RESOLUTION 

50/1. The Conference adopts the report 

544 


51. Transfer Committee 

1. Recommendations of the 

Presbyteral Candidates Selection 

Committees acting as Transfer 

Committee 

The report of the Appeals Committee on 

applicants who have appealed against 

the recommendations of the committee 

under Standing Order 730 (10) [see also SO 

730(14)] 

The Revd Duncan Ibuuri (Methodist Church 

Kenya) 

Report on cases where there have been 

medical objections 

No case 

Applicants for transfer recommended by 

a 75% majority or more in the Presbyteral 

Candidates Selection Committee to be 

transferred to the jurisdiction of this 

Conference under SO 730(7) 

The Revd Sue Howe (United Methodist 

Church) 

The Revd Oluyemisi Jaiyesimi (Methodist 

Church Nigeria) 

The Revd David Muskett (Church of England) 



Candidates Selection Committee to proceed 

to pre-ordination training and probation 

No case 



Candidates Selection Committee to proceed 

to probation prior to Reception into Full 

Connexion 

No case 



Candidates Selection Committee to be 

received on transfer upon fulfilment of 

stated conditions 

No case 

Applicants not recommended for transfer 

No case 

Former ministers and deacons of other 

Churches applying to be received into Full 

Connexion (under Standing Order 731) 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

Those recommended 

No case 

Those recommended upon 

fulfilment of stated conditions 

No case 

Those not recommended 

No case 

Applicants recommended to be recognised 

and regarded as ministers in Full Connexion 

with the Conference under Standing Order 

732 

The Revd Kofi Patrick Amissah (Methodist 

Church in Ghana) 

The Revd Lynita Conradie (Methodist Church 

Southern Africa) 

The Revd Deji Okegbile (Methodist Church 

Nigeria) 

The Revd Cindy Wesley (United Methodist 

Church) 


545

51. Transfer Committee 

2. TRANSFER FROM THE METHODIST 

CHURCH IN IRELAND 

No case 

2. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 

REINSTATEMENTS TO FULL 

CONNEXION 

Arnold Clough 

Robert G Morton 

David J Rice 

***RESOLUTIONS (Presbyteral Session) 


51/2. The Conference resolves by a Standing Vote that those persons whom the 

Conference has duly adjudged as fit to be received by transfer or reinstatement 

as the case may be as ministers be now presented to the Representative Session 

to be received into Full Connexion with the Conference. 

546 


52. Presbyteral Candidates and 



The Revd Dr Sheryl Anderson 

AndersonS@methodistchurch.org.uk 

1. Special Reports 

1.1 Candidates accepted at previous 

Conferences and given permission to 

delay entry into training 

Philip John Griffin 

Stephen Michael Hawkes 

John Charles Schofield 

1.2 Candidates accepted at this 

Conference and to be given 

permission to delay entry into 

training 

Ping Ting Chen 

Philip Cotton 

Mary Sachikonye 

1.3 Candidates accepted at this 

Conference and to be given 

permission to transfer to another 


No case 

(a) 

(a) 

To an earlier date 

Stella Freda Mills 

2013 (from 2014) 

Leonard Jerome Pereira 

2013 (from 2014) 

To a later date 

Justin Anwar 

2016 (from 2015) 

Anna Mhairi Bishop 

2014 (from 2013) 

Peter Jonathan Brazier 

2015 (from 2014) 

Naomi Cooke 

2016 (from 2015) 

William Edward Fletcher 

2016 (from 2015) 

Greg Obong-Oshotse 

2016 (from 2015) 

Linda Patricia Pearce 

2014 (from 2013) 

David John Leslie Willis 

2016 (from 2015) 

1.4 Candidates conditionally accepted at 

previous Conferences 

(a) Those judged to have fulfilled 

the condition and therefore to 

be accepted as candidates 

No case 

(b) Those judged to have failed 

to fulfil the condition and 

thereby not to be accepted as 

candidates 

No case 

(c) Those still to fulfil the condition 

No case 

1.5 Changes in expected date of 

Reception into Full Connexion 


1.6 Special cases 

Leslie Dinning (report to be made at 

the Conference) 

Estwar Sanichar (report to be made 

at the Conference) 

1.7 Withdrawals 

(a) Candidates 

No case 

(b) Student ministers 

No case 

(c) Probationers 

No case 

1.8 Transfer to other Conferences 

547



or Churches 

No case 

1.9 Reinstatements 

(a) Student ministers 

No case 

(b) Probationers 

No case 

1.10 Discipline 

No case 

1.11 Discontinuance 

No case 

***RESOLUTION (Presbyteral Session) 

52/1. The Conference adopts the special reports of the Presbyteral Candidates and 

Probationers Oversight Committee. 

2. CANDIDATES FOR PRESBYTERAL MINISTRY 


52/2. The Conference resolves to recommend to the Representative Session for 

training those persons whose names have been duly presented to it. 

***RESOLUTION (Representative Session) 

52/3. The Conference resolves by a Standing Vote that it accepts for training 

unconditionally or conditionally as the case may be the candidates for 

presbyteral ministry recommended by the Presbyteral Session whose names are 

recorded in the Daily Record for that Session. 

3. PREACHERS RECOMMENDED FOR CONTINUANCE ON TRIAL 

In the following lists: 

* = change from the lists approved by the 2012 Conference 

+ = candidates accepted by the 2012 Conference 

# = accepted as ordained probationers by a previous Conference 

Surname First name(s) Due to be 

received 

into Full 

Connexion 

+Al-hassan Felicity 2016 

*Anwar Justin 2016 

548 




Baalham Gillian Rosemary 2015 

+Ballard Iain Marl 2017 

+Baron Gareth Peter 2016 

Beecham Karen Anne 2015 

+Benney Paul Martyn 2017 

+Binks Denise 2017 

Bird Andrew John 2014 

*Bishop Anna Mhairi 2014 

Blackshaw Christopher James 2015 

Boardman Helen Ruth 2015 

+Bray Iris 2016 

*Brazier Peter Jonathon 2015 

Britton-Voss Gabriele Elisabeth 2015 

+Brown Joanna Marie 2016 

Browne Audrey Delores 2015 

Bucke Hannah Mary 2015 

Burton Susan Margaret 2016 

+Carpenter Steven 2016 

Catford Suva Lianne 2014 

+Challinor James Ian 2017 

Chidakwa Debra Mina 2014 

Childs Ruth Helen 2015 

Claydon-Knights Graham Keith 2015 

Coates Anne Rachel 2014 

+Coles Rosemary Elizabeth 2017 

Collins Christopher John 2015 

Combes Alan John 2015 

*Cooke Naomi 2016 

+Cooper Steven Robert McKay 2016 

Crane Josette Anne 2014 

Crookes Alison Louise 2014 

Cruddas James Alan 2014 

Davidson Victoria Elizabeth 2015 

Deakins Kathleen Rose 2014 

+Dinham Lesley 2016 

Dixon Catherine 2015 

Dudley Margaret Elizabeth 2014 

Dunstan Alexandra Claire 2017 

Dutton Christine Margaret 2016 

Edwards Simon Christopher 2015 

Emison Andrew Mark 2014 

+Endacott Rita 2016 

Evans Patrick Michael 2015 


549



Falla Nathan Stuart 2015 

Farrar Geoffrey Francis James 2014 

*Fletcher William Edward 2016 

Flindell Anna Louise 2015 

Flowers Timothy Andrew 2014 

Flynn Kathryn Ann 2014 

Fox Christine Anne Margaret 2015 

Francis Timothy John 2015 

Froggatt Stephen David Thomas 2014 

+Greaves Lewis 2016 

+Greenall Melanie 2016 

+Griffin Philip John 2017 

Hague Caroline Julia 2015 

Harris Tracey Jane 2016 

Haslam Ben Richard 2015 

+Hawkes Stephen Michael 2017 

Hay Gordon William 2015 

Hilmy-Jones Nicola Kristen 2014 

Hinson Lorette Jayne 2015 

+Holliman Judith 2017 

Hollingsworth David 2014 

Hooley Helen 2016 

Hope Rachel Lesley 2015 

+Hughes John Gareth 2016 

Humphries Deborah 2015 

+Ieraci Carmelina 2016 

Ingrouille Rebecca Jane 2014 

+Jakeman Stephen Phillip 2016 

+Ji Lingyu 2016 

Johnson Helen Denise 2014 

Jones Leslie 2014 

Kanu Saidu 2014 

Konrad Kate Elizabeth 2016 

Lawton David Richard 2015 

+Leigh Donna Alice 2016 

Leonowicz Katherine Anne 2015 

Lett Ann Louise 2014 

Lewis Catherine Louise 2015 

Long Gillian Phillipa 2015 

+Lowe Sarah Louise 2017 

Malik Imran Bobby 2014 

Mallet Deborah Cooke 2016 

Matthews Jennifer Avrille 2015 

550 




Mawonera Mary 2015 

Maynard Neil Andrew 2015 

Mclean Derek John 2015 

+Midcalf Ruth Katherine 2017 

+Mills John David 2016 

Millward Helen Margaret 2015 

+Mukorombindo Patricia 2017 

+Mumford Andrew John 2016 

Nicholls Timothy Collins 2015 

*Obong-Oshotse Greg 2016 

Ormrod Richard 2014 

Osborne Thomas John 2014 

Owen Barry 2015 

+Owusu Papa Kwaku 2016 

Parkes Rachel Marie 2014 

*Pearce Linda Patricia 2014 

Pickering Katherine Jill 2015 

+Pittaway Julia 2016 

+Rand Joanna Ruth 2017 

Rayson Peter Gerrard 2014 

Reynolds Catherine 2014 

Robinson-Brown Jarel Adrian 2015 

Robinson-Morley James Barrie 2015 

Rose Simon Andrew 2015 

Rutherford Ian Stuart 2014 

Sawyer Bruce Jonathan 2015 

+Schofield John Charles 2018 

+Seo Sang Woo 2016 

+Sharp Gillian 2016 

+Short Tanya 2017 

Shortman Suzanne Lesley 2016 

Simpson Michael Richard 2015 

Simpson Ruth 2015 

+Slocombe Martin 2017 

Smith Joyce Edith 2014 

Smith Eleanor Janet 2015 

Somerville David Michael Ruthven 2015 

Spencer Sarah Sally 2015 

+Stonehewer Patrick David 2017 

Strain Jemima Elizabeth 2015 

Swanston John Maurice 2014 

+Tabraham Paul 2016 

+Thornton Wendy Ann 2016 


551



Thraves-Pennington Sharon Jane 2015 

+Titterton Janet 2016 

+Tucker Wendy 2017 

+Wagstaff Catherine Margaret 2016 

Walker Etleva 2014 

Warrey Phillip John 2014 

+Warwick Hilda Margaret 2017 

Watson Rosalind 2016 

Webber Karen 2015 

+Wheeler Rachel 2016 

Williams Denise Mavis 2014 

Williamson Denise Elaine 2015 

*Willis David John Leslie 2016 

+Wills Morwenna 2016 

Wilson Heather Ann 2014 

+Woodhouse Daniel 2016 

+Woolley Timothy 2016 

+Yarrien John 2017 

+Young Simon 2017 


52/4. The Conference adopts the report on Preachers recommended for continuance 

on trial. 

4. Preachers on trial presented to the Conference for reception into Full Connexion 

in 2013 

Surname 

Anderson 

Boden 

Borg 

Cook 

Coulthard 

Daniel 

Dube 

Dunning 

Evans 

Fraser 

Fugill 

Gaffney 

First name(s) 

Ann Miller 

Beverley Dawn 

Raymond 

Kathryn Anne 

Lynda 

Gillian Margaret 

Edson 

Elizabeth 

Jacqueline Patricia 

Janette 

Matthew Lewis 

Jane Elizabeth 

552 




Grimsley 

Hayes 

Herbert 

Ingrouille 

Jambawo 

Jeffries 

Keegan 

Kirova 

Letley 

Marchment 

Mills 

Osei 

Page 

Pathmarajah 

Patron Bell 

Penfold 

Pereira 

Rees 

Reid 

Scrivens 

Stobart 

Swann 

Terrett 

Walters 

Wigley 

Williams 

Wooller 

Michael John 

Jonathan 

Julie 

Stephen Pierre 

Vincent Munyaradzi 

Ruth Hazel 

Debra Jane 

Elizabeth Anne 

Helen Ruth 

Colin 

Stella Freda 

Elizabeth Owusu 

Rosamunde Ellen Kitty 

Jennifer Rani 

Alan James 

Helen 

Leonard Jerome 

Paul 

Valerie 

John 

Andrew James 

Steven John 

Alexandra Jean 

Amy Louise 

Andrew Michael Durham 

Rachel Louise 

Nicola 


52/5. The Conference resolves by a Standing Vote that it judges that those persons 

whose names are printed in the Agenda have duly completed their training and 

probation and thereby it recommends them to the Representative Session as 

fit to be received into Full Connexion with the Conference as presbyters and, 

if not already ordained, to be ordained. 

A resolution will be presented to the Representative Session of the Conference that the 

above named will be received into Full Connexion and, if not already ordained, be ordained. 


553

53. Ministers Becoming Supernumerary 

or Returning to the Active Work 

1. Recommended to return to the 

active work 

Colin H J Plenderleith 

2. Permission to become 

supernumerary granted during the 

year 

* Anthony J Brazier 

Those marked * were granted 

permission on grounds of ill health 

under Standing Order 790(2) and 

those marked + were granted 

permission on compassionate 

grounds under Standing Order 

790(3). 

3. Presbyters requesting permission 

to become supernumerary 

The figure in brackets indicates 

the number of years of status as a 

minister of the person concerned 

(with any former years of status as a 

deacon added with the prefix D). 

John L H Allison (32) 

Alfred J Austin (46) 

Andrew J M Barker (27) 

Stephen Barnett (20) 

Richard Bielby (37) 

G David C Bown (39) 

Patrick L Brain (31) 

Anthony E Buglass (36) 

J Keith Burrow (33) 

*Margaret M Christopher (22) 

*Lynda M Coates (23) 

H Jane Cole (P9; D10) 

David W Cooper (40) 

*David J Crouchley (26) 

Raymond Cummins (24) 

Peter W Davis (35) 

Linda M Eccles (19) 

Jennifer Edmondson (20) 

David R Emison (41) 

John E Fenner (37) 

Kenneth Fitzsimmons (17) 

Barbara E Garwood (8) 

Jennifer M Gill (16) 

Elizabeth M B Greene (16) 

Roger J Greene (29) 

Malcolm Groom (20) 

Andrew L Gunstone (33) 

Leslie Hann (37) 

Nigel J Hannah (38) 

R Geoffrey Harris (36) 

Christine A Hawke (23) 

Yvonne M Haye (15) 

Brian C Hodges (20) 

*Lynette Houghton (18) 

William Huband (12) 

John O James (39) 

Keith S Lackenby (42) 

Derrick R Lander (37) 

Michael W Lees (18) 

*Judith I Maizel-Long (34) 

Graham J Matthews (30) 

Lorna H Murray (31) 

Iris P Musgrove (23) 

*Heather Noel-Smith (24) 

Terence M Nowell (40) 

Nigel Ogley (19) 

*Andrew Orton (7) 

W Andrew J Palmer (36) 

Michael J Parrott (38) 

Julia M Pellett (P22; D23) 

David A Priestnall (40) 

John Proudman (16) 

Bruce Russell (16) 

Andrew W Sails (33) 

Christopher J Shreeve (36) 

Patrick Slattery (30) 

D Paul C Smith (39) 

Heather A Snape (9) 




Terence Spencer (36) 

John E Staton (34) 

Alan M Taylor (15) 

Lily P Twist (15) 

W Arthur Wakelin (18) 

Heather M Walker (17) 

Jeffrey D Walker (14) 

Anthony R Walton (20) 

Pamela R Ward (10) 

J Graham Wassell (11) 

Jane M Willcock (12) 

Peter Willis (41) 

Gerald E Wilson (20) 

All applications are made under 

Standing Order 790(1), except 

those marked * who are applying on 

grounds of ill health under Standing 

Order 790(2). 


53/1. (Presbyteral Session) 

The Conference receives the Report. 


The Conference recommends to the Representative Session that the presbyters 

listed above be permitted to become supernumerary on the grounds shown. 

53/3. (Representative Session) 

The Conference permits those presbyters whose names have been recommended 

by the Presbyteral Session to become supernumerary. 


The Conference permits the following presbyter to return to the active work: 

Revd Colin Plenderleith 

DEACONS BECOMING SUPERNUMERARY 

OR RETURNING TO THE ACTIVE WORK 

1. Recommended to return to the 

active work 

No case 

2 . Permission to become 

supernumerary granted during the 

year 

No case 

3. Deacons requesting permission to 

become supernumerary 

Kathleen Barrett (23) 

* Margaret Crompton (20) 

Ruth M Hinch (38) 

Sylvia J Kempson (14) 

All applications are made under 

Standing Order 790(1), except 


555



those marked * who are applying on 

grounds of ill health under Standing 

Order 790(2). 

***RESOLUTION 


The Conference permits those deacons whose names have been recommended 

by the Conference Diaconal Committee to become supernumerary. 

556 


54. World Methodist Council Ministerial Exchanges 

The following presbyters have made 

application to participate in exchanges 

under the auspices of the World Methodist 

Council; 

J Neil Adams (28/9 Stafford) with Tracey 

Mooney (United Methodist Church, USA) 

Mark Cheetham (23/7 Leicester Trinity) with 

Terry Bryant (United Methodist Church, USA) 

David P Gray (7/24 Swindon and 

Marlborough) with David Calhourn (United 

Methodist Church, USA) 

K Andrew Lindley (11/24 Staffordshire 

Moorlands) with Nathan Hodge (United 


The following deacon has made application 

to participate in an exchange under the 

auspices of the World Methodist Council; 

Barbara Crockett (11/15 Stoke-on-Trent 

North) with William Grady Roe (United 


***RESOLUTION 

54/1. The Conference, acting under the provision of SO 335(3A) approves the exchange 

of pastorates as listed. 


557

55. Methodist Forces Board 


The Revd Robert Jones 

Secretary to the Methodist Forces Board. 

jonesr@methodistchurch.org.uk 

1. The Methodist Forces Board 

continues to support Forces 

Chaplains from the three services 

as the core activity with a number of 

other activities undertaken by the 

Board in support of our chaplains. 

2. The Board reports that we have held 

overall numbers very well. Currently 

we have 28 ordained commissioned 

chaplains across all 3 services 

drawn from the Methodist Church in 

Britain and Ireland and from other 

denominations within the wider 

Methodist family. This includes a 

serving chaplain from the Fijian 

Methodist Church, two from the 

Church of the Nazarene and four 

from the Irish Conference, all of 

whom are Recognised and Regarded 

to serve as Methodist chaplains. 

3. The tempo of operations continues 

to be high and Methodist chaplains 

have played their full part with 

deployment to Afghanistan. This has 

included in recent times, the Revds 

Richard Rowe (RN), Albert Jackson 

(Army) and currently Dawn Colley 

(RAF). In 2012, the Secretary of the 

Board also visited Camp Bastion 

as part of a group of ecumenical 

representatives of the Sending 

Churches. 

4. The Secretary and Chair of the 

Board were pleased to accompany 

the President of the Conference, 

the Revd Dr Mark Wakelin when he 

visited the Royal Navy at Portsmouth 

and HMS Victory. 

5. The Forces chaplains were pleased 

to welcome the President to the 

Tri-Service Chaplains Conference at 

Amport House and were grateful for 

the time he was able to spend with 

them over two days. 

6. In recent years, there have been a 

steady number of candidates and 

a good success rate at the point of 

officer selection. Overall we believe 

that we have a recruitment rate 

about equal to the rate of attrition 

as chaplains leave the service and 

return to other ministries. 

7. From the perspective of the three 

services, the Royal Navy, the Army 

and the Royal Air Force all see 

recruitment as a critical priority. 

Despite ongoing and far-reaching 

financial austerities there is still a 

need for recruitment for chaplaincy. 

Indeed, to meet natural retirement 

processes in the present phase, 

recruitment will need to be at 

an annual rate approaching 35 

chaplains each year across all 

services and denominations and 

the 3 services are anxious that 

the Methodist Church plays a full 

part. Currently chaplains under the 



Methodist Forces Board, comprise 

about 10% of the full complement 

which is the largest denominational 

Free Church presence. If we are to 

maintain that commitment, we may 

need to recruit for commissioned 

chaplains at a higher level than we 

are presently achieving and the 

Board continues to review how that 

may be achieved. 

8. The Secretary of the Board is 

a member of the Tri-Service 

Interdenominational Advisory Group 

(TRIAG) and plays a full part in 

developing ecumenical relationships 

which will make the recruitment 

process more effective. 

9. The Forces Board is pleased to 

report that the Revd Alastair Bissell 

has been appointed Principal 

Chaplain, Church of Scotland and 

Free Churches for the RAF. 

10. The Forces Board continues to 

sponsor local projects which work 

with and support forces chaplaincies. 

These presently number three: 

a) Aldershot Garrison – a project 

working with schools, families, 

children and young people 

connected to Army personnel. 

b) Faslane - HMS Neptune: the 

Backchat project works with 

children and young people in 

Helensburgh. 

reconfigured programme of 

activities under the umbrella of 

the chaplaincy for those in the 

second phase of training. The 

Project Workers, Penny Thorne 

and Susie Templeton have 

played a full and exciting part in 

redeveloping this project. 

11. The Board has put in places 

resources to support one day/ 

one week/one off projects for all 

chaplains and this is beginning to 

help some interesting developments. 

12. Both the Forces Board Fund and the 

Aldershot Methodist Military Trust 

Fund are now relatively healthy and 

stable. 

13. The Forces Board continues to offer 

support for forces personnel and 

civilians who work for the military 

overseas, in their training as Local 

Preachers. Developments in Local 

Preacher Training will help that 

process. 

14. Member of the Methodist Forces 

Board for 2013/14 will be: The Revds 

David Barrett, Scott Brown, Alastair 

Bissell, Janice Honey Morgan, Robert 

L Jones (convener), Jean Quick, 

Jonathan Woodhouse, Mr Colin 

Breed, Lieut. Colonel Jeremy Drage, 

Mr Peter Green, Col. Philip Harrison, 

Miss Shirley Hewitt, Mrs Liesel 

Parkinson, Mr Doug Swanney (Chair), 

Lt Cdr (retd.) Matthew Thomas. 

c) Gosport – HMS Sultan: The 

Haven Project is offering a 


559


***RESOLUTION 


560 


56. Permissions to serve 

PRESBYTERS RECOMMENDED FOR TRANSFER OUT OF FULL CONNEXION OR TO BE 

PERMITTED TO SERVE ANOTHER CONFERENCE OR CHURCH OR TO SERVE ABROAD OR 

RESIDE ABROAD 

1. MINISTERS OFFERING AS CANDIDATES FOR THE DIACONATE 

No case 

2. TRANSFER TO OTHER CONFERENCES AND DENOMINATIONS 

No case 

3. TRANSFER TO THE METHODIST CHURCH IN IRELAND 

No case 

4. PERMISSION TO SERVE ABROAD 

Richard N Clutterbuck (Ireland) 

Kenneth R Cracknell (United States) 

Wesley Daniel (United States) 

Jonathan Dean (United States) 

Martin H F Forward (United States) 

Keith V Garner (Australia) 

Pamela Garrud (United States) 

Keva L Green (United States) 

A Kaleem John (Pakistan) 

Christopher J Kirk (United States) 

G Howard Mellor (Hong Kong) 

David Nellist (United States) 

M Peter Taylor (New Zealand) 

Neil J Whitehouse (Canada) 


561

56. Permissions to serve 

5. PERMISSION TO RESIDE ABROAD 

Kenneth P Anderson (Australia) 

Kate R Ashton (Australia) 

Luis Baldeon (Peru) 

Suzanna Bates (Canada) 

W Gerald Beattie (Ireland) 

Inderjit S Bhogal (Ireland) 

David Bolton (Senegal) 

Christopher Burgoyne (Spain) 

Sylvia Burgoyne (Spain) 

Laurence H Churms (Ireland) 

Diane S Clutterbuck (Ireland) 

Rachel M Downs-Lewis (United States) 

Michael P Dye (New Zealand) 

Augusto E Giron (Guatemala) 

Henk Greenway (Germany) 

Richard O Griffiths (Australia) 

Elizabeth E Harron (Ireland) 

Trevor Hoggard (New Zealand) 

Caroline M Homer (Spain) 

Ian Howlett (New Zealand) 

M Jill Jones (United States) 

Victor Lamont (Thailand) 

David J S Lee (Germany) 

Margaret L MacAskie (United States) 

S Lindsay McQuoid (Ireland) 

Robert Moore (New Zealand) 

Irene Morrow (Ireland) 

Mervyn P Oliver (Ireland) 

Ivor W Pearce (Australia) 

John R Perry (Germany) 

Colin R Phillips (France) 

Linda M Rettenmayer (United States) 

E Alan Roberts (Canada) 

Stephen J Robinson (Ireland) 

Jennifer-Ann Sweet (South Africa) 

Margaret A Valle (Peru) 

Arthur W Wainwright (United States) 

Geoffrey Wainwright (United States) 

Gordon H Wallace (Ireland) 

W John A White (Canada) 

Jill Wiley (United States) 

Nadine Wilkinson (United States) 

6. PERMISSION TO SERVE ANOTHER CHURCH (under Standing Order 735) 

John A Butterfield (United Reformed Church) 

Paul S R Chesworth (New Frontiers International) 

Hannah C Heim (Methodist Church The Gambia) 

Graham R Kent (Moravian Church) 

Ermal B Kirby (Methodist Church of Southern Africa) 

Henry F Le Ruez (Church of England) 

Robert D Lewis (United Methodist Church) 

Jennifer C Rayner (Church of England) 

Andrew Williams (United Methodist Church) 

***RESOLUTION 


The Conference adopts the Report. 

562 


57. Presbyters and Deacons from other Churches 

PRESBYTERS TO BE RECOGNISED AND REGARDED AS PRESBYTERS OF THE 

METHODIST CHURCH 

The names of persons to be recognised and regarded as Presbyters in Full Connexion 

are printed below and may be amended in the Order Paper at the Conference in order to 

incorporate any changes consequent upon the decisions of the Stationing Committee. 

(1) Presbyters of the Irish Conference 

Under Clause 43 of the Deed of Union all ministers admitted into Full Connexion with the 

Conference of the Methodist Church in Ireland are automatically recognised and regarded 

as presbyters in Full Connexion with the Conference of the Methodist Church in Britain, 

irrespective of whether they are stationed by the latter Conference (although they only 

come under the rules and discipline of the Conference when stationed by it) . Their names 

are printed in the Minutes of the Conference. 

(2) Presbyters of other autonomous Methodist Conferences 

P Kofi Amissah 35/10 Methodist Church, Ghana 

Philip Buckland 2/9 Methodist Church of Southern Africa 

Luiz Fernando Cardoso 10/1 Methodist Church, Brazil 

Lynita Conradie 22/1 Methodist Church of Southern Africa 

Philip Corrigan 

26/FC 

Michael Crockett 5/1 Methodist Church of Southern Africa 

William Davis 35/22 Methodist Church Ghana 

Daniel K French 6/5 Methodist Church Ghana 

Joseph F Gomez 28/13 Methodist Church The Gambia 

Stephen Hancock 

26/FC 

Kong Ching Hii 35/2 Methodist Church, Malaysia 

Susan D M Howe 24/22 United Methodist Church 

Oluyesimi Jaiyesimi 7/2 Methodist Church in Nigeria 

Solomon Joseph 35/28 Church of South India 

Jimione Kaci 22/19 Methodist Church in Fiji 

R Blair Kirkby 18/9 United Church of Canada 

Jong Sin Lee 7/13 Korean Methodist Church 

C Mark Liddicoat 12/3 

N Keith Lowder 36/2 United Methodist Church 

Josefa R Mairara 26/FC Methodist Church in Fiji 

Charles F Makonde 21/16 Methodist Church of Southern Africa 

Bernardino M Mandlate 35/31 Methodist Church of Southern Africa 

David A Markay 25/3 United Methodist Church 

Kristin C Markay 25/15 United Methodist Church 


563


Leslie Middleton-Weaver 35/28 

Moon-Chan (Michael) Moon 35/33 Uniting Church in Australia 

Francis S Nabieu 29/33 Methodist Church in Sierra Leone 

Adam Nyawo 35/12 Methodist Church of Zimbabwe 

Ayodeji E Okegbile 35/32 Methodist Church, Nigeria 

Richard Rowe 

26/FC 

Stephen Skuce 25/13 Methodist Church in Ireland 

Ernest B Stafford 35/3 Methodist Church The Gambia 

Marcus Torchon 18/9 MCCA 

Christoffel H Van Staden 31/2 Methodist Church of Southern Africa 

Monwabisi R Vithi 15/1 Methodist Church of Southern Africa 

Colin M Weir 

26/FC 

Cindy K Wesley 14/26 United Methodist Church 

T J Wesley 34/4 United Methodist Church 

John K C Yap 36/21 Methodist Church, Malaysia 

Jongikaya Zihle 35/33 Methodist Church of Southern Africa 

***RESOLUTION 

57/1. By a Standing Vote, the Conference welcomes those presbyters to be appointed 

to the stations, whose names are listed in the Agenda as amended by the Order 

Paper circulated to the Conference, as ministers of other autonomous Methodist 

Conferences who, by virtue of clause 44 of the Deed of Union, will thereby be 

recognised and regarded as presbyters of the Methodist Church admitted into 

Full Connexion. 

(3) Presbyters of other communions applying to be recognised and regarded 

Geoffrey S Clarke 19/15 Debora Marschner 25/9 

John S Currie 36/21 Hee Gon Moon 20/6 

Thomas Goodwin 26/FC T Evan Morgan 1/1 

M Angharad Griffith 1/1 Douglas Morris 14/20 

Dee Dee Haines 15/1 John C Peet 27/31 

N Cyril Haire 7/2 David I Rankin 23/2 

Albert Jackson 26/23 Gwyndaf Richards 1/1 

R Glyn Jones 1/1 Douglas S Rix 24/1 

R Ifor Jones 1/1 Edward Sakwe 23/8 

Seung-Wook Jung 14/13 Arlington W Trotman 35/17 

David Kent 27/35 Roderick Whateley 36/25 

Chellaian Lawrence 35/16 Peter W Williams 1/1 

564 



***RESOLUTION 

57/2. By a Standing Vote the Conference, by virtue of clause 45 of the Deed of Union, 

declares that the persons whose names are printed for this purpose in the 

Agenda as amended by the Order Paper circulated to the Conference, shall be 

recognised and regarded during the period of their appointment to the stations 

for the next ensuing year as presbyters of the Methodist Church admitted into 

Full Connexion. 

DEACONS OF OTHER CHURCHES TO BE RECOGNISED AND REGARDED AS DEACONS OF 

THE METHODIST CHURCH 

No case 

PRESBYTERS OF OTHER COMMUNIONS TO BE AUTHORISED TO SERVE THE METHODIST 

CHURCH 

The names of presbyters to be authorised to serve are printed below and may be amended 

in the Order Paper at the Conference in order to incorporate any changes consequent upon 

the decisions of the Stationing Committee. 

David J A Adams 7/2 Alan C Bird 23/26 

Hazel A Allen 7/20 Richard A Bittleston 23/2 

Paul R Allen 16/3 Robin G Blount 36/25 

Bruce S Allinson 36/8 Gita D Bond 14/25 

M John Allison 27/32 Michael P M Booker 14/26 

Robert J M Amess 12/11 David H Bowler 23/10 

Jane Anderson 34/9 Simon R Boxall 35/30 

Raymond Anglesea 13/12 Mair Bradley 22/6 &22/11 

Janet E Appleby 20/1 Paul J Breeze 16/15 

Jennie Appleby 23/7 Lynn Britten 27/32 

Clive M Artley 13/7 Philip A Brooks 6/3 

Margaret Ashby 36/9 Andrew Brown 11/4 

Jason M E Askew 34/12 Elaine K Brown 20/15 

Janice E Audibert 26/19 Jenny Brown 11/4 

Simon C Battersby 14/3 Ruth Browning 14/9 

Elizabeth M Baxter 29/23 Kate Bruce 13/11 

Stanley R Baxter 29/23 Mitchell S Bunting 31/1 

Elizabeth J Bendrey 34/9 Denise Burgess 5/9 

Barbara E Bennett 24/20 Diane J Bussey 23/14 

Ian R Bentley 26/27 A Jane Campbell 22/15 

Peter M Bestley 36/2 Martin F Camroux 35/39 


565


Mark J Cantrill 25/19 Susan L Graham 7/2 

Sam Cappleman 34/1 Peter J Green 25/10 

Kenneth Clapham 21/16 Roger C Green 21/1 

Michael J Claridge 5/8 Ronald G Greig 31/1 

John K Clark 31/2 Stephen R Griffiths 9/4 

Neil M Clarke 23/19 Michael E Haighton 23/11 

Christine H Clements 35/30 David S Hamblin 36/2 

Christopher I Coates 29/33 Paul Han 35/38 

Martyn J Coe 35/30 Sungil Han 24/3 

John G Cole 17/11 R Stephen Hannam 27/34 

Sian E Collins 7/7 John A Hardaker 34/15 

Katherine E Colwell 17/11 Janet Hardy 25/17 

Malcolm J Cook 23/4 Martin O Hardy 11/1 

Peter A Cornish 36/27 Amanda J Harper 35/7 

Alan Crump 18/5 Linda M Harris 26/27 

Samuel Cyuma 34/11 Kenneth M Hawkings 5/1 

Philip S Daniel 28/9 Michael J Hazelton 13/7 

Moyra G Davies 7/24 Martin J Heath 28/3 

Bryony E Davis 36/6 Peter Heckels 20/1 

Andrew C De Smet 29/34 David Henson 17/9 

Paul B Dean 36/25 David J P Hewlett 5/1 

Richard H Dengate 36/17 Helen M Higgin-Botham 21/11 

Caroline A Dick 13/11 Timothy J Hillier 36/6 

Jane E Dicker 34/12 Robin R Hine 31/1 

A Sheila Dickson 26/3 Elaine M Hodge 2/7 

Myra D Dillistone 24/3 Helen M Hodgson 27/31 

Ian K Duffield 25/6 Jeffery S Hopewell 23/12 

Terence N Dyer 21/2 Robert J Horrocks 6/3 

Mark S J Elvin 14/1 Naison Hove 35/4 

Alison R Evans 7/7 Brian A Howden 23/26 

Felicity E M Ferriter 25/19 Andrew J Howell 6/4 

Stephen H Fisher 25/13 Anthony W Howells 23/29 

Paul R Floe 2/6 Ann Hufton 9/16 

Patricia L M Fogden 36/25 E Ann Jack 35/35 

Ron Forster 20/6 Timothy R Jackson 34/1 

Roy J Fowler 7/20 Irfon James 2/27 

Alexander P J Galbraith 18/17 David A L Jenkins 35/24 

Raymond G Gaston 5/1 Clive J Jennings 7/15 

John C Girtchen 17/11 Timothy E Jessiman 26/4 

Thomas E Glover 13/11 Alan D J Jewell 18/5 

George C Goalby 17/3 Margaret Johnson 20/1 

John B Gordon 36/13 Margaret A Johnson 24/10 

I Charles J Gorton 19/3 Margaret A H Johnson 23/13 

566 



Brenda Jones 13/15 James E A Mustard 35/35 

Thea Jones 23/5 Martyn P Neads 26/13 

David V Keeble 34/18 Barbara J Neill 22/1 

Stephen P Kelly 27/9 Stephen D Newell 7/2 

Elizabeth A Kemp 26/24 Patricia A Nimmmo 23/26 

Peter Kerton-Johnson 24/18 Stuart W Nixon 24/7 

Richard L Kidd 19/17 Johannes Nobel 29/33 

Rosemary J M Kidd 19/17 John K Nyota 35/40 

Jennifer M King 35/35 Modicum Okello 5/1 

Elizabeth Kitching 29/31 Oluremi R Omole 13/11 

Neil J Lambert 36/1 S Robinson Paisley 31/2 

David K Langford 26/10 Steven R Palmer 23/13 

Emma L Langley 7/2 John C Park 20/6 

J Barrie Lawless 23/5 Angus M M Parker 26/1 

Robert W Lawrance 13/11 Gavin D Parker 22/19 

Trefor Lewis 1/1 John M Parry 23/28 

Daphne J Lloyd 14/15 Susan A Paterson 23/12 

Richard J Lockwood 5/9 Michael J Peat 19/17 

Mark W J Loney 34/13 Marilyn A Peters 28/21 

Kathleen LaCamera Loughlin 19/15 Colin Phipps 24/1 

Deon Louw 7/24 Catherine R Pickford 20/2 

Andrew J Mann-Ray 28/5 Mary J Playford 14/3 

James H Marshall 9/4 Kim Plumpton 36/10 

David R D Martineau 17/11 Heather J Pollard 23/26 

Margaret A Mascall 36/21 Matthew R Pollard 27/34 

William E J Mash 28/1 Eileen Poore 35/40 

Charles L Mather 14/26 Richard Pope 11/24 

David M C Matthews 12/8 David Y Poulton 5/10 

Murray McBride 28/3 Alan Priestley 5/1 

Gary S McGowan 18/13 Ian A Pullinger 23/21 

Betty McNiven 2/24 Stuart R Radcliffe 19/13 

T Douglas McRoberts 36/16 Anugrah D Ramble 5/4 

Helen M Mee 31/1 John Rammell 28/1 

Martin M Miller 36/13 Peter S Rand 20/1 

Roger C Mills 20/1 Anna L Ratcliff 22/4 

Timothy Mitchell 22/13 Paul Rathbone 29/23 

Clive Morgan 2/13 Glenn T Reading 5/18 

D Marc Morgan 1/1 Keith A F Rengert 14/1 

Ann V Morris 7/7 Paul L Richards 23/7 

Peter Mott 27/31 R Neville Richardson 27/31 

Ian H Murray 5/9 Jean A Robinson 36/6 

David J Muskett 26/9 Derek W Rosamond 13/3 

Joanne C Musson 5/18 Tudur Rowlands 1/1 


567


Richard Rowling 29/23 Barry Welch 20/6 

Charles Royden 34/1 Brian W White 5/9 

David P Ryan 5/16 Carolyn White 6/4 

Jonathan Salmon 26/13 Simon I D White 22/20 

Mark H Salmon 28/3 Eric K Whitley 23/10 

Robert W Sanday 26/1 Rosemary J Whitley 23/10 

Trevor J Sands 23/21 Maurice A Whittaker 22/19 

Wendy J Saunders 35/30 Dinah A Whittall 7/20 

Michael R Sheard 17/11 Janet I Whittingham 19/3 

Michael Shrubsole 26/10 Nicholas Will 14/7 

Malcolm Smalley 29/14 Ian K Williams 22/15 

Alistair G Smeaton 9/5 Mark R Williams 35/39 

Andrew P L Smith 28/21 Roger T Williams 14/26 

Gordon Smith 18/5 Desmond C Williamson 35/39 

Deborah J Snowball 34/14 Ronald J Willoughby 11/18 

Lynda Spokes 23/5 Jeffrey Wilson 17/11 

Beverley A Stark 23/12 Ronald Wilson 9/16 

Christopher H Stebbing 25/1 Michael J Withey 7/7 

John W Steele 34/15 Brian Woollaston 7/7 

Elizabeth I Strafford 13/11 Alan W Wright 17/11 

Margaret E C Talbot 14/5 Michael Yates 22/28 

James A Taylor 7/7 Ernest W N Yu 35/39 

Kathryn I Taylor 34/12 Ronald J Willoughby 11/18 

Noelle R Taylor 34/12 Jeffrey Wilson 17/11 

Patrick H Taylor 27/34 Ronald Wilson 9/16 

Rosemary E Taylor 17/22 Michael J Withey 7/7 

Hamish G F Temple 17/3 Brian Woollaston 7/7 

Eileen C Thompson 31/1 Alan W Wright 17/11 

Joanne Thorns 13/11 Michael Yates 22/28 

Derek J Tighe 36/10 Ernest W N Yu 35/39 

Yvonne Tracey 20/6 Ronald J Willoughby 11/18 

Brian D Trudgian 14/18 Jeffrey Wilson 17/11 

Edwina B Turner 35/7 Ronald Wilson 9/16 

Ruth C Turner 25/3 Michael J Withey 7/7 

Peter J Van De Kasteele 23/4 Brian Woollaston 7/7 

David Varcoe 35/36 Alan W Wright 17/11 

Bruce Waldron 14/26 Michael Yates 22/28 

Graham F Warmington 24/24 Ernest W N Yu 35/39 

568 



***RESOLUTION 

57/3. The Conference resolves that the persons whose names are printed for this 

purpose in the Agenda as amended by the Order Paper circulated to the 

Conference, be authorised to serve the Methodist Church for the next ensuing 

year by virtue of Standing Order 733(1) and that each person so authorised shall 

reside for the purposes of the stations in the Circuit whose number appears 

against his or her name so listed. 

DEACONS OF OTHER COMMUNIONS TO BE AUTHORISED TO SERVE THE METHODIST 

CHURCH 

The name of a deacon authorised to serve is printed below and may be amended in the 

Order Paper of the Conference in order to incorporate any changes consequent upon the 

decisions of the Stationing Committee. 

Ellen Monk-Winstanley 21/10 

***RESOLUTION 

57/4. The Conference resolves that the person ordained deacon in another communion 

whose name is printed above, be authorised to serve the Methodist Church for 

the next ensuing year by virtue of Standing Order 733(1) and that the person 

so authorised shall reside for the purposes of the stations in the Circuit whose 

number appears against her name. 

PRESBYTERS AND DEACONS OF OTHER COMMUNIONS APPLYING TO BE ASSOCIATE 

PRESBYTERS OR DEACONS OF THE METHODIST CHURCH 

The names of presbyters of other communions to be granted the status of associate 

presbyter are printed below and may be amended in the Order Paper of the Conference 

in order to incorporate any changes consequent upon the decisions of the Stationing 

Committee. 

Sydney W Andrew 17/13 Trevor E Beckett 18/9 

Michael J Asquith 14/7 Nigel D Beer 16/2 

Pamela D Baker 23/1 D Owain Bell 28/20 

Carol M Ball 34/9 Michael P Benwell 16/4 

Christine Bandawe 16/4 Paul M Bilton 27/33 

Michael Barber 26/22 Jan H Bisschoff 34/18 

Clive Barrett 27/0 Keith J Brown 34/1 


569


Diane Brownhill 19/1 Alistair G Kaye 16/3 

Anthony F Bundock 16/1 Susan E Kent 13/12 

S Roger Burne 23/1 Graham J Kitts 12/14 

Daniel J A Burton 19/3 Bryan T Knapp 36/18 

Stephen I Butler 31/2 Rosemary A Lawley 28/20 

Peter S Callway 36/18 Ralph N Mann 23/4 

Carole A Camp 5/1 Graham J Maskery 29/36 

Heather R Carter 23/1 Andrew S C Melvin 34/4 

Roy Catchpole 26/26 Jennifer S Montgomery 6/14 

Colin Cheeseman 16/2 Sarah L Moore 9/0 

Paul R F Clemence 21/15 Andrew Myers 16/5 

Jean M Coates 26/20 James W S Newcome 9/0 

Fiona J M Cotton-Betteridge 17/22 Andy J Nicholson 16/4 

Mandy R Coutts 16/7 Rodney Nicholson 21/9 

Simon J Cox 21/15 Hillary Nyika 35/22 

Richard Deimel 13/15 David O’Brien 21/15 

John E Dennett 21/15 Delia M P O’Halloran 34/1 

Linda Dodds 13/15 David J Page 11/8 

Dennis S Downing 12/9 Ann J Parker 7/2 

Helen M Drummond 29/31 Barry R Parker 16/5 

Peter L Dunbar 16/14 David G Paton-Williams 16/2 

Charlotte E Elvey 35/26 Paul J Payton 16/4 

Matthew S Evans 16/14 James E D Percival 21/14 

Robert A Evens 34/1 Peter M L Phillips 7/2 

Jeremy M Fathers 5/1 Robert E Pickering 21/2 

Clive A Flatters 16/17 David E Pountain 12/14 

Lissa M Gibbons 13/16 David W Rhymer 12/4 

Michael E Goodland 12/22 Clive J Richardson 36/1 

David B Griffiths 6/1 David M Robinson 16/2 

Alan Haigh 16/2 Ian T Rodley 16/7 

John Hallows 21/6 Peter B Rouch 19/1 

Kenneth Harris 13/7 Carol A Rowles 35/26 

Ruth Harris 16/17 Neil Salt 21/15 

John Hartley 21/2 Edward A Saville 21/1 

Paul Hartley 16/17 Anthony M Shepherd 16/12 

John A Hawley 21/2 David M Shepherd 34/14 

William E Henderson 16/17 Nigel C Sinclair 16/12 

Garry A F Hinchcliffe 16/12 T Roger Smith 21/2 

Michael Hopkins 36/1 M Paul Spurgeon 16/12 

Richard L Howlett 34/1 Andrew M Taylor 27/32 

Timothy J Hurren 16/12 J Allan Taylor 36/7 

Anthony J L Jones 16/17 David Teece 16/17 

David William Joynes 13/19 Stuart G Thomas 35/26 

570 



Paul Q Tudge 16/7 Gillian A Webb 34/1 

James H Turner 16/5 Philip W Webb 28/9 

Susan M Wallace 16/1 Diana Zanker 16/2 


57/5. The Conference resolves that that the persons whose names are printed for 

this purpose in the Agenda as amended by the Order Paper circulated to the 

Conference, be granted the status of associate presbyter for the next ensuing 

year by virtue of Standing Order 733A(1) in the Circuit whose number appears 

against his or her name so listed. 

57/6. The Conference resolves that that the person whose name is printed below be 

granted the status of associate deacon for the next ensuing year by virtue of 

Standing Order 733A(1) in the Circuit whose number appears against her name. 

Constance M Taylor 27/9 


571

58. Committee Appointments 


58/1. The Conference appoints the Strategy and Resources Committee of the Council 

in accordance with Standing Order 213: 

(i) Professor Peter Howdle (Chair) 

(iA) Mr Adrian Burton, the Revd Eden Fletcher, the Revd David Goodall, Dr Daleep 

Mukarji, Mrs Heather Shipman (2 vacancies names to be brought on the order 

paper) 

(ii) Mr Andrew Gibbs, Mr Edward Awty (Connexional Treasurers) 

(iii) deleted 

(iv) Dr Ian Harrison (Chair of the Connexional Grants Committee) 

(v) The Revd Anne E Brown (Deputy Chair of the Ministries Committee) 

(vi) The Revd Stuart Jordan (District Chair) 

58/2. The Conference appoints the panel for the nomination of District Chairs: 

The Revds John P Barnett, J W Wesley Blakey, Stephen J Burgess, David 

Blanchflower, Kathleen M Bowe, Anne E Brown, Shirley A Clayton, David Cooper, 

Howard Curnow, Albert Gayle, Alison M Geary, John Hellyer, Christine Jones (A), 

Marian J Jones, Robert J Kitching, Derrick R Lander, Paul Nzacahayo, Peter M 

Phillips, Gareth J Powell, Keith A Reed, Stuart Jordan, Andrew W Sails, Dr Elizabeth 

A Smith, D Paul C Smith, Alison Tomlin, Martin Wellings, Andrew D Wood, Margaret C 

Woodlock-Smith. 

Deacon Jane Middleton. 

Mr Harvey Allen, Mrs Christine Bellamy, Ms Margretta Bowstead, Mrs Teresa 

Broadbent, Miss Sarah Cave, Mrs Sue Chastney, Mr David Dalziel, Ms Evelyn de 

Graft, Mr Jack Healey, Prof Peter Howdle, Mrs Judy Jarvis, Dr Susan M Jones, Mr 

Brian King, Mr David T A Kitley, Mrs Amanda Main, Dr Judith May-Parker, Miss Marion 

Mear, Mr Leon A Murray, Mrs Sonia J O’Connor, Mr Malcolm Pearson, Miss Rosemary 

K Pritchard, Mr Noel Rajaratnam, Mr Gordon H Roberts, Miss Jean Rutherford, Dr 

Malcolm Stevenson, Mr Michael Tolson, Mr Sam Walker, Mr David S Walton, Mrs 

Rosemary Wass, Mr Alan R P Weeks, Mr Ivan Weekes, Mrs Ruth M Wilton, Mrs Louise 

C Wilkins, Ms Helen Woodall, Mr Rob Wylie, with the Secretary of the Conference as 

convener. 

58/3. The Conference appoints the panel for Connexional Discipline, Pastoral and 

Appeal Committees and persons with associated functions: 

Connexional Complaints Officer: Mr David Booth, the Revd Alison McDonald (Deputy). 

Chairs: Mr Stephen Allinson, Mr Graham Danbury, Mr Robert Gaitskell, Mrs Susan R 



Howdle, Miss Jennifer Jones, Ms Jane McIvor, Mr Justice Norris, Miss Elizabeth Ovey, 

Mr Brian Rollins. 

Advocates: The Revd Alison McDonald, Mr Stephen Allinson, Mr Joseph Anoom, 

Mr John Birtwell, Mr Graham Danbury, Mr Brian Rollins, Mr Adrian Turner, the Revd 

Stuart Wild. 

Conveners: 

Discipline Appeals and Pastoral: The Revds James A Booth, Paul H Davis, Sharon 

Willimott, Ian Yates 

The Revds Derek A Aldridge, Peter E Barber, Brian E Beck, Inderjit S Bhogal, Neil 

A Bishop, Jill B Bowden, Kathleen M Bowe, Nick Blundell, Anne E Brown, Stuart J 

Burgess, R Graham Carter, David Clowes, John A Cooke, K Hilary Cooke, Geoff R 

Cornell, Judy M Davies, Valentin Dedji, Neil Dixon, Christine A Dybdahl, Jennifer 

M Dyer, Stuart Earl, Veronica M S Faulks, Hazel M Forecast, David Gamble, Albert 

Gayle, Anne E Gibson, Diane M Hare, Yvonne Haye, David A Haslam, John Hellyer, 

Brian R Hoare, Ermal Kirby, John S Lampard, Christina Le Moignan, Julie A Lunn, Paul 

Martin, Will Morrey, Paul Nzacahayo, Hayford Ofori-Attah, Lionel E Osborn, R Stephen 

Penrose, David W Perry, Stephen Poxon, Kathleen M Richardson, Neil G Richardson, 

J Roger Roberts, John D Robinson, Calvin T Samuel, D Paul C Smith, Ian Souter, 

Kenneth Stokes, Thomas J Stuckey, John B Taylor, G Jeff Thomas, Alison Tomlin, 

Martin H Turner, C Norman R Wallwork, Peter Whittaker, Julia M Wiktorska. 

Deacons Eunice Attwood, Kate Barrett, Denise Creed, Sue Culver, Jane Middleton, 

Myrtle Poxon, Marion Sharp, Rowland H Wilkinson. 

Mrs Jane Allison, Mr Donald B Appleyard, Ms Ruby Beech, Mr John A Bell, Mr Simon 

Birks, Mrs Stella Bristow, Mrs Teresa Broadbent, Miss Joan Charlesworth, Mr Dudley 

Coates, Mr John Connor, Mr Colin Cradock, Mr Andrew Cross, Mr Brian Davies, 

Prof Peter Howdle, Mrs Sophie Kumi, Mrs Judy Jarvis, Dr Mary Jefferson, Mrs Ann 

Leck, Mrs Helen R Letley, Dr Edmund I Marshall, Mr Leon A Murray, Mrs Nwabueze 

Nwokolo, Mrs Sonia J O’Connor, Mrs Margaret Parker, Mrs Ruth Pickles, Mr Timothy 

Ratcliffe, Mrs Jean Schroeder, Mr Stephen Schroeder, Dr Alan Thomson, Mr Brian 

Thornton, Mr David Walton, Mrs Rosemary Wass, Mr Ivan Weekes, Sister Eluned 

Williams. 

58/4. The Conference appoints the panel for Connexional Complaints Teams: 

The Revds Catherine H Bird, Hilary Cheng, Keith Harbour, Richard Harrison, Brian 

Jenner, Christopher Jones, Alison McDonald, Brenda Mosedale, Stephen Penrose, 

Mary R Teed, Paul S Weir, Stuart Wild. 


573


Deacon Myrtle Poxon. 

Miss Maureen Anderson, Mr Graham Arthurs, Miss Joan Ball, Mr Peter Binks, Mr 

John Birtwell, Mr Russell Buley, Mr David M Chandler, Mr Leo Cheng, Mr David 

Dalziel, Mr Denis Hagon, Mr David Honour, Dr John Jefferson, Mr G David Kendall, 

Mr Chris Kitchin, Miss Kathryn Larrad, Mr David Laycock, Mrs Ann Leck, Mrs Helen 

Martyn, Mrs Nwabueze Nwokolo, Mrs Jean Schroeder, Mr Stephen Schroeder, Mr 

Roger Thorne, Mr Ray Warren, Mrs Ann Willey, Mr Graham Wilson, Mr John Woosey. 

58/5. The Conference appoints the Presbyteral Candidates Selection Committee: 

The Revds Sean Adair, Sheryl Anderson, Peter E Barber, Christopher Blake, Alan 

Boyd, David Butterworth, Richard J Byass, Helen Cameron, John A Cooke, Deborah 

Cornish, Nigel Cowgill, Jane V Craske, Stephen Dunn, Matthew Finch, Vivienne 

Gasteen, Christine Gillespie, David Hewlett, David Hinchliffe, Christine Jones, 

Margaret P Jones, Teddy Kalongo, Patrick Kandeh, Susan Keegan von Allmen, Sue 

Lawler, Jane Leach, Jonathan Mead, Nick Oborski, Malcolm Peacock, Stephen E 

Robinson, Barbara T Routley, Calvin Samuel, Kathryn Stephens, Neal H Street, 

Joseph Suray, Roberto Viana, Rose Westwood, Susan Wigham, Linda Williams, 

Stephen Yelland; Deacons Andrew Carter, Margaret Cox, Susan Culver, Ann 

Shephard, Janet Thomas; Mrs Akua Agyepong. Mr Richard Armiger, Mr Terry Ayres, 

Mr Ray Battye, Mr David Clitheroe, Dr Maggie Costen, Mrs Janet Dobinson, Mrs 

Glena Griffin, Mrs Christine Haigh, Mrs Rosemary Harrison, Ms Sylvia Hart, Mrs 

Audry Hensman, Mrs Veronica Hickox, Mrs Elisabeth Holmes, Mr Rene Lamisere, 

Ms Rosalind Middleton, Mrs Charlotte Osborn, Mr David Osborne, Mr Colin Ride, Ms 

Selve Selvaretnem, Mrs Karen Stefanyszyn, Mr Sam Taylor, Mrs Alison Wood. 

58/6. The Conference appoints the Diaconal Candidates Selection Committee: 

The Warden of the Order Deacon Sue Culver; the Revds Sheryl Anderson, Peter 

Barber, Jane Carter, David Ellis, Paul Flowers, Sheila Foreman, Christopher Jones; 

Deacons Richard Beckett, Andrew Carter, Jackie Fowler, Angleena Keizer, Michelle 

Legumi, Phil Osborne, Andrew Packer, Sylvie Phillips, Myrtle Poxon, Brian Purchase, 

Janet Stafford, Jan Sutton; Mrs Audrey Hensman, Ms Sarah Akindole, Mr Phil 

Langdale, Mr Alf Philpott, Ms Rachel Starr. 

58/7. The Conference appoints oversight tutors [in accordance with Standing Order 

321(5)(b)]: 

(Where more than one oversight tutor is appointed for the same institution one shall 

be identified as having oversight responsibility. In the following list, that person is 

identified by an asterisk.) 

Eastern Region Ministry Course: To be confirmed 

574 



Hartley Victoria College, Manchester: *Dr Anthony Moodie (Principal), the Revd Dr 

Andrew Pratt, the Revd Nicola Price-Tebbutt 

Queen’s Foundation, Birmingham: *The Revd Helen Cameron, the Revd Gary Hall, 

Ms Rachel Starr 

South East Institute for Theological Education: To be confirmed 

South West Ministry Training Course: The Revd John Henry 

Southern Theological Education Training Scheme: *The Revd Dr Judith Rossall, the 

Revd Dr Philip Richter 

Urban Theology Unit, Sheffield: The Revd Dr Noel Irwin 

Wesley House, Cambridge: *The Revd Dr Jane Leach (Principal), the Revd Dr 

Jonathan Hustler, the Revd Dr Cindy Wesley 

Wesley Study Centre, Durham: *The Revd Dr Calvin Samuel (Principal), Dr Jocelyn 

Bryan, the Revd Andrew Lunn 

York Institute for Community Theology: The Revd Richard Andrew (Director), the 

Revd Sean Adair 

Methodist Training in Scotland: Ms Helen Wareing (National Learning & 

Development Officer) 

Wales Training Network: Mr Luke Curran (Director) 

58/8. The Conference appoints the Faith and Order Committee: 

A senior member of the Connexional Team, representing the Secretary of the 

Conference: The Revd Gareth J Powell 

Dr Jocelyn M Bryan, the Revds Dr Adrian Burdon, Helen D Cameron, Dr David M 

Chapman, I Neil Cockling, Sylvester O Deigh, Dr John C A Emmett, Albert Gayle, Ruth 

M Gee, Mrs Susan R Howdle, the Revd Dr Jane Leach, Prof Judith Lieu (Chair), the 

Revd Dr Michael J A Long, Prof Josef Lössl, the Revds Dr Stephen E Mosedale, Alison 

F Tomlin, Dr Martin Wellings 

58/9. The Conference appoints the Stationing Committee under Standing Order 322: 

Lay Chair Mr Andrew Owen (7) 

Secretary of the Conference 

The Revd Dr Martyn D Atkins 

South-East The Revd Jenny Impey (35) 

Ms Jenny Jackson (36) 

South-West The Revd Peter J Pillinger (24) 

Mr Mike Petter (26) 

Wales/Midlands The Revd Dr Stephen D Wigley (2) 

Mr Malcolm Pearson (11) 

Yorkshire The Revd Stephen J Burgess (29) 

Mrs Kate Woolley (29) 

East Midlands The Revd Dr Peter Hancock (23) 

Mr Peter Sercombe (23) 

North-West The Revd Paul Martin (6) 


575


Mr Iain Henderson (18) 

North/Scotland The Revd Lionel Osborn (20) 

Mrs Lesley Morland (13) 

Warden of the Methodist Diaconal Order Deacon Susan Culver 

Chair of the Diaconal Stationing The Revd Peter E Barber (11) 

Sub-Committee 

Lay member of the Diaconal Stationing Mrs Kate Woolley 

Sub-Committee 

Chair of the Stationing Matching Group The Revd David Emison (29) 

Chair of the Stationing Advisory The Revd Vernon Marsh (25) 

Committee 

Convener of the Stationing Action Group The Revd Anne E Brown (34) 

One Team member responsible for ministerial and diaconal selection and training 


One Team member responsible for the stationing of probationers: 


One Team member responsible for overseas personnel 

[Vacant] 

Connexional Secretary 

Mr Doug Swanney 

In attendance: 

Assistant Secretary of the Conference [SO 322(3)] The Revd Gareth J Powell 

Head of Development and Personnel 

Ms Carmila Legarda 

Ministries, Learning & Development Co-ordinator Mr Paul Taylor 

Head of Discipleship and Ministries Cluster Ms Jude Levermore 

58/10. The Conference appoints representatives to ecumenical bodies as follows: 

1. on the nomination of the Methodist Council, pursuant to S.O. 212(7): 

(a) Churches Together in Britain and Ireland: Annual General Meeting 

Mr Michael P King 

(b) Churches Together in Britain and Ireland: Senior Representatives’ Forum 

Mr Michael P King, The Revd Neil A Stubbens 

(c) Churches Together in England: Enabling Group 

The Revds Richard J Teal, Neil A Stubbens 

(d) Action of Churches Together in Scotland (ACTS): Members’ Meeting: 

The Revd David P Easton; Dr William M Reid 

Alternate for either representative: Mr David Easson 

(e) Cytûn (Churches Together in Wales): Enabling Group 

The Revd Jennifer A Hurd 

Proxies: The Revds Dr Ian D Morris, Philip A Poynor 

576 



(f) Group for Local Unity: The Revds K Hilary Cooke, Neil A Stubbens 

2. others: 

(g) 

(h) 

(i) 

(j) 

(k) 

(l) 

(m) 

The Commission for the Covenanted Churches in Wales: 

Sister Eluned Williams; the Revds Catherine Gale, Delyth A Liddell 

The Free Churches’ Group: The Revds Peter J Pillinger, Neil A Stubbens 

The British Methodist-Roman Catholic Dialogue Commission: 

Mr David Bradwell, the Revds Dr David M Chapman (Co-Secretary), Kenneth G 

Howcroft, Christine M Howe, Dr Neil G Richardson (Co-Chair), Neil A Stubbens, 

Peter G Sulston, Dr Martin Wellings, Dr Stephen D Wigley; and one other to be 

named on the Order Paper. 

The Methodist-United Reformed Church Liaison Group: 

The Revds Richard Teal (Co-Chair), Roger K Hides, Kavula J John, Neil A 

Stubbens; Dr William M Reid 

Methodist Representative to the General Synod of the Church of England (July 

2013/2016): 

The Revd Dr Roger L Walton 

Methodist Representative to the United Reformed Church General Assembly): 

The Revd Dr Keith Davies 

Churches’ Legislation Advisory Service: The Revd Gareth J Powell, Mrs Louise C 

Wilkins 

58/11. The Conference appoints the lay persons nominated by the Synod to the General 

Committee of the Relief and Extension Fund for Methodism in Scotland and 

notes the membership of the Committee as otherwise provided for in Standing 

Order 476(1)(i), (ii) and (iii) as follows: 

(i) the Chair and Presbyteral Secretary of the Methodist Synod in Scotland and the 

Presbyteral Secretaries responsible for “Mission in Britain” and “Property” (being the 

“ex officio Trustees” of the Fund); 

The Revd David P Easton, Chair of the District 

The Revd T Alan Anderson, Presbyteral Secretary of the Synod 

Vacancy, Unit Coordinator for Church Life (which covers “Mission in Britain”) 

The Revd Dr Michael J Hill, Presbyteral Secretary for Property 

(ii) Other trustees and the secretary and treasurer of the Fund and the lay 

secretaries responsible for ‘’Mission in Britain’’ and ‘’Property’’; 

Miss Maureen G Anderson, Mrs Ann Bradley, General Treasurer of the Fund, 

Mr David A Easson, Synod Secretary, Mr Phillip Haggis, District Lay Secretary for 

Property, Dr Alan Hayes, Mr Edward A L Wallace, General Secretary of the Fund, 

(iii) The Superintendent of each Circuit in the District (not otherwise appointed) 

The Revds Andrew Letby, Dr Elizabeth J B Adam, Allan Y Loudon, David B Archer, 


577


Mary M Patterson 

(iv) Lay persons nominated by the Synod and appointed by the Conference; 

Mrs Margaret Brown, Mrs Jennifer H Easson, Mr Sandy Laurie. 

58/12. The Conference appoints the Audit Committee: 

Mr Rodney Betts, Mr John Chastney (Chair), Mr Andrew Whitley, Mr Peter Mills 

58/13. The Conference appoints the Methodist Council of 2013: 

The ex officio members specified in Standing Order 201, and: 

(i)The chair of the Council: The Revd David Gamble 

(iA)The Assistant Secretary of the Conference: The Revd Gareth J Powell 

(ii) The lead Connexional Treasurer: Mr Andrew Gibbs 

(iii)Four District Chairs: The Revds A Ward Jones, Loraine Mellor, Roger L Walton, 

Stephen D Wigley 

(iv)Thirty-one District representatives: The Revds Caroline Ainger, Jade Bath, Rachel 

Borgars, Christopher Briggs, Richard Byass, Mr Gerry Davis, the Revds Rachel Deigh, 

Graham Edwards, Dr Martyn Evans, the Revd Graeme J Halls, Dr Nigel Hardwick, the 

Revds Paul Hill, Graham Horsley, Robert Hufton, Mr Graham Illingworth, Mrs Jean 

Jackson, Mr Sandy Laurie, Mr Tim Layhe, Prof David R Matthews, the Revds Edwin T 

Myers, Gillian Newton, Timothy M Perkins, the Revd D Paul C Smith, Mr Christopher 

Stephens, Dr Alan Sykes, Ms Val Turner, Mr Eric Watchman, Mr Ian White, Mr R Arfon 

Williams. 

(v)The Connexional Secretaries: 

The Revd Dr Martyn D Atkins, Mr Doug Swanney 

(vi)The Chair and two members of the SRC: 

Professor Peter Howdle, Mr Adrian Burton, Mrs Alison Jackson 

(viA) The Chair or Deputy Chair of the Ministries Committee: 

The Revd Lionel E Osborn 

(vii)A representative of the Diaconal Order: 

Deacon Ian H Murray 

(viii)Two representatives of the Youth Assembly: 

Ms Megan Bunce, Rebecca Belshaw 

(ix)Two representatives of the Committee for Racial Justice: 

The Revds Olufemi Cole-Njie, Joseph B Suray 

(x)Up to four Conference-appointed persons. 

58/14. The Conference directs that in accordance with Standing Order 210(2)(a) the 

Districts shall be represented on the Methodist Council of 2014 as follows: 

By a minister or deacon: 

Wales, Bolton and Rochdale, Bristol, Channel Islands, East Anglia, Leeds, Lincoln and 

Grimsby, Liverpool, Manchester and Stockport, Nottingham and Derby, Plymouth and 

578 



Exeter, Southampton, West Yorkshire, Wolverhampton and Shrewsbury, London. 

By a lay person: 

Cymru, Birmingham, Cumbria, Chester and Stoke, Cornwall, Darlington, Isle of Man, 

Newcastle, Lancashire, Northampton, Sheffield, York and Hull, Scotland, Shetland, 

Bedfordshire Essex and Hertfordshire, South East. 

58/15. The Conference appoints the following officers of the 2014 Conference: 

Representative Session 

Journal Secretary: 

The Revd Jennifer M Dyer 

Record Secretary: 

The Revd Colin A Smith 

Convener of the Memorials 

Committee: 

Mr Martin Harker 

Presbyteral Session 

Record Secretary: 

Assistant Record Secretary: 

The Revd Jennifer M Dyer 

The Revd Colin A Smith 

58/16. The Conference appoints the trustees of Epworth Old Rectory as follows: 

The Revd Graham Carter (Chair), Mr John Purdy (Secretary), the Revd Stuart Gunson 

(Treasurer), Mrs Jennifer Carpenter, Mr Barry Clarke, Mr David Harris, Mr Roger 

Kuhnel, the Revd David Leese, Mr Cliff Lewer, Mr Eddie Mardell, Mr William Platts, 

the Revd Bruce Thompson, Ms Germaine Tuck, the Revd Ian R S Walker. 

World Methodist Council (WMC) Trustees: 

The Revd Rudolph Aaron, Bishop Ivan Abrahams (ex-officio as General Secretary of 

the World Methodist Council), the Revds Dr John Barrett, Dr John Beyers, Mrs Thelma 

Crowder, the Revd Dr Daniel Flores, Dr Doug Gestwick, the Revd Dr Jin Doo Kim, 

Bishop Ziphozihle Siwa, the Revd George Smith, Dr Ore Spragin, Archbishop Michael 

Stephen, the Revd Dr Robert Williams. 

58/17. The Conference appoints the following officers of the Conference Diaconal 

Committee: 

Recording Officers: Deacons Susan Hibberd and Lorraine Brown 

Reporting Officer: Deacon Lorraine Brown 

58/18. The Conference appoints the Ministries Committee: 

The Revd Dr Martyn Atkins, Deacon Eunice Attwood, Mrs Ruby Beech, the Revd Anne 

Brown (Deputy Chair), Deacon Susan Culver, the Revd Mark Hammond, the Revd 

Elizabeth Hunter, the Revd Jenny Impey, Ms Jenny Jackson, the Revd Lionel E Osborn 

(Chair), the Revd Marcus Torchon, the Revd Dr Andrew Wood, (2 vacancies). 


579


58/19. The Conference appoints the Directors of the Methodist Independent Schools 

Trust as follows: 

Chair: The Revd Dr David G Deeks 

Three persons nominated by the Trust on the recommendation of the Chairs of 

Governors of the schools: Mr Edmund Waterhouse, Mr David Whitehead, Mr Alan 

Wintersgill 

Up to five persons nominated by the Methodist Council: Miss Margaret Faulkner, the 

Revd David Gamble, Dr Lois Louden, the Revd Dr Calvin T Samuel, the Revd Graham 

Thompson 

Up to five persons nominated by the Trust: Mrs Maureen Bollard, Dr John Lander, Mr 

Keith Norman, Mr John Robinson, Mr Colin Sheppard 

Details of New Nominations (underlined above): 

The Revd Caroline Ainger 


The Revd Jade Bath 

Ms Rebecca Belshaw 

The Revd Rachel Borgars 

Mr David Bradwell 

The Revd Richard Byass 

The Revd Dr Keith Davies 

The Revd Graham Edwards 

Mr David Easson 

The Revd David P Easton 

Mr Philip Haggis 

The Revd Jennifer A Hurd 

Mr Michael P King 

The Revd Sue Lawler 

Prof David R Matthews 

The Revd Dr Ian D Morris 

Deacon Ian H Murray 

The Revd Nick Oborski 

The Revd Lionel Osborn 

The Revd Peter J Pillinger 

The Revd Philip A Poynor 

Nominated to the Council by the Liverpool District Synod. 

Ministries, Learning & Development Officer. 

Nominated to the Council be the Lincoln and Grimsby. 

Nominated to the Council by the Methodist Children 

and Youth Assembly. 

Nominated to the Council by the Bristol District. 

Nominated by the Scotland District Synod. 

Nominated to the Council by the Bedfordshire, Essex and 

Hertfordshire District. 

A Chair of District who has valuable ecumenical 

experience. 

Nominated to the Council by the West Yorkshire District. 

Synod Secretary of the Scotland District. 

Chair-designate of the Scotland District. 

Scotland District Lay Secretary for Property. 

Chair-designate of Synod Cymru. 

Vice-President of the Conference. 

Superintendent Minister, Wales Synod, Faith & Worship 

tutor, Welsh speaker. 

Nominated to the Council by the Northampton District 

Synod. 

Ecumenical Officer ,Synod Cymru. 

Nominated to the Council by the Methodist Diaconal 

Order. 

Superintendent Minister, London District tutor on the 

London Local Preachers’ Course. 

Chair of the Newcastle District. 

Nominated by the Chairs’ Meeting. 

Ecumenical Officer, Wales Synod. 

580 



The Revd Neil A Stubbens 

The Revd Dr Joseph Suray 

Mr Doug Swanney 

The Revd Richard J Teal 

Ms Val Turner 

The Revd Dr Roger L Walton 

Mr Eric Watchman 

Mr Edmund Waterhouse 

Mrs Louise Wilkins 

Connexional Ecumenical Officer. 

Circuit presbyter, District Faith Advisor, member of the 

connexional race stakeholders’ forum. 

Connexional Secretary 

Nominated by the Chairs’ Meeting; Chair of the Cumbria 

District. 

Nominated to the Council by the Shetland District. 

Chair of the West Yorkshire District. Nominated by the 

Chairs Meeting. 

Nominated to the Council by the Darlington District Synod. 

Has gained experience at circuit, district and connexional 

committee roles. 

Chair of Governors at Kent College, Pembury . A senior 

manager, experienced in change management, largely 

within the Department of Health. 

Conference Officer for Legal and Constitutional Practice. 


581

59. Appreciations 

Mr John A Bell 

Since his appointment in 2010 John Bell (who served as Vice-President of the Conference 

in 2005) has brought considerable experience to the role of Chair of the Conference 

Business Committee. Recognised as a good Chair of the twice daily meetings of the 

Committee when the Conference is in session, John has always been prepared thoroughly, 

expediting business efficiently and effectively. John is noted for possessing a developed 

instinct for discerning the mood of meetings, making helpful and insightful contributions in 

appropriate ways. This is as true of his contributions to small meetings as it is of his helpful 

interventions at the Conference. Members of the Conference have come to benefit from his 

careful listening, clarity of thought and skills in evaluating situations under pressure of time. 

In every aspect of this role John has engendered respect and confidence, offering particular 

support to the secretariat both in the preparation for the Conference and when it is in 

session. During all of this John has been supported by his wife, Joan, who as an unseen 

but dedicated worker, has undertaken tasks in the Record Office with cheerfulness and 

commitment. 

As only the second person to hold this position John has aided the development of this 

crucial role to the benefit of the Conference. Above all, he has done this as a faithful servant 

of Christ and his Church. 

***RESOLUTION 

59/1. The Conference thanks John Bell for his work as Chair of the Conference 

Business Committee and wishes him well in his future life and ministry. 


60. Referred Memorials and Notices of Motion 

Below appears a list of Memorials and 

Notices of Motion from previous Conferences 

which have not yet received a final reply or 

are not reported on elsewhere in the agenda. 

In October 2012 the Methodist Council 

received, as part of the work-plan for the 

Connexional Team, a list of items generated 

by the 2012 Conference as well as a list of 

outstanding items. The Council welcomed 

the proposals made in it for the prioritisation 

of the work. (see Council paper MC 12/74) 

In the final column of the list below, under 

the heading Current Situation, a report is 

given on how the items of business that 

been dealt with at this Conference, or what 

recommendations are being made about 

how they are dealt with in the future. 

Memorials from the 2011 Conference 

MEMORIALS 

Work to be 

undertaken by 

(eg committee 

or cluster) 

Deadline 

for report to 


Current Situation 

M3 Ministers 

being received 

into Full 

Connexion 

Council 

no later than 

2013 

Contained within Council 

report 2013 

M9 Ministry 

in local 

appointment 

Ministries 

Committee 

no later than 

2014 

Ongoing, now linked to work 

on Local Pastoral Ministry - 

Ministries Committee 

M12 Ministerial 

Supervision 

Ministries 

Committee 

2013 Work ongoing as pat of 

DMLN development. 

M13 Communion 

mediated through 

social media 

Faith & Order 

Committee 

no later than 

2013 

Progress contained within 

report of the Faith and Order 

Committee. 

M16 Preaching 

at Local 

Arrangement 

Services 

Faith & Order 

Committee 

no later than 

2013 



Committee. 

M19 Circuit 

assessments 

Support 

Services 

no later than 

2013 

Alternative formulae contained 

within Budget proposals before 



583


M26 Releasing 

resources for 

mission. 

Support Services no later than 

2013 

Completed. The provisions of 

SO 955 regarding the 

re-distribution of money 

within districts to enhance 

mission has been highlighted 

via District Treasurers and 

Chairs. 

M32 

Anti-Semitism 

Faith and Order 

no later than 

2013 



Committee. 

M36 Use of 

Methodist Orb 

and Cross 

Creative 

Resources 

2012 New visual identity guidelines 

have been developed. 

Memorials from the 2012 Conference 

Memorial 

Work to be 

undertaken by 

(eg committee 

or cluster) 

Deadline 

for report to 


Current Situation 

M1.- M3 

Stationing 

Matching 

Stationing 

Committee 

Contained within report of 

the Stationing Committee. 

M4.- M5 

Reinvitations 

Stationing 

Committee 

2013 Contained within report of the 

Stationing Committee. 

M13. 

Assessments 

M14. Budgeting 

and assessments 

SRC - Council 2013 Reflected within the proposed 

budget. 

Council 2013 The Council is proposing 

three separate options to 

the Conference so that it 

can more effectively choose 

the level of total MCF 

assessment. 

584 



M18. District 

Levy on funds 

allocated for 

replacement 

schemes 

Law and Polity 2013 Report contained within 

Budget proposals. 

M29. Blessing 

Civil Partnerships 


Council 

None set 

Proposals for a working party 

on this and other issues 

contained within the agenda. 

M32. Tax Justice Methodist 

Council 

JPIT 

Ongoing within the work of JPIT. 

M45. Recognition 

of new Circuits 

Governance 

Support 

To be implemented from 

August 2013. 

Notices of Motion from previous Conferences refereed for report to the Conference. 

NM 206 (2010) 

Supporting 

Christians against 

discrimination in 

the workplace 


Council 

No date set 

Work yet to be completed. 

NM 207(2012) 

Complaints and 

Discipline 


Council 

2014 Work underway. 

***RESOLUTION 

60/1. The Conference adopts the report. 


585

Members of the Conference 2013 


1 The Revd Dr Mark H Wakelin Retiring President (Deed of Union 14(2)(i)) 

2 Mr Michael P King Retiring Vice-President 

3 The Revd Dr Martyn D Atkins Secretary of the Conference 

4 The Revd Lionel E Osborn Ex-President (DU 14(2)(ii)) 

5 Mrs Ruth E Pickles Ex-Vice-President 

6 The Revd Ruth M Gee President-Designate (DU 14(2)(iii)) 

7 Dr Daleep S Mukarji Vice-President-Designate 

Conference Secretariat and other Officers (DU 14(2)(iv) SO 101) 

8 The Revd Gareth J Powell Assistant Secretary 

9 The Revd Colin A Smith Record Secretary 

10 The Revd Jennifer M Dyer Journal Secretary 

11 Mr Martin Harker Secretary of the Memorials Committee 

12 Mr John A Bell Chair of the Business Committee SO 136(1)(i) 

13 Mrs Louise C Wilkins Conference Officer for Legal and Constitutional Practice 

The Chair of each Home District (DU 14(2)(v)) 

14 The Revd Ian D Morris Synod Cymru 

15 The Revd Dr Stephen D Wigley Wales Synod 

16 The Revd William H Anderson Birmingham 

17 The Revd Paul Martin Bolton & Rochdale 

18 The Revd A Ward Jones Bristol 

19 The Revd Richard J Teal Cumbria 

20 The Revd David Hinchliffe Channel Islands 

21 The Revd Peter E Barber Chester & Stoke-on-Trent 

22 The Revd Steven J Wild Cornwall 

The Revd Ruth Gee 

Darlington [Dual Qualification] 

23 The Revd Graham Thompson East Anglia 

24 The Revd Richard Hall Isle of Man 

25 The Revd Elizabeth A Smith Leeds 

26 The Revd Bruce D Thompson Lincoln and Grimsby 

27 The Revd James A Booth Liverpool 

28 The Revd Dr Keith Davies Manchester & Stockport 

The Revd Lionel E Osborn Newcastle upon Tyne [Dual Qualification] 

29 The Revd Stephen J Poxon Lancashire 

30 The Revd Loraine Mellor Nottingham & Derby 

31 The Revd Peter Hancock Northampton 

32 The Revd Peter Pillinger Plymouth & Exeter 

33 The Revd Vernon Marsh Sheffield 



34 The Revd Dr Andrew D Wood Southampton 

35 The Revd Dr Roger L Walton West Yorkshire 

36 The Revd John D Howard Wolverhampton and Shrewsbury 

37 The Revd Stephen J Burgess York & Hull 

38 The Revd Lily P Twist Scotland 

39 The Revd Jeremy C Dare Shetland 

40 The Revd Anne E Brown Bedfordshire, Essex and Hertfordshire 

41 The Revd Michaela A Youngson London 

42 The Revd Jennifer A Impey London 

43 The Revd Dr Stuart Jordan London 

44 The Revd Ian Howarth South-East 

Warden of the Methodist Diaconal Order (DU (14)(2)(vi)) 

45 Deacon Susan Culver The Warden 

Representatives from the Irish Conference 

46 The Revd Dr Heather M E Morris (President, Methodist Conference in Ireland)(DU 14(2)(vii)) 

47 The Revd Donald P Ker (Secretary, Methodist Church in Ireland) 

48 Mrs Lesley Rankin (DU 14(3)) 

49 Mrs Maureen Weir 

Representatives of United Methodist Church (DU 14(3)) 

50 Bishop Mary Ann Swenson 

51 TBC 

Conference-elected Representatives (DU 14(2)(ix) (DU 14(5) SO 103) 

Retiring in 2013 

52 The Revd Helen Cameron 

53 The Revd Jennifer A Hurd 

54 Mr Simon Pillinger 


55 The Revd Dr Calvin T Samuel 

56 The Revd Martin H Turner 

57 Ms Daniella Fetuga-Joensuu 


58 Deacon Lorraine Brown 

59 Mr Sam Taylor 


587


60 Mr David S Walton 

Representatives of Connexional and Other Bodies (SO 102) 

61 The Revd David Gamble The Chair of the Methodist Council (i)(a) 

62 Mr Andrew Gibbs Lead Connexional Treasurer (i)(b) 

63 Prof Peter D Howdle Chair, Strategy & Resources Committee (i)(c) 

64 Mr Doug Swanney Connexional Secretary (i)(d) 

65 The Revd Ernest Grimshaw Forces Chaplain (i)(e) 

66 The Revd Kenneth G Howcroft Overseas Service (i)(f) 

67 Miss Helen Moorehead Overseas Service 

68 Mrs Peggy Mulambya-Kabonde Appointed by Partner Churches (DU 14(4)(d)) 

69 The Revd Patmore C. Henry Appointed by Partner Churches 

70 The Revd Dr Peter M Phillips Faith and Order Representative (ii) 

71 Miss Elizabeth Ovey Law & Polity representative (iii) 

72 Mr Andrew Owen Stationing Committee Representative (iv) 

73 The Revd Peter Brown concerns of racial justice (v)(g) 

74 The Revd Olufemi Cole-Njie concerns of racial justice 

75 The Revd Freddie Takavarasha concerns of racial justice 

76 The Revd Joseph Basappa Suray concerns of racial justice 

77 Mr Samuel Akpalu concerns of racial justice 

78 Ms Veronica Franklin concerns of racial justice 

79 Mrs Linda Crossley representative Methodist Women in Britain (vii) 

80 Ms Hayley Moss Youth President (5) 

81 Ms Abby Waterson Youth Assembly 

82 Ms Roxanne Bainbridge Youth Assembly 

83 Mr Tom Williamson Youth Assembly 

Synod Cymru 

84 The Revd David P Easton 

85 The Revd Peter W Williams 

86 Mrs Maryl Rees 

87 Mr R Arfon Williams 

Wales Synod 

88 Revd Rosemarie Clarke 

89 Revd Cathy Gale 

90 Revd Alan Jenkins 

91 Deacon Stephen Roe 

92 Mr Peter Ackerley 

93 Mr Graham Illingworth 

94 Mr Hugo Potieger 

95 Mrs Mary Williams 

Birmingham 

96 The Revd Andrew Charlesworth 

97 The Revd Nichola G Jones 

98 The Revd Dr Alan Smithson 

99 Deacon Janet K Smith 

100 Mr John Cooper 

101 Mr John Cowan 

102 Mr Peter Mills 

103 Mrs Ermine Mitchell 

104 Mrs Helen Woodall 

Bolton and Rochdale 

105 Rev Sylvester Deigh 

106 Rev Stephen Radford 

107 Mr Robert Graham 

588 



108 Ms Adrienne Simpson 

109 Ms Ruth East 

Bristol 

110 The Revd David R Alderman 

111 The Revd Carolyn Seaton 

112 The Revd Ajay Singh 

113 Mr Archie Rowe 

114 Mr John Seward 

115 Mr Christopher Sledge 

116 Mrs Ros Sledge 

117 Mr David Chandler 

Cumbria 

118 Revd Janet Preston 

119 Revd Philip Jackson 

120 Ms Irene McKay 

121 Dr Martyn Evans 

Channel Islands 

122 Revd Luiz Cardoso 

123 Mr Ed Le Quesne 

Chester and Stoke-on-Trent 

124 The Revd Patricia Billsborrow 

125 The Revd Ashley R Cooper 

126 The Revd Susan Levitt 

127 Mr Brian Barber 

128 Dr Jill Barber 

129 Mr Alistair Johnson 

130 Mrs Heather Staniland 

131 Mrs Chris Thompson 

Cornwall 

132 The Revd Simon J Clarke 

133 The Revd Doreen M Sparey-Delacassa 

134 Deacon Geoffrey W Tamblin 

135 Mrs Annie Guy 

136 Mr Tony Jasper 

137 Mr Giles Richards 

Darlington 

138 The Revd David M Goodall 

139 The Revd Angela J Long 

140 Miss Grace McAloon 

141 Mrs Susan Smith 

142 Mrs Margaret Walton 

143 Mr Eric Watchman 

East Anglia 

144 The Revd Robert J Hufton 

145 The Revd Dr Jane Leach 

146 The Revd Sharon Willimott 

147 Deacon Julie A Dower 

148 Mr Michael Green 

149 Mrs Mary Keer 

150 Dr Derek Nicholls 

151 Mrs Beverly Richardson 

Isle of Man 

152 Rev Monwabisi Vithi 

153 Mrs Sue Montgomery 

Leeds 

154 Revd Christine Gillespie 

155 Revd Charity Hamilton 

156 Revd Barry Lotz 

157 Mrs Margaret Bendle 

158 Miss Sarah Cave 

159 Mr John Goacher 

160 Mrs Doreen Rowley 

Lincoln and Grimsby 

161 Rev. Liz Childs 

162 Rev Alan Robson 

163 Mrs Diane Patrick 

164 Mr Gordon Dixon 

165 Mr Mike Childs 

Liverpool 

166 The Revd Anthony J Clowes 

167 The Revd Dr Andrew M Fox 

168 Deacon L Judith Ireland 

169 Mrs Anne Baldwin 

170 Mr Stephen Cooper 

171 Mrs Elizabeth Hudson 


589


Manchester and Stockport 

172 The Revd Karen Hilsden 

173 The Revd Leslie M Newton 

174 The Revd Stuart J Wild 

175 Deacon Michelle K Brocklehurst 

176 Mrs Helen Boardman 

177 Ms Gill Dascombe 

178 Mrs Alift Harewood 

179 Mrs Ling Henry 

180 Mr Peter Smith 

Newcastle-upon-Tyne 

181 The Revd Alan R Bradley 

182 The Revd Stuart Earl 

183 The Revd Carla S Hall 

184 Deacon Kina L Saunders 

185 Mrs Jane Dixon 

186 Miss Audrey Ilderton 

187 Mr Tadeusz Kawecki-Billam 

188 Mrs Ann Riding 

189 Mr Christopher Stephens 

Lancashire 

190 The Revd Paul D Critchley 

191 The Revd Paul H Davis 

192 The Revd S Mark Slaney 

193 Deacon Myrtle A Poxon 

194 Mrs Wendy Beard 

195 Mr Matt Collins 

196 Mr Graham Kay 

197 Ms Rebekah Spinks 

Nottingham and Derby 

198 The Revd Dr Paul Hill 

199 The Revd Susan L Rolls 

200 The Revd Paul J Worsnop 

201 Mr Tim Annan 

202 Mr John Heard 

203 Mr Peter Marriott 

204 Ms Helen Radford 

205 Mrs Elaine Robinson 

Northampton 

206 The Revd Alison F Tomlin 

207 The Revd Dr Martin Wellings 

208 The Revd E Adam Wells 

209 The Revd Timothy R Woolley 

210 Deacon Philip J Osborne 

211 Mr Chris Hardy 

212 Mr Keith Hiscock 

213 Mrs Roberta Lunt 

214 Mr Robert Peach 

215 Mr Richard Smith 

216 Mr Barry Wilford 

Plymouth and Exeter 

217 The Revd Stephen R Mares 

218 The Revd David P Martin 

219 The Revd D Paul C Smith 

220 Mrs Margaret Cole 

221 Mr Edwin Dobinson 

222 Mr Ronald Jordan 

223 Mr David Watson 

224 Mr Frank Watson 

Sheffield 

225 The Revd Dr Christopher Blake 

226 The Revd Louise E Grosberg 

227 The Revd Thomas D Read 

228 Mr Henry Curtis 

229 Mrs Anne Hollows 

230 Mrs Rachel McCallum 

231 Mr Richard Saunders-Hindley 

Southampton 

232 The Revd Dawn R Carn 

233 The Revd Rosamund V Hollingsworth 

234 The Revd Dr Mark J Kimber 

235 The Revd Andrew C Moffoot 

236 Deacon N Gary Hoare 

237 Mr Rodney Betts 

238 Mrs Irene Bourne 

239 Ms Lynne Matthews 

240 Ms Miriam Moul 

241 Mrs Linda Shah 

590 



West Yorkshire 

242 The Revd Graham M Edwards 

243 The Revd Jacky E L Hale 

244 Deacon Claire Gill 

245 Mrs Janet Clark 

246 Mr Peter Holt 

247 Ms Jocelyn Jean-Pierre 

248 Ms Caroline Stead 

Wolverhampton and Shrewsbury 

249 The Revd C Mary Austin 

250 The Revd Derrick R Lander 

251 The Revd Nigel J Young 

252 Mr Denis Beaumont 

253 Mrs Beatrice M Cloke 

254 Ms Helen Cook 

255 Mr Jonathan Evans 

256 Ms Christina Shaw 

York and Hull 

257 The Revd David A Godfrey 

258 The Revd Rory Dalgliesh 

259 The Revd Andrew J Lindley 

260 Ms Sian Henderson 

261 Dr Stephen Leah 

262 Mrs Tricia Mitchell 

263 Ms Heather Shipman 

264 Miss Rachel Allison 

Scotland and Shetland 

265 The Revd Martin L Keenan 

266 The Revd Andrew Letby 

267 Deacon Roger K Hensman 

268 Mr J Keith Hawkins 

269 Mrs Jenny Lee 

270 Mr Ritchie Walker 

276 Mr Godfrey M Crook 

277 Miss Jane Dansie 

278 Mr John Robinson 

London 

279 The Revd Dr Sheryl M Anderson 

280 The Revd Geoff R Cornell 

281 The Revd Nigel Cowgill 

282 The Revd Eleanor G Jackson 

283 The Revd Samuel E McBratney 

284 The Revd Anthony D Miles 

285 The Revd Ebute Obiabo 

286 Deacon Deborah D E Buckley 

287 Ms Nancy Acquaah 

288 Mrs Christine A Braithwaite 

289 Mr Gerry Davis 

290 Mr Richard W Hamilton-Foyn 

291 Mrs Deborah J Harrison 

292 Mr Daniel Lai 

293 Mr John Logan 

294 Ms Monica Pryce-Ross 

295 Miss M Virtue Ryan 

296 Mrs Denise S Tomlinson 

South East 

297 The Revd William M Grady Jr 

298 The Revd Deborah A Hodgson 

299 The Revd Graham Horsley 

300 The Revd Fidelio R Patron 

301 Mr Timothy Baker 

302 Mr Martin Ellis 

303 Mrs Anne Haggarty 

304 Ms Jenny Jackson 

305 Mr Michael Richardson 

306 Mr David Ridley 

Bedfordshire, Essex and Hertfordshire 

271 The Revd Richard J Byass 

272 The Revd Andrew J L Hollins 

273 The Revd Barbara T Routley 

274 Mr Peter Brooks 

275 Miss Kathleen M Burrell 


591


Associate Members 

(a) Ecumenical 

307 The Revd Canon Moira Astin The Church of England 

308 The Revd David Tatem The United Reformed Church 

309 Fr Kenneth Noakes The Roman Catholic Bishops’ Conference 

of England and Wales 

310 Pastor James Reid The Church of God of Prophecy 

311 TBC The Lutheran Council of Great Britain 

312 The Revd Canon Robin Paisley The Scottish Episcopal Church 

b) Overseas 

313 Mr. Øyvind Helliesen UMC Central Conference of Northern Europe 

314 Superintendent Robert Zachar UMC Central Conference of Central 

and Southern Europe 

315 Bishop Rosemarie Wenner UMC German Central Conference 

Evangelisch-methodistiche Kirche 

316 Mr. Richard Kofi Ampofo OPCEMI (Italy) 

317 The Revd José Manuel Igreja Evangelica Metodista Portuguesa 

(The Evangelical Methodist Church in Portugal) 

318 Mr. John Ekwan Kweku Pratt Methodist Church Ghana 

319 Prelate: his Eminence Makinde Methodist Church Nigeria 

Sunday Olatunji 

320 The Revd Dr. Festus A. Asana Presbyterian Church Cameroon 

321 The Revd Prospero David Iglesia Metodista de Guinea Ecuatorial (Methodist 

Sharpe 

Church Equatorial Guinea) 

Mrs Peggy Mulambya-Kabonde United Church of Zambia [dual qualification – see 68] 

322 The Revd Lic. Javier Rojas Iglesia Evangelica Metodista en Bolivia 

(Evangelical Methodist Church in Bolivia) 

323 Bishop Raúl Garcia Ochoa Iglesia Metodista de Mexico 

(Methodist Church of Mexico) 

322 The Revd Lic. Javier Rojas Iglesia Evangelica Metodista en Bolivia (Evangelical 

Methodist Church in Bolivia) 

323 Bishop Raúl Garcia Ochoa Iglesia Metodista de Mexico (Methodist Church of 

Mexico) 

324 Mr. Silvio Félix Cevallos Parra Iglesia Evangelica Metodista Unida del Ecuador 

(Evangelical Methodist Church of Equador) 

325 The Revd Mario Martinez Tapia Iglesia Metodista de Chile (Methodist Church of Chile) 

The Revd Patmore C. Henry Methodist Church in the Caribbean and the Americas 

– MCCA [dual qualification – see 69] 

592 



326 Mr. Alwan Masih Church of North India 

327 The Rev. Simson Mazumder The Church of Bangladesh 

328 The Revd Ranganathan Prabhu The Methodist Church in Singapore 

329 The Revd Hitolo K. Arua United Church in Papua New Guinea 

330 The Revd Zaw Win Aung The Methodist Church Upper Myanmar 


593

Presbyters attending the Conference at their own expense 

The Revd John Atkinson 

The Revd Jade Bath 

The Revd Paul Beard 

The Revd Ian Bell 

The Revd Stuart Bell 

The Revd Christopher Bishop 

The Revd E Max Bradley 

The Revd David Chapman 

The Rev Dr David Clarke 

The Revd Dr Jane V Craske 

The Revd Valentin Dedji 

The Revd Rachel Deigh 

The Revd J Trevor Dixon 

The Revd Barbara Duchars 

The Revd Margaret Eales 

The Revd Peter Edwards 

The Revd R Martin Evans-Jones 

The Revd Barbara Fairburn 

The Revd Andrew Farrington 

The Revd John Fenn 

The Revd Armstrong K Fummey 

The Revd Barbara Garwood 

The Revd Robert Gee 

The Revd Michael Giles 

The Revd Barbara Glasson 

The Revd Margaret Goodall 

The Revd David J Goodwin 

The Revd Mark Hammond 

The Revd Doreen Hare 

The Revd David Haslam 

The Revd James A Heap 

The Revd Sandra Heap 

The Revd Anthony Hick 

The Revd Rodney Hill 

The Revd Beverly Hollings 

The Revd John Howard-Norman 

The Revd Chrissie Howe 

The Revd Susan D M Howe 

The Revd PJ Jackson 

The Revd Kevin Jones 

The Revd Richard G Jones 

The Revd Sue Keegan van Allmen 

The Revd Marie-Anne Kent 

The Revd Kong Ching Hii 

The Revd Rosa Leto 

The Revd Stephen Lindridge 

The Revd Michael Long 

The Revd Pearl Luxon 

The Revd Dr Tim Macquiban 

The Revd Catherine Minor 

The Revd Julia S Monaghan 

The Revd Louise Morrissey 

The Revd Leao Neto 

The Revd Nicholas Oborski 

The Revd Gwyneth M Owen 

The Revd Bonni-Belle Pickard 

The Revd Rosemary Pritchard 

The Revd Jeanette Richardson 

The Revd Neil Richardson 

The Revd Ruth K Ridge 

The Revd Shaun Sanders 

The Revd Diane Smith 

The Revd Martine Stemerick 

The Rt Revd W Peter Stephens 

The Revd Roger Stubbings 

The Revd Kerry Tankard 

The Revd Joanna Thornton 

The Revd Brian N Tebbutt 

The Revd Nicola Vidamour 

The Revd Rosemary Wakelin 

The Revd Alfred Williams 

The Revd Paul Wilson 

The Revd Denise Yeadon 

The Revd Jongikaya Zihle 


Index to Volumes One and Two 

A Action for Children........................................................................................................ 67 

Appreciations............................................................................................................... 582 

Appointments of District Chairs................................................................................. 522 

Authorisations Committee.......................................................................................... 514 

B Business - Order.......................................................................................................... 278 

C Central Finance Board................................................................................................ 349 

Central Hall, Westminster – Managing Trustees...................................................... 440 

Central Services Budget............................................................................................. 286 

Committee Appointments........................................................................................... 572 

Conference Arrangements.......................................................................................... 498 

Conference Business Committee................................................................................ 29 

Conference Diaconal Committee............................................................................... 283 

Conference Membership............................................................................................ 586 

Conference Rules of Procedure...................................................................................... 7 

Connexional Allowances Committee............................................................................ 57 

Connexional Finances – Unified Statement.............................................................. 311 

D Discipleship and Ministries Learning Network ........................................................ 449 

District allocations....................................................................................................... 309 

District Chairs - Appointments.................................................................................... 522 

District Resolutions..................................................................................................... 512 

E 

Ecumenical Report.........................................................................................................88 

Education Project – Progress Report........................................................................ 331 

Election of President and Vice-President.....................................................................25 

Exchange of Pastorates.............................................................................................. 557 

Expectations of Various Groups....................................................................................18 

F Faith and Order Committee........................................................................................ 421 

G 

General Secretary’s Report...........................................................................................36 

J Joint Advisory Committee on the Ethics of Investment (JACEI)............................... 167 

Joint Implementation Commission............................................................................ 345 

L Larger than Circuit....................................................................................................... 368 

Law and Polity Committee.......................................................................................... 242 

M Managing Trustees of Central Hall, Westminster..................................................... 440 

Managing Trustees of the New Room Bristol (Wesley’s Chapel)................................99 


595


Membership of the Conference – Review................................................................. 586 

Memorials and Notices of Motion - Referred............................................................ 583 

Methodist Academies and Schools Trust ................................................................. 335 

Methodist Children and Youth Assembly Report.........................................................47 

Methodist Council........................................................................................................ 500 

Methodist Diaconal Order – General Report............................................................ 136 

Methodist Forces Board.............................................................................................. 558 

Methodist Homes (MHA)............................................................................................ 103 

Methodist Independent Schools Trust (MIST)..............................................................55 

Methodist Ministers Housing Society........................................................................ 328 

Methodist Ministers Pension Scheme (MMPS)........................................................ 106 

Methodist Missionary Society Working Party........................................................... 427 

Methodist Relief and Development Fund (MRDF) 

– Summary Annual Report and Accounts 2011/12....................................................70 

Ministries Committee...................................................................................................472 

N 

New Room, Bristol (Wesley’s Chapel) – Managing Trustees......................................99 

Notices of Motion – Memorials – Referred............................................................... 583 

O Order of Business........................................................................................................ 278 

P Personnel Files for Ministers...................................................................................... 129 

Presbyteral Candidates and Probationers Oversight Committee........................... 547 

Presbyteral Session Business Committee................................................................ 543 

Presbyteral Transfers and Reinstatements.............................................................. 545 

Presbyters and Deacons becoming Supernumerary ............................................... 554 


Presbyters attending at Own Expense....................................................................... 594 

Presbyters from Other Churches................................................................................ 563 

Presbyters Transferring Out, Servicing Abroad, etc.................................................. 561 

R Referred Memorials and Notices of Motion.............................................................. 583 

Relief and Extension Fund for Methodism in Scotland............................................ 325 

Review of Membership of the Conference................................................................ 532 

S Safeguarding................................................................................................................ 339 

Scotland – Relief and Extension Fund....................................................................... 325 

Sharing Agreements.................................................................................................... 444 

Special Resolutions....................................................................................................... 82 

Stationing Committee................................................................................................. 257 

Supporting Ministers with Ill Health........................................................................... 184 

Supernumerary – Presbyters and Deacons.............................................................. 554 

596 



Supreme Court Case................................................................................................... 529 

T Trustees for Bailiwick of Guernsey Methodist Church Purposes.............................. 81 

Trustees for Methodist Church Purposes 

– Report & Financial Statement for Year Ended 31 August 2012.......................... 138 

U Unified Statement of Connexional Finances............................................................. 311 

W Wesley House, Cambridge.......................................................................................... 355 

Westminster College Oxford Trust.................................................................................78 

Westminster College Oxford Trust – Estate Development....................................... 406 


597

©Trustees for Methodist 

Church Purposes 2013 

Design and Production: 

Methodist Publishing 

ISBN 978-1-85852-380-4 

9 7 8 1 8 5 8 5 2 3 8 0 4

Agenda Volume 2 - Methodist Conference

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?