Agenda Volume 3 - Methodist Conference
Agenda Volume 3 - Methodist Conference
Agenda Volume 3 - Methodist Conference
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
The <strong>Methodist</strong> Church<br />
<strong>Agenda</strong> volume three<br />
Annual <strong>Conference</strong> 2012<br />
The <strong>Methodist</strong> Church Annual <strong>Conference</strong> 2012 • <strong>Agenda</strong> volume three
Contents<br />
43. Ministerial Candidates and Probationers Oversight Committee 575<br />
44. Stationing Advisory Committee 583<br />
45. Reception into Full Connexion 585<br />
46. Ministers and Deacons becoming Supernumerary 587<br />
47. Exchange of Pastorates 591<br />
48. Ministers Transferring Out, Serving Abroad etc 593<br />
49. Transfer Committee 595<br />
50. Ministers from other Churches 597<br />
51. Appointments of District Chairs 607<br />
52. Fresh Ways Working Group: the Future 611<br />
53. Committee Appointments 615<br />
54. Appointments and Appreciations 627<br />
55. Law and Polity Report (Part 3) 631<br />
56. Special Resolutions 635<br />
57. Fruitful Field 643<br />
58. Sharing Agreements and Ecumenical Partnerships 761<br />
59. Memorials to the <strong>Conference</strong> 769<br />
60. Referred Memorials 805<br />
61. The Stationing Committee 813<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> Membership 819<br />
Ministers attending at their own expense 827<br />
Index 829<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 573
43. Ministerial Candidates and<br />
Probationers Oversight Committee<br />
1. Special Reports<br />
1.1 Candidates accepted at previous<br />
<strong>Conference</strong>s and given permission to<br />
delay entry into training<br />
Alexandra Claire Dunstan<br />
1.2 Candidates accepted at this<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> and given permission to<br />
delay entry into training<br />
No case<br />
1.3 Candidates accepted at this<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> and to be given<br />
permission to transfer to another<br />
<strong>Conference</strong><br />
No case<br />
1.4 Candidates conditionally accepted at<br />
previous <strong>Conference</strong>s<br />
(a) Those judged to have fulfilled<br />
the condition and therefore to<br />
be accepted as candidates<br />
No case<br />
(b) Those judged to have failed<br />
to fulfil the condition and<br />
thereby not to be accepted as<br />
candidates<br />
No case<br />
(c) Those still to fulfil the condition<br />
No case<br />
1.5 Changes in expected date of<br />
Reception into Full Connexion<br />
(a) To an earlier date<br />
Josette Anne Crane 2014 (from 2015)<br />
Stella Freda Mills 2014 (from 2015)<br />
Phillip John Warrey 2014 (from 2015)<br />
(b) To a later date<br />
Gillian Rosemary 2015 (from 2014)<br />
Baalham<br />
Andrew Philip<br />
Burrows<br />
2012 (from 2011)<br />
Gillian Margaret 2013 (from 2012)<br />
Daniel<br />
Rebecca Jane<br />
Ingrouille<br />
2014 (from 2013)<br />
Ruth Hazel Jeffries 2013 (from 2012)<br />
Greg Obong-Oshotse 2015 (from 2013)<br />
Michael Richard 2015 (from 2013)<br />
Simpson<br />
1.6 Special cases<br />
Leslie Dinning<br />
Estwar Sanichar<br />
1.7 Withdrawals<br />
(a) Candidates<br />
No case<br />
(b) Student ministers<br />
No case<br />
(c) Probationers<br />
No case<br />
1.8 Transfer to other <strong>Conference</strong>s or<br />
Churches<br />
No case<br />
1.9 Reinstatements<br />
(a) Student ministers<br />
Catherine Dixon (previously<br />
known as Catherine Lumbers)<br />
(b) Probationers<br />
No case<br />
1.10 Discipline<br />
No case<br />
1.11 Discontinuance<br />
Jojo Nyarko Monney<br />
Cliff Shanganya<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 575
43. Ministerial Candidates and<br />
Probationers Oversight Committee<br />
***RESOLUTION (Ministerial Session)<br />
43/1. The <strong>Conference</strong> adopts the special reports of the Ministerial Candidates and<br />
Probationers Oversight Committee.<br />
2. CANDIDATES FOR PRESBYTERAL MINISTRY<br />
***RESOLUTION (Ministerial Session)<br />
43/2. The <strong>Conference</strong> resolves to recommend to the Representative Session for<br />
training those persons whose names have been duly presented to it.<br />
***RESOLUTION (Representative Session)<br />
43/3. The <strong>Conference</strong> resolves by a Standing Vote that it accepts for training<br />
unconditionally or conditionally as the case may be the candidates for ministry<br />
recommended by the Ministerial Session whose names are recorded in the<br />
Daily Record for that Session.<br />
3. PREACHERS RECOMMENDED FOR CONTINUANCE ON TRIAL<br />
In the following lists:<br />
* = change from the lists approved by the 2011 <strong>Conference</strong><br />
+ = candidates accepted by the 2011 <strong>Conference</strong><br />
# = accepted as ordained probationers by a previous <strong>Conference</strong><br />
Surname<br />
First name(s)<br />
Due to be received<br />
into Full Connexion<br />
Anderson Ann Miller 2013<br />
Anwar Justin 2015<br />
* Baalham Gillian Rosemary 2015<br />
Bird Andrew John 2014<br />
Bishop Anna Mhairi 2013<br />
+ Blackshaw Christopher James 2015<br />
Boardman Helen Ruth 2015<br />
Boden Beverley Dawn 2013<br />
Borg Raymond 2013<br />
Brazier Peter Jonathon 2014<br />
+ Britton-Voss Gabriele Elisabeth 2015<br />
+ Browne Audrey Delores 2015<br />
576 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
43. Ministerial Candidates and<br />
Probationers Oversight Committee<br />
+ Bucke Hannah Mary 2015<br />
+ Burton Susan Margaret 2016<br />
Catford Suva Lianne 2014<br />
Chidakwa Debra Mina 2014<br />
+ Childs Ruth Helen 2015<br />
Claydon-Knights Graham Keith 2015<br />
Coates Anne Rachel 2014<br />
+ Collins Christopher John 2015<br />
Combes Alan John 2015<br />
Cook Kathryn Anne 2013<br />
+ Cooke Naomi 2015<br />
Coulthard Lynda 2013<br />
* Crane Josette Anne 2014<br />
Crookes Alison Louise 2014<br />
Cruddas James Alan 2014<br />
* Daniel Gillian Margaret 2013<br />
+ Davidson Victoria Elizabeth 2015<br />
Deakins Kathleen Rose 2014<br />
Dixon Catherine 2015<br />
+ Dube Edson 2013<br />
Dudley Margaret Elizabeth 2014<br />
Dunning Elizabeth 2013<br />
+ Dunstan Alexandra Claire 2017<br />
+ Dutton Christine Margaret 2016<br />
+ Edwards Simon Christopher 2015<br />
Emison Andrew Mark 2014<br />
Evans Jacqueline Patricia 2013<br />
+ Evans Patrick Michael 2015<br />
Fairest Karen Anne 2015<br />
+ Falla Nathan Stuart 2015<br />
Farrar Geoffrey Francis James 2014<br />
+ Fletcher William Edward 2015<br />
Flindell Anna Louise 2015<br />
Flowers Timothy Andrew 2014<br />
Flynn Kathryn Ann 2014<br />
+ Fox Christine Anne Margaret 2015<br />
+ Francis Timothy John 2015<br />
Fraser Janette 2013<br />
Froggatt Stephen David Thomas 2014<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 577
43. Ministerial Candidates and<br />
Probationers Oversight Committee<br />
Fugill Matthew Lewis 2013<br />
Gaffney Jane Elizabeth 2013<br />
Grimsley Michael John 2013<br />
+ Hague Caroline Julia 2015<br />
+ Harris Tracey Jane 2016<br />
Haslam Ben Richard 2015<br />
+ Hay Gordon William 2015<br />
Hayes Jonathan 2013<br />
Herbert Julie 2013<br />
Hilmy-Jones Nicola Kristen 2014<br />
+ Hinson Lorette Jayne 2015<br />
Hollingsworth David 2014<br />
+ Hooley Helen 2016<br />
Hope Rachel Lesley 2015<br />
+ Howe Jemima Elizabeth 2015<br />
+ Humphries Deborah 2015<br />
* Ingrouille Rebecca Jane 2014<br />
Ingrouille Stephen Pierre 2013<br />
* Jeffries Ruth Hazel 2013<br />
Johnson Helen Denise 2014<br />
Jones Leslie 2014<br />
Kanu Saidu 2014<br />
Keegan Debra Jane 2013<br />
Kirova Elizabeth Anne 2013<br />
+ Konrad Kate Elizabeth 2016<br />
+ Lawton David Richard 2015<br />
+ Leonowicz Katherine Anne 2015<br />
Letley Helen Ruth 2013<br />
Lett Ann Louise 2014<br />
+ Lewis Catherine Louise 2015<br />
Long Gillian Phillipa 2015<br />
Malik Imran Bobby 2014<br />
+ Mallet Deborah Cooke 2016<br />
Marchment Colin 2013<br />
+ Matthews Jennifer Avrille 2015<br />
+ Mawonera Mary 2015<br />
+ Maynard Neil Andrew 2015<br />
Mclean Derek John 2015<br />
* Mills Stella Freda 2014<br />
578 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
43. Ministerial Candidates and<br />
Probationers Oversight Committee<br />
+ Millward Helen Margaret 2015<br />
+ Nicholls Timothy Collins 2015<br />
* Obong-Oshotse Greg 2015<br />
Ormrod Richard 2014<br />
Osborne Thomas John 2014<br />
Osei Elizabeth Owusu 2013<br />
Owen Barry 2015<br />
Page Rosamunde Ellen Kitty 2013<br />
Parkes Rachel Marie 2014<br />
Pathmarajah Jennifer Rani 2013<br />
Patron Bell Alan James 2013<br />
Pearce Linda Jai 2013<br />
Penfold Helen 2013<br />
Pereira Leonard Jerome 2014<br />
+ Pickering Katherine Jill 2015<br />
Rayson Peter Gerrard 2014<br />
Rees Paul 2013<br />
Reid Valerie 2013<br />
Reynolds Catherine 2014<br />
+ Robinson-Brown Jarel Adrian 2015<br />
Robinson-Morley James Barrie 2015<br />
+ Rose Simon Andrew 2015<br />
Rutherford Ian Stuart 2014<br />
+ Sawyer Bruce Jonathan 2015<br />
Scrivens John 2013<br />
+ Shortman Suzanne Lesley 2016<br />
* Simpson Michael Richard 2015<br />
+ Simpson Ruth 2015<br />
Smith Joyce Edith 2014<br />
+ Smith Eleanor Janet 2015<br />
Somerville David Michael Ruthven 2015<br />
Spencer Sarah Sally 2015<br />
Stobart Andrew James 2013<br />
Swann Steven John 2013<br />
Swanston John Maurice 2014<br />
Terrett Alexandra Jean 2013<br />
+ Thraves-Pennington Sharon Jane 2015<br />
Vezha Vincent Munyaradzi 2013<br />
Walker Etleva 2014<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 579
43. Ministerial Candidates and<br />
Probationers Oversight Committee<br />
Walters Amy Louise 2013<br />
* Warrey Phillip John 2014<br />
+ Watson Rosalind 2016<br />
+ Webber Karen 2015<br />
Widdowson Rachel Louise 2013<br />
Wigley Andrew Michael Durham 2013<br />
Williams Denise Mavis 2014<br />
+ Williamson Denise Elaine 2015<br />
+ Willis David John Leslie 2015<br />
Wilson Heather Ann 2014<br />
Wooller Nicola 2013<br />
***RESOLUTION (Ministerial Session)<br />
43/4. The <strong>Conference</strong> adopts the report on Preachers recommended for continuance<br />
on trial.<br />
4. Preachers on trial presented to the <strong>Conference</strong> for reception into Full<br />
Connexion in 2012<br />
Surname<br />
Asif<br />
Bell<br />
Bland<br />
Burrows<br />
Coates<br />
Cook<br />
Draper<br />
Ellis<br />
Evans<br />
Hamilton<br />
Hilsden<br />
Jackson<br />
Kirk<br />
Longe<br />
Lovelock<br />
Malham<br />
Morrison<br />
First name(s)<br />
Rohama<br />
Karen Julia<br />
Katharine Joyce<br />
Andrew Philip<br />
Ian Stanley<br />
Jane Louise<br />
Neil<br />
Anne Elisabeth<br />
Christopher Joseph<br />
Charity Kathleen McKenzie<br />
Karen Amanda<br />
Patrice J<br />
Deborah Mary<br />
Andrew Martin<br />
Sharon<br />
Patricia Ann<br />
Nicola Joanne<br />
580 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
43. Ministerial Candidates and<br />
Probationers Oversight Committee<br />
Oliver<br />
Park<br />
Phillips<br />
Pottage<br />
Pratt Morris-Chapman<br />
Preston<br />
Ribeiro<br />
Richards<br />
Richardson<br />
Roberts<br />
Stennett<br />
Stevenson<br />
Taylor<br />
Thornton<br />
Tresise<br />
Vinyard<br />
Wilson<br />
Wood<br />
Yeadon<br />
Simon Matthew<br />
Janet Elizabeth<br />
Gareth Peter<br />
Andrew Robert<br />
Daniel John<br />
Susan Elaine<br />
Joseph Samuel<br />
Alison<br />
Alison<br />
Helen Louise<br />
Mark Colin<br />
Adam James<br />
Peter David<br />
Sally Ann<br />
Jeremy Nicholas<br />
Jason Christopher<br />
Hugh-John<br />
Sarah Jane<br />
Lynda Denise<br />
***RESOLUTION (Ministerial Session)<br />
43/5.<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> resolves by a Standing Vote that it judges that those persons<br />
whose names are printed in the <strong>Agenda</strong> have duly completed their training and<br />
probation and thereby it recommends them to the Representative Session as<br />
fit to be received into Full Connexion with the <strong>Conference</strong> as ministers and, if<br />
not already ordained, to be ordained.<br />
A resolution will be presented to the Representative Session of the <strong>Conference</strong> that the<br />
above named will be received into Full Connexion and, if not already ordained, be ordained.<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 581
44. Stationing Advisory Committee<br />
Recommendations made since June 2011<br />
1. Permission to serve another<br />
conference or church under Standing<br />
Order 735<br />
John A Butterfield (31/9)<br />
Graham R Kent (19/1)<br />
Robert D Lewis (25/4)<br />
Andrew Williams (2/13)<br />
2. Transfer to another <strong>Conference</strong><br />
No case<br />
3. Permission to reside abroad<br />
under Standing Order 772<br />
Jennifer-Ann Sweet (35/27)<br />
Rachel M Downs-Lewis (25/4)<br />
4. Permission to Study under Standing<br />
Order 773<br />
Lynda A Cooke (36/21)<br />
Rosaria Leto (13/11)<br />
Julie A Lunn (13/11)<br />
Stephen A Willey (5/1)<br />
5. Application under SO 790(3) to<br />
become Supernumerary<br />
No case<br />
6. Permission to be “Without<br />
Appointment” under the<br />
relevant sections of Standing<br />
Order 780(1)(xi)<br />
Lena Ali (35/22)<br />
Derek M Boswell (24/3)<br />
Charlotte Common (27/31)<br />
S Janice Cowburn (12/4)<br />
John T Leach (24/24)<br />
Charlotte A Lorimer (27/6)<br />
Claudia Lupi Ricco (25/1)<br />
Margaret E Smith (6/4)<br />
Christine J Taylor (34/12)<br />
Penelope J Worth (29/2)<br />
Terry C W Wright (26/3)<br />
7. Resuming Circuit Ministry<br />
Margaret Barnes (12/4)<br />
Tania Brosnan (29/19)<br />
Derek J Collins (12/4)<br />
Lynda A Cooke (36/21)<br />
Anthony M Davies (21/11)<br />
Ian G Lucraft (25/6)<br />
Kate McClelland (23/20)<br />
David A Ray (11/1)<br />
Robert O Saunders (12/19)<br />
8. Permission to change type of<br />
appointment under the remaining<br />
clauses of Standing Order 780(1)<br />
Martin P Abrams (18/17)<br />
David G Bagwell (12/1)<br />
Richard J Bradshaw (13/5)<br />
Colin J Emerson (29/6)<br />
Peter T H Hatton (7/2)<br />
David Hull (24/23)<br />
Gareth P Jones (5/10)<br />
Jennifer S Mullis (25/7)<br />
Christopher Shannahan (5/1)<br />
John A Squares (19/14)<br />
Paul H Wilson (19/19)<br />
Jennifer Woodfin (D) (14/1)<br />
9. Permission to change terms<br />
and conditions of service under<br />
Section 80<br />
No case<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 583
45. Reception into Full Connexion<br />
1. Preachers on trial presented to the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> for reception into Full<br />
Connexion in 2012<br />
Rohama Asif<br />
Karen Julia Bell<br />
Katharine Joyce Bland<br />
Andrew Philip Burrows<br />
Ian Stanley Coates<br />
Jane Louise Cook<br />
Neil Draper<br />
Anne Elisabeth Ellis<br />
Christopher Joseph Evans<br />
Charity Kathleen McKenzie Hamilton<br />
Karen Amanda Hilsden<br />
Patrice J Jackson<br />
Deborah Mary Kirk<br />
Andrew Martin Longe<br />
Sharon Lovelock<br />
Patricia Ann Malham<br />
Nicola Joanne Morrison<br />
Simon Matthew Oliver<br />
Janet Elizabeth Park<br />
Gareth Peter Phillips<br />
Andrew Robert Pottage<br />
Daniel John Pratt Morris-Chapman<br />
Susan Elaine Ribeiro<br />
Alison Richards<br />
Alison Richardson<br />
Helen Louise Roberts<br />
Mark Colin Stennett<br />
Adam James Stevenson<br />
Peter David Taylor<br />
Sally Ann Thornton<br />
Jeremy Nicholas Tresise<br />
Jason Christopher Vinyard<br />
Hugh-John Wilson<br />
Sarah Jane Wood<br />
Lynda Denise Yeadon<br />
***RESOLUTION (Ministerial Session)<br />
45/1. The <strong>Conference</strong> resolves by a Standing Vote that it judges that those persons<br />
whose names are printed in the <strong>Agenda</strong> have duly completed their training and<br />
probation and thereby it recommends them to the Representative Session as<br />
fit to be received into Full Connexion with the <strong>Conference</strong> as ministers, and if<br />
not already ordained, to be ordained.<br />
***RESOLUTION (Representative Session)<br />
45/2. The <strong>Conference</strong> resolves by a Standing Vote that those persons whose names<br />
have been read to the <strong>Conference</strong> and are printed in the <strong>Agenda</strong> and Daily<br />
Record be now received into Full Connexion with the <strong>Conference</strong> as ministers,<br />
as specified in the <strong>Agenda</strong>, and that those not already ordained and not to be<br />
ordained elsewhere, be ordained by prayer and the laying on of hands on the<br />
afternoon of this day, the first of July, at:<br />
The Avenue Church, Newton Abbot<br />
Camborne Wesley <strong>Methodist</strong> Church<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 585
45. Reception into Full Connexion<br />
Central Church, Torquay<br />
Liskeard Wesley <strong>Methodist</strong> Church<br />
Plymouth <strong>Methodist</strong> Central Hall<br />
Sidwell Street <strong>Methodist</strong> Church, Exeter<br />
Truro <strong>Methodist</strong> Church<br />
2. DEACONS ON TRIAL PRESENTED TO THE CONFERENCE FOR RECEPTION INTO<br />
FULL CONNEXION IN 2012<br />
Filippus den Uil<br />
Jennifer Jones<br />
Belinda Shirley Letby<br />
Sarah Elizabeth Mary McDowall<br />
Jonathan Miller<br />
Suzanne Peat<br />
Rachel Margaret Thomas-Prasad<br />
***RESOLUTION (Representative Session)<br />
45/3. The <strong>Conference</strong> resolves by a Standing Vote that those persons whose names<br />
have been read to the <strong>Conference</strong> and are printed in the <strong>Agenda</strong> and Daily<br />
Record be now received into Full Connexion with the <strong>Conference</strong> as deacons<br />
and into full membership of the <strong>Methodist</strong> Diaconal Order, and that those<br />
not already ordained, be ordained by prayer and the laying on of hands on the<br />
afternoon of this day, the first of July, at Gwennap Pit.<br />
586 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
46. Ministers and Deacons Becoming<br />
Supernumerary or Returning to the Active Work<br />
Ministers becoming Supernumerary or<br />
returning to the active work<br />
1. Recommended to return to the active<br />
work<br />
Derek J Collins<br />
David A Ray<br />
Robert O Saunders<br />
2. Permission to become supernumerary<br />
granted during the year<br />
* Derek Rigby<br />
Those marked * were granted permission<br />
on grounds of ill health under Standing<br />
Order 790(2) and those marked + were<br />
granted permission on compassionate<br />
grounds under Standing Order 790(3).<br />
3. Ministers requesting permission to<br />
become supernumerary<br />
The figure in brackets indicates the number<br />
of years of status as a minister of the<br />
person concerned (with any former years of<br />
status as a deacon added with the prefix D).<br />
Derek A Aldridge (35)<br />
Madeleine E Andrews (17)<br />
Bryan Ashberry (46)<br />
Judith W Baldry (12)<br />
Stephen D Bales (36)<br />
Margaret Barnes (14)<br />
Pauline Barnett (19)<br />
* Christopher F Bennett (35)<br />
Frances N Blood (11)<br />
Mark R Booth (33)<br />
George Brigham (41)<br />
M Gwynne Brindley (11)<br />
Gerald S Broadbent (21)<br />
Roger F Brown (9)<br />
Patricia Christopher (17)<br />
E John Churcher (11)<br />
Peter Clark (30)<br />
J Arnold Clay (38)<br />
Graham G Cocking (35)<br />
Edgar D Daniel (41)<br />
Stuart Davis (31)<br />
Louise Dawson (18)<br />
Margaret E Eaton (29)<br />
Robert E Ely (16)<br />
C G Ruth Farrant (11)<br />
A Alan Fisher (20)<br />
Robert Fisher (41)<br />
Sheila Foreman (31)<br />
Gordon J Gatward (39)<br />
Graham S Gee (22)<br />
R Edward Gordon (25)<br />
C James Gorringe (29)<br />
Peter M Grimwood (29)<br />
Ann C Hall (15)<br />
Michael E Harrison (19)<br />
Stephen R Heath (12)<br />
Malcolm D Hope (26)<br />
David H Howarth (42)<br />
Peter J Howson (39)<br />
* Lynda Hughes (19)<br />
R David Hutton (13)<br />
Anthony G Huxtable (34)<br />
Joanna Jacobs (14)<br />
David M Johnson (B) (32)<br />
J Raymond King (17)<br />
Gisela A Lawson (10)<br />
Wesley Loane (33)<br />
* Anthony F McClelland (23)<br />
Barbara E McIntivey (14)<br />
* Robert T McKinley (14)<br />
Linda K McMurray (21)<br />
Margaret R Millar (10)<br />
Jeffrey C Moles (29)<br />
David Morris (18)<br />
* Keith W E Page (23)<br />
David G Palmer (33)<br />
Cynthia A Park (21)<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 587
46. Ministers and Deacons Becoming<br />
Supernumerary or Returning to the Active Work<br />
Anthony J Parkinson (15)<br />
Keith Parr (13)<br />
John C Peak (15)<br />
Keith R Pearce (32)<br />
Laurence R Potter (19)<br />
John C Peak (15)<br />
Robert G Pritchard (20)<br />
Stuart G Radford (19)<br />
Malcolm J Sharrock (36)<br />
Robert Soanes (19)<br />
Andrew D Sowden (35)<br />
Michael Stopford (35)<br />
Anthony R Tagg (41)<br />
John Taylor (14)<br />
Paul Taylor (38)<br />
Michael Townsend (42)<br />
Diana J Veitch (18)<br />
Lynne E A Ward (36)<br />
Stephen Watts (16)<br />
Malcolm W White (51)<br />
Robert Whitfield (24)<br />
Timothy Widdess (21)<br />
Joy C Wilson (13)<br />
Barbara M Winner (9)<br />
Robin B Wood (40)<br />
Michael J Worsey (25)<br />
All applications are made under Standing<br />
Order 790(1), except those marked * who<br />
are applying on grounds of ill health under<br />
Standing Order 790(2).<br />
***RESOLUTIONS<br />
46/1. (Ministerial Session)<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> receives the Report.<br />
46/2. (Ministerial Session)<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> recommends to the Representative Session that the ministers<br />
listed above be permitted to become supernumerary on the grounds shown.<br />
46/3. (Representative Session)<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> permits those ministers whose names have been<br />
recommended by the Ministerial Session to become supernumerary.<br />
46/4. (Representative Session)<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> permits the following ministers to return to the active work:<br />
Derek J Collins<br />
David A Ray<br />
Robert O Saunders<br />
DEACONS BECOMING SUPERNUMERARY OR RETURNING TO THE ACTIVE WORK<br />
1. Recommended to return to the active work<br />
No case<br />
588 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
Xx<br />
46. Ministers and Deacons Becoming<br />
Supernumerary or Returning to the Active Work<br />
2 . Permission to become supernumerary granted during the year<br />
* Donald I Pritchard<br />
Those marked * were granted permission on grounds of ill health under Standing<br />
Order 790(2) and those marked + were granted permission on compassionate<br />
grounds under Standing Order 790(3).<br />
3. Deacons requesting permission to become supernumerary<br />
Jennifer M Heath<br />
Mary M Neal<br />
G Peter Ogle<br />
Gordon H Wallace<br />
Judith Wray<br />
All applications are made under Standing Order 790(1), except those marked *<br />
who are applying on grounds of ill health under Standing Order 790(2).<br />
*** RESOLUTION<br />
46/5. (Representative Session)<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> permits those deacons whose names have been recommended<br />
by the <strong>Conference</strong> Diaconal Committee to become supernumerary.<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 589
47. Exchange of pastorates<br />
Active ministers to the United States<br />
David Flavell (20/8 Tynedale) with Robert<br />
Kolvik-Campbell (United <strong>Methodist</strong> Church,<br />
USA)<br />
Janet Nendick (6/14 Rossendale) with<br />
Brian Roots (United <strong>Methodist</strong> Church,<br />
USA)<br />
***RESOLUTION<br />
47/1. The <strong>Conference</strong> approves the exchange of pastorates as listed.<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 591
48. Ministers recommended for transfer out of Full<br />
Connexion or to be permitted to serve another<br />
conference or church or to serve abroad or reside abroad<br />
1. Ministers offering as candidates for<br />
the Diaconate<br />
No case<br />
2. Transfer to other <strong>Conference</strong>s and<br />
denominations<br />
No case<br />
3. Transfer to the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church in<br />
Ireland<br />
No case<br />
4. Permission to serve abroad<br />
Richard N Clutterbuck (Ireland)<br />
Kenneth R Cracknell (United States)<br />
Wesley Daniel (United States)<br />
Jonathan Dean (United States)<br />
Michael P Dye (New Zealand)<br />
Martin H F Forward (United States)<br />
Keith V Garner (Australia)<br />
Pamela Garrud (United States)<br />
Keva L Green (United States)<br />
A Kaleem John (Pakistan)<br />
Christopher J Kirk (United States)<br />
G Howard Mellor (Hong Kong)<br />
David Nellist (United States)<br />
M Peter Taylor (New Zealand)<br />
Neil J Whitehouse (Canada)<br />
Jill Wiley (United States)<br />
5. Permission to reside abroad<br />
Kenneth P Anderson (Australia)<br />
Kate R Ashton (Australia)<br />
Luis Baldeon (Peru)<br />
Suzanna Bates (Canada)<br />
W Gerald Beattie (Ireland)<br />
Inderjit S Bhogal (Ireland)<br />
Christopher Burgoyne (Spain)<br />
Sylvia Burgoyne (Spain)<br />
Laurence H Churms (Ireland)<br />
Diane S Clutterbuck (Ireland)<br />
Rachel M Downs-Lewis (United States)<br />
Augusto E Giron (Guatemala)<br />
Henk Greenway (Germany)<br />
Richard O Griffiths (Australia)<br />
Kingsley Halden (Lithuania)<br />
Elizabeth E Harron (Ireland)<br />
Trevor Hoggard (New Zealand)<br />
Caroline M Homer (Spain)<br />
Ian Howlett (New Zealand)<br />
Victor Lamont (Thailand)<br />
David J S Lee (Germany)<br />
Margaret L MacAskie (United States)<br />
S Lindsay McQuoid (Ireland)<br />
Robert Moore (New Zealand)<br />
Irene Morrow (Ireland)<br />
Mervyn P Oliver (Ireland)<br />
Ivor W Pearce (Australia)<br />
John R Perry (Germany)<br />
Colin R Phillips (France)<br />
Linda M Rettenmayer (United States)<br />
E Alan Roberts (Canada)<br />
Stephen J Robinson (Ireland)<br />
Jennifer-Ann Sweet (South Africa)<br />
Margaret A Valle (Peru)<br />
Arthur W Wainwright (United States)<br />
Geoffrey Wainwright (United States)<br />
W John A White (Canada)<br />
6. Permission to serve another church<br />
(under standing order 735)<br />
John A Butterfield (United Reformed<br />
Church)<br />
Paul S R Chesworth (New Frontiers<br />
International)<br />
Hannah C Heim (<strong>Methodist</strong> Church<br />
The Gambia)<br />
Graham R Kent (Moravian Church)<br />
Ermal B Kirby (<strong>Methodist</strong> Church of<br />
Southern Africa)<br />
Robert D Lewis (United <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Church)<br />
Andrew Williams (United <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Church)<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 593
48. Ministers recommended for transfer out of Full<br />
Connexion or to be permitted to serve another<br />
conference or church or to serve abroad or reside abroad<br />
***RESOLUTION<br />
48/1. (Ministerial Session)<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> adopts the Reports.<br />
594 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
49. Recommendations of the Ministerial Candidates<br />
Selection Committees acting as Transfer Committee<br />
The report of the Appeals Committee on<br />
applicants who have appealed against the<br />
recommendations of the committee under<br />
Standing Order 730 (10) [see also SO<br />
730(14)]<br />
No case<br />
Report on cases where there have been<br />
medical objections<br />
No case<br />
Applicants for transfer recommended by<br />
a 75% majority or more in the Ministerial<br />
Candidates Selection Committee to be<br />
transferred to the jurisdiction of this<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> under SO 730(7)<br />
To be reported on the Order Paper<br />
Applicants for transfer recommended by<br />
a 75% majority or more in the Ministerial<br />
Candidates Selection Committee to<br />
proceed to pre-ordination training and<br />
probation<br />
No case<br />
Applicants for transfer recommended by<br />
a 75% majority or more in the Ministerial<br />
Candidates Selection Committee to<br />
proceed to probation prior to Reception<br />
into Full Connexion<br />
No case<br />
Applicants for transfer recommended by<br />
a 75% majority or more in the Ministerial<br />
Candidates Selection Committee to be<br />
received on transfer upon fulfilment of<br />
stated conditions<br />
No case<br />
Applicants not recommended for transfer<br />
No case<br />
Former ministers and deacons of other<br />
Churches applying to be received into Full<br />
Connexion (under Standing Order 731)<br />
(a) Those recommended<br />
No case<br />
(b) Those recommended upon<br />
fulfilment of stated conditions<br />
No case<br />
(c) Those not recommended<br />
No case<br />
Applicants recommended to be recognised<br />
and regarded as ministers in full connexion<br />
with the <strong>Conference</strong> under Standing Order<br />
732<br />
The Revd T J Wesley of the North Carolina<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> of the United <strong>Methodist</strong> Church<br />
Transfer from the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church in<br />
ireland<br />
No case<br />
Reinstatements to full connexion<br />
No case<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 595
49. Recommendations of the Ministerial Candidates<br />
Selection Committees acting as Transfer Committee<br />
***RESOLUTIONS (Ministerial Session)<br />
49/1. The <strong>Conference</strong> adopts the Reports.<br />
49/2. The <strong>Conference</strong> resolves by a Standing Vote that those persons whom<br />
the <strong>Conference</strong> has duly adjudged as fit to be received by transfer or<br />
reinstatement as the case may be as ministers be now presented to<br />
the Representative Session to be received into Full Connexion with the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong>.<br />
596 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
50. Ministers from other Churches<br />
Ministers to be recognised and regarded as ministers of the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church<br />
The names of persons to be recognised and regarded as ministers in Full Connexion are<br />
printed below and may be amended in the Order Paper at the <strong>Conference</strong> in order to<br />
incorporate any changes consequent upon the decisions of the Stationing Committee.<br />
(1) Ministers of the Irish <strong>Conference</strong><br />
Under Clause 43 of the Deed of Union all Ministers admitted into Full Connexion with the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> of the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church in Ireland are automatically recognised and regarded<br />
as ministers in Full Connexion with the <strong>Conference</strong> of the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church in Britain,<br />
irrespective of whether they are stationed by the latter <strong>Conference</strong> (although they only come<br />
under the rules and discipline of the <strong>Conference</strong> when stationed by it) . Their names are<br />
printed in the Minutes of the <strong>Conference</strong>.<br />
(2) Ministers of other autonomous <strong>Methodist</strong> <strong>Conference</strong>s<br />
Philip Buckland 2/9 <strong>Methodist</strong> Church of Southern Africa<br />
Luiz Fernando Cardoso 10/1 <strong>Methodist</strong> Church, Brazil<br />
Michael Crockett 5/3 <strong>Methodist</strong> Church of Southern Africa<br />
William Davis 35/22 <strong>Methodist</strong> Church Ghana<br />
Daniel K French 6/5 <strong>Methodist</strong> Church Ghana<br />
Joseph F Gomez 28/13 <strong>Methodist</strong> Church The Gambia<br />
Kong Ching Hii 35/2 <strong>Methodist</strong> Church, Malaysia<br />
Susan D M Howe 24/22 United <strong>Methodist</strong> Church<br />
Duncan B Ibuuri 11/4 <strong>Methodist</strong> Church, Kenya<br />
Oluyesimi Jaiyesimi 7/2 <strong>Methodist</strong> Church in Nigeria<br />
Solomon Joseph 35/29 Church of South India<br />
Jimione Kaci 22/19 <strong>Methodist</strong> Church in Fiji<br />
Garo Kilagi 21/5 United Church in Papua New Guinea<br />
R Blair Kirkby 18/9 United Church of Canada<br />
Jong Sin Lee 7/13 Korean <strong>Methodist</strong> Church<br />
N Keith Lowder 36/2 United <strong>Methodist</strong> Church<br />
Josefa R Mairara 26/FC <strong>Methodist</strong> Church in Fiji<br />
Charles F Makonde 11/4 <strong>Methodist</strong> Church of Southern Africa<br />
Bernardino M Mandlate 35/31 <strong>Methodist</strong> Church of Southern Africa<br />
David A Markay 25/3 United <strong>Methodist</strong> Church<br />
Kristin C Markay 25/15 United <strong>Methodist</strong> Church<br />
Moon-Chan (Michael) Moon 35/33 Uniting Church of Australia<br />
Francis S Nabieu 29/1 <strong>Methodist</strong> Church of Sierra Leone<br />
Adam Nyawo 35/12 <strong>Methodist</strong> Church of Zimbabwe<br />
William H Tardy 35/34 United <strong>Methodist</strong> Church<br />
Marcus Torchon 18/9 MCCA<br />
Christoffel van Staden 31/2 <strong>Methodist</strong> Church of Southern Africa<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 597
50. Ministers from other Churches<br />
Ernest B Stafford 35/3 <strong>Methodist</strong> Church The Gambia<br />
Monwabisi R Vithi 15/1 <strong>Methodist</strong> Church of Southern Africa<br />
John K C Yap 36/21 <strong>Methodist</strong> Church, Malaysia<br />
Jongikaya Zihle 35/33 <strong>Methodist</strong> Church of Southern Africa<br />
***RESOLUTION<br />
50/1. By a Standing Vote, the <strong>Conference</strong> welcomes those ministers to be appointed<br />
to the stations, whose names are listed in the <strong>Agenda</strong> as amended by the<br />
Order Paper circulated to the <strong>Conference</strong>, as ministers of other autonomous<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> <strong>Conference</strong>s who, by virtue of clause 44 of the Deed of Union, will<br />
thereby be recognised and regarded as ministers of the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church<br />
admitted into Full Connexion.<br />
(2) Ministers of other communions applying to be recognised and regarded<br />
Bruce Allison 36/30 Debora Marschner 16/7<br />
Benson Chongo 31/11 Heegon Moon 20/6<br />
Geoffrey S Clarke 19/15 T Evan Morgan 1/1<br />
John S Currie 36/22 Douglas Morris 14/20<br />
Thomas Goodwin 26/23 Kwabena Obuo-Dadzie 36/21<br />
M Angharad Griffith 1/1 John C Peet 27/31<br />
Dee Dee Haines 15/1 David I Rankin 23/2<br />
N Cyril Haire 7/2 Gwyndaf Richards 1/1<br />
Marilyn Ilyas 36/22 Douglas S Rix 24/1<br />
Albert Jackson 26/23 Edward Sakwe 23/8<br />
R Glyn Jones 1/1 Arlington W Trotman 35/17<br />
R Ifor Jones 1/1 Roderick Whateley 36/25<br />
Teddy Kalongo 2/27 Peter W Williams 1/1<br />
David Kent 27/35 Seung-Wook Jung 14/13<br />
Chellaian Lawrence 35/16<br />
***RESOLUTION<br />
50/2. By a Standing Vote the <strong>Conference</strong>, by virtue of clause 45 of the Deed of<br />
Union, declares that the persons whose names are printed for this purpose<br />
in the <strong>Agenda</strong> as amended by the Order Paper circulated to the <strong>Conference</strong>,<br />
shall be recognised and regarded during the period of their appointment to<br />
the stations for the next ensuing year as ministers of the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church<br />
admitted into Full Connexion.<br />
598 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
50. Ministers from other Churches<br />
Deacons of other churches to be recognised and regarded as deacons of the<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Church<br />
No case<br />
*** RESOLUTION<br />
50/3. By a Standing Vote the <strong>Conference</strong>, by virtue of clause 45A of the Deed of<br />
Union, declares that the persons whose names are printed for this purpose<br />
in the <strong>Agenda</strong> as amended by the Order Paper circulated to the <strong>Conference</strong>,<br />
shall be recognised and regarded during the period of their appointment to<br />
the stations for the next ensuing year as deacons of the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church<br />
admitted into Full Connexion.<br />
Ministers of other communions to be authorised to serve the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church<br />
The names of ministers to be authorised to serve are printed below and may be amended<br />
in the Order Paper at the <strong>Conference</strong> in order to incorporate any changes consequent upon<br />
the decisions of the Stationing Committee.<br />
David J A Adams 7/2 Stanley R Baxter 29/23<br />
Hazel A Allen 7/21 Elizabeth J Bendrey 34/9<br />
Paul R Allen 16/6 Barbara E Bennett 24/21<br />
M John Allison 27/32 Ian R Bentley 26/27<br />
Jane Anderson 34/9 Peter M Bestley 36/3<br />
Sydney W Andrew 17/13 Alan C Bird 23/26<br />
Raymond Anglesea 13/12 Richard A Bittleston 23/2<br />
Denis Applebee 24/2 Robin G Blount 36/26<br />
Janet E Appleby 20/3 Gita D Bond 14/26<br />
Jennie Appleby 23/7 Michael P M Booker 14/26<br />
Arun Arora 28/1 David H Bowler 23/10<br />
Clive M Artley 13/7 Simon Boxall 35/30<br />
Margaret Ashby 36/9 Mair Bradley 22/11<br />
Jason M E Askew 34/12 Helen M Brett-Young 9/9<br />
Timothy J Atkins 13/15 Lynne Britten 27/32<br />
Janice E Audibert 26/19 Philip A Brooks 6/3<br />
Terence J Baillie 7/15 Andrew Brown 11/4<br />
Lawrence J W Bain 36/2 Elaine K Brown 20/15<br />
Simon C Battersby 14/3 Jenny Brown 11/4<br />
Mark A Batty 17/11 Ruth Browning 14/9<br />
Elizabeth M Baxter 29/23 Kathrine S Bruce 13/11<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 599
50. Ministers from other Churches<br />
Denise Burgess 5/9 George M Gibson 36/8<br />
Diane J Bussey 23/14 M Dass Gill 23/1<br />
Jane Campbell 22/15 John C Girtchen 17/11<br />
J Duncan Campbell 34/15 Thomas E Glover 13/11<br />
Martin F Camroux 35/39 George C Goalby 17/3<br />
Mark J Cantrill 25/19 John B Gordon 36/13<br />
Sam Cappleman 34/1 I Charles J Gorton 19/3<br />
Kenneth Clapham 21/17 Susan L Graham 7/2<br />
Michael J Claridge 5/8 Dominic S Grant 36/18<br />
John K Clark 31/2 Roger C Green 21/1<br />
Neil M Clarke 23/19 Ronald G Greig 31/1<br />
Christine H Clements 35/30 Stephen R Griffiths 9/4<br />
Christopher I Coates 29/2 Michael Haighton 23/11<br />
Martyn J Coe 35/30 David S Hamblin 36/2<br />
John G Cole 17/11 Paul Han 35/38<br />
Sian E Collins 7/7 Sungil Han 24/4<br />
Katherine E Colwell 17/11 R Stephen Hannam 27/4<br />
Malcolm J Cook 23/4 John A Hardaker 34/15<br />
Peter A Cornish 36/27 Janet Hardy 25/17<br />
Alan Crump 18/5 Martin A Hardy 11/1<br />
Samuel Cyuma 34/11 Amanda J Harper 35/7<br />
Philip S Daniel 28/9 Linda M Harris 26/27<br />
Bryony E Davis 36/6 Mark N Hawarth 19/3<br />
Andrew C De Smet 29/19 Kenneth M Hawkings 5/1<br />
Paul B Dean 36/7 Michael J Hazelton 13/7<br />
Richard H Dengate 36/17 Peter Heckels 20/1<br />
Caroline A Dick 13/11 David Henson 17/9<br />
Jane E Dicker 34/12 David J P Hewlett 5/7<br />
A Sheila Dickson 26/14 Helen Higgin-Botham 21/11<br />
Myra D Dillistone 24/4 Timothy J Hillier 36/6<br />
Ian K Duffield 25/6 Robin R Hine 31/1<br />
Elaine Dunn 36/13 Elaine M Hodge 2/7<br />
Terence N Dyer 21/4 Robert Hollings 22/28<br />
Alison R Evans 7/7 Robert J Horrocks 6/3<br />
Felicity E M Ferriter 25/19 Jeff S Hopewell 23/12<br />
Stephen H Fisher 23/6 Naison Hove 35/15<br />
Paul R Floe 2/6 Brian A Howden 23/26<br />
Patricia L M Fogden 36/25 Andrew J Howell 6/13<br />
Ron Forster 20/6 Anthony W Howells 23/29<br />
Roy J Fowler 7/21 Ann Hufton 9/16<br />
Alexander P J Galbraith 18/17 E Ann Jack 35/35<br />
Raymond G Gaston 5/7 David Jackson 23/5<br />
600 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
50. Ministers from other Churches<br />
Timothy R Jackson 34/1 T Douglas McRoberts 36/16<br />
Irfon James 2/27 Helen M Mee 31/1<br />
David A L Jenkins 35/24 David Michaels 12/17<br />
Clive J Jennings 7/15 Martin M Miller 36/13<br />
Timothy E Jessiman 26/4 Roger C Mills 20/1<br />
Alan J Jewell 18/5 Tim Mitchell 22/13<br />
Margaret Johnson 20/1 Clive Morgan 2/2<br />
Margaret A Johnson 24/10 D Marc Morgan 1/1<br />
Margaret A H Johnson 23/13 Ann V Morris 7/7<br />
Brenda Jones 13/15 Peter Mott 27/31<br />
Thea Jones 23/5 Ian H Murray 5/9<br />
Nicholas P A Jowett 25/4 David J Muskett 26/9<br />
David V Keeble 34/18 Joanne C Musson 5/20<br />
Stephen P Kelly 27/9 Martyn P Neads 26/13<br />
Elizabeth M Kemp 26/24 Barbara J Neill 22/1<br />
Peter Kerton-Johnson 24/18 Stephen Newell 7/2<br />
Richard L Kidd 19/17 Stuart W Nixon 24/7<br />
Rosemary J M Kidd 19/17 Peter Nunn 31/9<br />
Jennifer M King 35/35 John K Nyota 35/40<br />
Elizabeth Kitching 29/20 Modicum Okello 5/1<br />
Neil J Lambert 36/2 Oluremi Richard Omole 13/11<br />
David K Langford 26/17 Philip J Osborn 36/13<br />
Emma L Langley 7/2 David J Page 11/8<br />
Robert W Lawrance 13/11 Steven R Palmer 23/13<br />
Trefor Lewis 1/1 S Robin Paisley 31/2<br />
George Liddle 13/4 John C Park 20/6<br />
Richard J Lockwood 5/9 Angus M M Parker 26/1<br />
Daryl L Logan 35/2 Gavin Parker 22/19<br />
Mark W J Loney 34/13 Susan A Paterson 23/12<br />
Kathleen La Camera Loughlin 19/15 Michael J Peat 19/17<br />
A Goodwill MacDougall 21/13 Marilyn A Peters 28/21<br />
Deon Louw 7/24 Colin Phipps 24/1<br />
Andrew J Mann-Ray 28/5 Catherine R Pickford 20/2<br />
James H Marshall 9/4 Trevor Pitt 13/15<br />
David R D Martineau 17/11 Kim Plumpton 36/10<br />
Margaret A Mascall 36/24 Matthew R Pollard 27/4<br />
William E J Mash 28/1 Eileen Poore 35/40<br />
C Leslie Mather 7/7 Richard Pope 11/24<br />
David M C Matthews 12/8 David Y Poulton 5/10<br />
Murray McBride 28/3 David G M Price 36/2<br />
Gary S McGowan 18/13 Alan Priestley 5/1<br />
Betty McNiven 2/24 Ian A Pullinger 23/21<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 601
50. Ministers from other Churches<br />
Stuart R Radcliffe 19/13 Joanne Thorns 13/11<br />
Anugrah D Ramble 5/4 Helen M Thorp 13/11<br />
John Rammell 28/11 Martin Thorpe 18/15<br />
Peter S Rand 20/1 Yvonne Tracey 20/6<br />
Paul Rathbone 29/23 H Keith Trice 36/17<br />
Anna L Ratcliff 22/04 Brian D Trudgian 14/18<br />
William D C Rees 2/3 Edwina B Turner 35/7<br />
Paul L Richards 23/7 Emmanuel Twum Baah 22/1<br />
Jean A Robinson 36/6 Peter J van de Kasteele 23/4<br />
Derek W Rosamond 13/3 David Varcoe 35/36<br />
Tudur Rowlands 1/1 Bruce Waldron 14/26<br />
Richard Rowling 29/23 Graham F Warmington 24/24<br />
Charles Royden 34/1 Janet L Waterfield 28/11<br />
David P Ryan 5/17 Barry Welch 20/6<br />
Charmaine C M Sabey-Corkindale 34/15 Cindy K Wesley 14/26<br />
Jonathan Salmon 26/13 Brian W White 5/9<br />
Mark H Salmon 28/3 Carolyn White 6/4<br />
Robert W Sanday 26/1 Simon I D White 22/20<br />
Trevor J Sands 23/21 Eric K Whitley 23/10<br />
Wendy J Saunders 35/45 Rosemary J Whitley 23/10<br />
Michael R Sheard 17/11 Maurice A Whittaker 22/19<br />
Malcolm Smalley 29/14 Dinah A Whittall 7/21<br />
Alistair G Smeaton 9/5 Janet Whittingham 19/3<br />
Andrew P L Smith 28/21 Nicholas Will 14/7<br />
Gordon Smith 18/5 Ian Williams 22/15<br />
Deborah J Snowball 34/14 Roger Williams 14/26<br />
Lynda Spokes 23/5 Mark R Williams 35/39<br />
Beverly A Stark 23/12 Desmond C Williamson 35/39<br />
Christopher H Stebbing 25/1 Ronald J Willoughby 11/18<br />
John W Steele 34/15 Jeffrey Wilson 17/11<br />
Brenda Stephenson 26/20 Ronald Wilson 9/16<br />
Elizabeth I Strafford 13/11 Michael J Withey 7/11<br />
Margaret E C Talbot 14/5 Peter J Wood 14/26<br />
James A Taylor 7/7 Brian Woollaston 7/7<br />
Kathryn I Taylor 34/12 Alan W Wright 17/11<br />
Noelle R Taylor 34/12 Malcolm D Wright 35/30 and<br />
Patrick H Taylor 27/1 35/43<br />
Rosemary E Taylor 17/22 Michael Yates 22/28<br />
Hamish G F Temple 17/3 Ernest W N Yu 35/39<br />
Eileen C Thompson 31/1<br />
602 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
50. Ministers from other Churches<br />
***RESOLUTION<br />
50/4. That the persons whose names are printed for this purpose in the <strong>Agenda</strong> as<br />
amended by the Order Paper circulated to the <strong>Conference</strong>, be authorised to<br />
serve the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church for the next ensuing year by virtue of Standing<br />
Order 733(1) and that each person so authorised shall reside for the purposes<br />
of the stations in the Circuit whose number appears against his or her name<br />
so listed.<br />
Deacons of other communions to be authorised to serve the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church<br />
The names of deacons authorised to serve are printed below and may be amended in the<br />
Order Paper of the <strong>Conference</strong> in order to incorporate any changes consequent upon the<br />
decisions of the Stationing Committee.<br />
Ellen Monk-Winstanley 21/10<br />
***RESOLUTION<br />
50/5. That the persons ordained deacon in other communions whose names are<br />
printed in the <strong>Agenda</strong> as amended by the Order Paper circulated to the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong>, be authorised to serve the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church for the next ensuing<br />
year by virtue of Standing Order 733 and that each person so authorised shall<br />
reside for the purposes of the stations in the Circuit whose number appears<br />
against his or her name so listed.<br />
Ministers and Deacons of other Communions applying to be Associate Ministers or<br />
Deacons of the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church<br />
The names of ministers of other communions to be granted the status of associate minister<br />
are printed below and may be amended in the Order Paper of the <strong>Conference</strong> in order to<br />
incorporate any changes consequent upon the decisions of the Stationing Committee.<br />
Sydney W Andrew 17/13 D Owain Bell 28/20<br />
Timothy J Atkins 13/15 Timothy P Bennison 31/1<br />
Pamela D Baker 23/1 Michael P Benwell 16/4<br />
Christine Bandawe 16/4 William A D Berryman 16/5<br />
J E Michael Barber 26/22 Thomas A G Bill 21/1<br />
Clive Barrett 27/- Paul M Bilton 27/33<br />
Trevor E Beckett 18/9 Linda Bond 34/1<br />
Nigel D Beer 16/2 Robert Brooke 16/5<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 603
50. Ministers from other Churches<br />
Keith J Brown 34/1 Graham Kitts 12/15<br />
Diane Brownhill 19/1 Bryan T Knapp 36/19<br />
S Roger Burne 23/1 Rosemary A Lawley 28/20<br />
Stephen I Butler 31/2 Daphne J Lloyd 14/16<br />
Peter S Callway 36/19 Ralph N Mann 23/4<br />
Carole A Camp 5/3 Graham J Maskery 29/6 and 29/7<br />
Glenn S Cannon 27/8 David M C Matthews 12/8<br />
Heather R Carter 23/1 Patrick E J McManus 10/2<br />
Roy Catchpole 26/26 Heegan Moon 20/6<br />
Colin Cheeseman 16/2 Sarah L Moore 9/-<br />
Paul R F Clemence 21/15 Andrew Myers 16/5<br />
Fiona J M Cotton-Betteridge 17/22 James W S Newcome 9/-<br />
Simon J Cox 21/15 Andy J Nicholson 16/4<br />
John E Dennett 21/15 Rodney Nicholson 21/9<br />
Linda Dodds 13/15 Hillary Nyika 35/22<br />
Dennis S Downing 12/19 David O’Brien 21/3<br />
Peter L Dunbar 16/14 Delia M P O’Halloran 34/1<br />
Geoffrey D Ellis 16/5 Shaun O’Rourke 19/1<br />
Charlotte E Elvey 35/26 Barry Overend 16/3<br />
Matthew S Evans 16/14 S Robinson Paisley 31/2<br />
Robert Evens 34/1 Maria Pallis 29/16<br />
Jeremy M Fathers 5/3 Ann J Parker 7/2<br />
Lissa M Gibbons 13/16 Barry R Parker 16/5<br />
Michael E Goodland 12/22 David T N Parry 23/1<br />
David Griffiths 6/1 Paul J Payton 16/4<br />
Alan Haigh 16/2 James Percival 21/14<br />
John Hallows 21/6 Peter M L Phillips 7/3<br />
Kenneth Harris 13/7 Robert Pickering 21/5<br />
Ruth Harris 16/18 Trevor Pitt 13/15<br />
John Hartley 21/2 Richard Plant 18/18<br />
Paul Hartley 16/19 David Y Poulton 5/10<br />
John D Hawley 21/2 David E Pountain 12/15<br />
William E Henderson 16/18 Anugrah D Ramble 5/4<br />
Garry Hinchliffe 16/13 Michael D Ratcliffe 21/5<br />
Michael Hopkins 36/1 David W Rhymer 12/15<br />
Richard L Howlett 34/1 Clive J Richardson 36/1<br />
Steven P Hughes 21/11 Elizabeth R Richardson 35/26<br />
Timothy J Hurren 16/13 David M Robinson 16/2<br />
Brunel H G James 16/4 Carol Rowles 35/26<br />
David W Joynes 13/19 Neil Salt 21/15<br />
Alistair Kaye 16/6 Edward A Saville 21/1<br />
Susan E Kent 13/12 Robert W Shaw 16/5<br />
604 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
50. Ministers from other Churches<br />
Anthony M Shepherd 16/13 Stuart G Thomas 35/26<br />
David M Shepherd 34/14 Andrew K Tuck 36/1<br />
Nigel C Sinclair 16/13 James Turner 16/5<br />
T Roger Smith 21/5 Gail Uttley 16/18<br />
Lorraine Snape 26/5 Carol A Wilson-Barker 36/1<br />
Andrew M Taylor 27/32 Diana Zanker 16/2<br />
J Allan Taylor 36/7<br />
***RESOLUTIONS<br />
50/6. That the persons whose names are printed for this purpose in the <strong>Agenda</strong><br />
as amended by the Order Paper circulated to the <strong>Conference</strong>, be granted the<br />
status of associate minister for the next ensuing year by virtue of Standing<br />
Order 733A(1) in the Circuit whose number appears against his or her name<br />
so listed.<br />
50/7. That the person whose name is printed below be granted the status of<br />
associate deacon for the next ensuing year by virtue of Standing Order<br />
733A(1) in the Circuit whose number appears against her name.<br />
Constance M Taylor 27/9<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 605
51. Appointments of District Chairs, and the<br />
Warden of the <strong>Methodist</strong> Diaconal Order<br />
***RESOLUTIONS<br />
51/1. The <strong>Conference</strong> appoints the Revd Ian Howarth as Chair for the Birmingham<br />
District for a period of six years from 1 September 2013.<br />
51/2. The <strong>Conference</strong> appoints the Revd Jennifer A Hurd as Chair for Synod Cymru<br />
for a period of six years from 1 September 2013.<br />
51/3. The <strong>Conference</strong> appoints the Revd Dr Elizabeth A Smith as Chair for the Leeds<br />
District for a further period of five years from the 1 September 2013.<br />
51/4. The <strong>Conference</strong> appoints the Revd Dr Stephen D Wigley as Chair for the Wales<br />
Synod for a further period of five years from the 1 September 2013.<br />
51/5. The <strong>Conference</strong> appoints Deacon Susan Culver as Warden of the <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Diaconal Order for a further period of five years from 1 September 2014.<br />
Reasoned statements<br />
The Revd Ian Howarth<br />
Ian Howarth was until recently the Superintendent Minister of the Dorking and Horsham<br />
Circuit and is now the Assistant Chair of the South East District.<br />
His ministry is grounded in a deep and real faith in Christ, and has involved a wide<br />
experience of circuit ministry over 26 years, including, in recent times, strategic planning<br />
and collaborative leadership relating to the ‘Regrouping for Mission’ process.<br />
As Assistant Chair his role has brought about considerable involvement in ecumenical<br />
matters, together with a number of the processes relating to connexional policies, such<br />
as pastoral oversight and safeguarding. He has a longstanding commitment to schools<br />
as both a governor and as Chair of Governors, and considerable experience as a chaplain<br />
in a context of rehabilitation and custody. He is recognised and respected as a deeply<br />
caring and pastoral man, and a reliable, competent, professional, wise and spiritual<br />
leader, committed to forging fruitful relationships within and beyond the Church.<br />
Ian is excited about, and committed to, shaping the future of the contemporary <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Church.<br />
The Synod recommends Ian Howarth to the <strong>Conference</strong> as Chair of the Birmingham<br />
District from 1 September 2013.<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 607
51. Appointments of District Chairs, and the<br />
Warden of the <strong>Methodist</strong> Diaconal Order<br />
The Revd Jennifer A Hurd<br />
Jennie Hurd studied English and European Literature at Warwick University and proceeded<br />
to ministerial training at Queen’s College, Birmingham where she gained her BD with<br />
distinction. She is currently studying for a PhD in Practical Theology at Birmingham<br />
University.<br />
Jennie served in the Nuneaton and Atherstone Circuit, as superintendent of the Glannau<br />
(Welsh) Circuit and then as superintendent of the Dudley and Netherton Circuit.<br />
Jennie is a gifted administrator having ably served as Assistant Synod Secretary and<br />
Assistant Chair of District. She is a person of deep and considered faith and is clear<br />
about her own theological perspectives whilst showing herself to be open to others<br />
whose perspectives may be different. People feel an instinctive warmth towards her and<br />
she feels that her primary calling is to listen to people, to care for them and to support<br />
them in their calling.<br />
During the years when Jennie was Superintendent of the Glannau Circuit in the Cymru<br />
District she became fluent in the Welsh language and she has maintained that ability<br />
in the years since she moved from Wales. In her own words she loves the language,<br />
landscape, traditions and culture of the people of Wales.<br />
Synod Cymru has embarked on a new era of mission and is seeking to give much more<br />
freedom to the Chair to engage in outreach with the people of our Welsh speaking<br />
chapels. Jennie will bring enthusiasm and encouragement in this new venture.<br />
Synod Cymru recommends Jennifer A Hurd to the <strong>Conference</strong> as Chair of Synod Cymru for<br />
a period of six years from 1 September 2013.<br />
The Revd Dr Elizabeth A Smith<br />
Liz Smith was appointed as Chair of the Leeds District in 2007. Since that time the<br />
District has been pleased to experience her many gifts. In particular, many – including<br />
many ministers – have found Liz to be highly supportive, approachable and diplomatic,<br />
with a genuine concern for the welfare, spiritual nurture and professional development of<br />
people. Her support and care in respect of stationing, and her keeping of confidences is<br />
widely appreciated.<br />
Liz Smith is recognised as a socially skilled, effective communicator: warm, interested<br />
and at ease in a wide range of social contexts, including radio and other media. She has<br />
devoted time and energy to issues of justice, interfaith, racial and social concern and<br />
shows leadership in urging the Church to focus beyond itself. She is a strategic thinker,<br />
and has taken time to develop new and more appropriate district structures such as the<br />
District Leadership Team, Superintendents’ meetings and the Forum night. Liz is a team<br />
608 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
51. Appointments of District Chairs, and the<br />
Warden of the <strong>Methodist</strong> Diaconal Order<br />
player and enables and adopts a collaborative style of leadership and ministry which in<br />
turn encourages participation, open discussion, and maintains trust. She demonstrates a<br />
willingness to listen, has an open mind, and offers encouragement.<br />
Liz is widely appreciated as an ecumenical colleague. She has helped develop the growing<br />
bond between the Leeds District and the Diocese of Ripon & Leeds. She currently chairs<br />
WYEC, has recently been made an ecumenical canon of Wakefield Cathedral, and is<br />
deepening relationships with the Catholic Cathedral. She has been careful in progressing<br />
appointments for LEP’s.<br />
Liz brings a connexional perspective to district meetings, and has a good grasp of<br />
governance structures and <strong>Conference</strong> issues. She has the respect and affection of her<br />
connexional peers.<br />
Liz’s ability as a practical theologian is widely appreciated and respected. She is willing<br />
and able to share quite deeply on a personal level, is intelligent with significant academic<br />
ability and good Biblical and theological knowledge. Her ability to lead devotions for small<br />
groups and at retreats is appreciated. She demonstrates her love of art and nature, and<br />
uses visual elements in creative and imaginative ways. In all this she communicates a<br />
clear vision of God at work which is mission-centred and theologically informed. She is a<br />
prayerful person of deep spirituality, able to communicate to a wide spectrum of people in<br />
different situations and denominations.<br />
The Synod overwhelmingly recommends to the <strong>Conference</strong> that the appointment of the<br />
Revd Dr Elizabeth Smith be extended for a further period of five years from 1 September<br />
2013.<br />
The Revd Dr Stephen D Wigley<br />
The Revd Dr Stephen D Wigley has served as Chair of Wales Synod since its inception in<br />
2007. He has worked with energy and commitment, with enthusiasm and vision, in the<br />
establishment of the Wales Synod, He has shown himself to be adaptable and flexible,<br />
not least in the operation of a leadership model necessarily revised so soon after the<br />
commencement of the appointment.<br />
The Wales Synod has witnessed a remodelling of a high proportion of its Circuits, the<br />
creation and successful operation of innovative projects with ethnic minority Christians<br />
and young people, as well as increasingly effective use of resources. Stephen consistently<br />
offers encouragement and insight in a collaborative manner, and is ready to adopt new,<br />
more efficient ways of working and communication.<br />
In reviewing the appointment, consultation has been made widely across the Wales Synod,<br />
with Synod Cymru, with ecumenical partners and with those in the wider community with<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 609
51. Appointments of District Chairs, and the<br />
Warden of the <strong>Methodist</strong> Diaconal Order<br />
whom Stephen engages in his role as Chair. It is clear that Stephen is held in high regard,<br />
especially for his approachability, sensitivity and pastoral care.<br />
The Synod recommends to the <strong>Conference</strong> that the Revd Dr Stephen D Wigley be appointed<br />
Chair of Wales Synod for a further period of five years from 1 September 2013.<br />
Deacon Susan Culver<br />
Since her appointment as Warden of the <strong>Methodist</strong> Diaconal Order Deacon Sue Culver<br />
has shown herself to be a very effective advocate of the MDO both within the Connexion<br />
and beyond. She has significantly raised the profile of the Order and brought it into the<br />
21st century. She has done a great deal to ensure that the MDO is seen and feels part of<br />
a connexional church.<br />
She has exhibited the gifts, skills and visionary capabilities which fully equip her for the<br />
role of Warden. In her formation of, and operation within, a strong, capable Leadership<br />
Team Sue has demonstrated her commitment to collaborative ministry, which is a<br />
fundamental part of Diaconal Ministry, and that she has a strong grasp of the theology<br />
that underpins it.<br />
Sue is a very clear, strategic thinker and is well able to articulate her thoughts in<br />
every sphere that she is required to operate in. She is well respected, and listened to,<br />
throughout the Connexion.<br />
The MDO faces huge changes in the months and years ahead. Sue is well equipped,<br />
through her creativity and deep spirituality, as well as the gifts, graces and skills that<br />
she possesses, to help the Order and the wider church, to grasp the opportunities that<br />
change presents.<br />
610 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
52. Fresh Ways Working Group: The Future<br />
Basic Information<br />
Title<br />
Contact Name and Details<br />
Status of Paper<br />
Action Required<br />
Resolution<br />
Fresh Ways Working Group: The Future<br />
The Revd Gareth Powell,<br />
Assistant Secretary of the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
asc@methodistchurch.org.uk<br />
Final, on the recommendation of the <strong>Methodist</strong> Council<br />
Decision<br />
52/1. The <strong>Conference</strong> receives the report and adopts<br />
the recommendations set out in paragraph 5.0.<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 611
52. Fresh Ways Working Group: The Future<br />
1.0 The 2007 <strong>Conference</strong> agreed the following resolutions which brought the Fresh<br />
Ways of Working Group (FWWG) into being:<br />
R19/2. The <strong>Conference</strong> directs the <strong>Methodist</strong> Council to take the necessary steps<br />
to enable and encourage fresh ways of being church in a structured and<br />
strategic way and in particular through the development of guidance for:<br />
a. the stationing and deployment of lay and ordained people to begin<br />
and sustain fresh expressions of church (working with the Stationing<br />
Committee)<br />
b. the identification and training of suitably gifted lay people, deacons<br />
and presbyters, to begin fresh expressions of church<br />
c. the appropriate and wise development and recognition of fresh<br />
expressions of church within Circuits and Districts<br />
R19/3. The <strong>Conference</strong> further directs the <strong>Methodist</strong> Council to bring annual<br />
reports to the <strong>Conference</strong> from 2008 to 2013 detailing progress made<br />
and with detailed guidance including any necessary changes to Standing<br />
Orders.<br />
2.0 FWWG has met since then and reported annually as requested to the <strong>Conference</strong>.<br />
Much has been achieved through this group and tribute is paid to their expertise<br />
and passion in enabling the Church to be flexible to the mission it is called to.<br />
3.0 In the last few years much has changed in the landscape of the Church and in<br />
order to support that new structures and committees have emerged. The Chair<br />
(The Revd Dr Andrew Wood) and the Convenor (The Revd Stephen Lindridge) of the<br />
FWWG are therefore agreed that the time is right for a change in direction to ensure<br />
that the work of Fresh Expressions stays connected with other emerging agendas of<br />
the Church.<br />
4.0 In 2011 one of the resolutions from the General Secretary’s report was as follows:<br />
2/2. The <strong>Conference</strong> directs the Ministries Committee to consider the<br />
issues raised in the section of the report entitled “Patterns of ministry:<br />
discipleship and mission” and “a fluid ‘mixed economy’ ” and bring<br />
recommendations to the <strong>Conference</strong> as soon as proves possible.<br />
5.0 It is thought that this remit sits alongside that of the original FWWG and so, on the<br />
recommendation of the <strong>Methodist</strong> Council, the <strong>Conference</strong> is asked to approve the<br />
following changes to the FWWG’s ways of working:<br />
612 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
52. Fresh Ways Working Group: The Future<br />
5.1 The FWWG as is it currently constituted becomes a Practitioners’ Forum concerned<br />
with issues of emerging Church with additional possible membership drawn from:<br />
l Those leading larger churches into growth (membership of 200+)<br />
l Those leading ethnic or language based churches in growth<br />
l Those transforming inherited forms of church into growth<br />
l Those leading fresh expressions connected to inherited forms of church<br />
l Those leading fresh expressions in a cultural context (ie not on church<br />
premises but in the work-place, home, 3 rd place, or unique place)<br />
l Representatives from among the District Officers connecting and supporting<br />
these ministries<br />
l Representatives from the Fresh Expressions team and the Connexional Team.<br />
This broader membership will ensure that greater and deeper representation from<br />
among those leading and supporting fresh ways of being Church than is possible<br />
through the existing FWWG’s membership, and responds to numerous requests<br />
from practitioners in this field to have broader stronger links to the development of<br />
connexional policies and initiatives.<br />
5.2 Any small group constituted by the Ministries Committee and the Faith and Order<br />
Committee to look at the ‘fluid mixed economy’ of Church includes appropriate<br />
expertise from the existing FWWG.<br />
5.3 The Ministries Committee ensures that Fresh Expressions has an adequate robust<br />
reporting line to the <strong>Conference</strong> through the Committee, therefore negating the<br />
need for a separate FWWG report.<br />
***RESOLUTION<br />
52/1. The <strong>Conference</strong> receives the report and adopts the recommendations set out<br />
in paragraph 5.0.<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 613
53. Committee Appointments<br />
***RESOLUTIONS<br />
53/1. The <strong>Conference</strong> appoints the Strategy and Resources Committee of the<br />
Council in accordance with Standing Order 213:<br />
(i) Professor Peter Howdle (Chair)<br />
(iA) Mr Adrian Burton, the Revd Eden Fletcher, Ms Rachael Fletcher, the Revd<br />
David Goodall, Dr Daleep Mukarji, Mrs Heather Shipman<br />
(ii) Mr Andrew Gibbs, Mr Edward Awty (connexional Treasurers)<br />
(iii) deleted<br />
(iv) Dr Ian Harrison (Chair of the Connexional Grants Committee)<br />
(v) the Chair or Deputy Chair of the Ministries Committee<br />
(vi) The Revd Stuart Jordan (District Chair)<br />
(vii) The Revds Dr Martyn D Atkins, Mark H Wakelin, Ms Christine Elliott,<br />
Mr John Ellis (non-voting)<br />
53/2. The <strong>Conference</strong> appoints the panel for the nomination of District Chairs:<br />
The Revds John P Barnett, J W Wesley Blakey, Stephen J Burgess, David Blanchflower,<br />
Kathleen M Bowe, Anne E Brown, Shirley A Clayton, David Cooper, Howard Curnow, Albert<br />
Gayle, Alison M Geary, John Hellyer, Christine Jones (A), Marian J Jones, Robert J Kitching,<br />
Derrick R Lander, Paul Nzacahayo, Peter M Phillips, Gareth J Powell, Keith A Reed, Stuart<br />
Jordan, Andrew W Sails, D Paul C Smith, Alison Tomlin, Martin Wellings, Andrew D Wood<br />
Deacons Margaret C Woodlock-Smith, Jane Middleton<br />
Mr Harvey Allen, Mrs Christine Bellamy, Ms Margretta Bowstead, Mrs Teresa Broadbent,<br />
Miss Sarah Cave, Mrs Sue Chastney, Mr David Dalziel, Ms Evelyn de Graft, Mr Jack<br />
Healey, Prof Peter Howdle, Mrs Judy Jarvis, Dr Susan M Jones, Mr Brian King, Mr David<br />
T A Kitley, Mrs Amanda Main, Dr Judith May-Parker, Miss Marion Mear, Mr Leon A Murray,<br />
Mrs Sonia J O’Connor, Mr Malcolm Pearson, Miss Rosemary K Pritchard, Mr Noel<br />
Rajaratnam, Mr Gordon H Roberts, Miss Jean Rutherford, Dr Malcolm Stevenson, Mr<br />
Michael Tolson, Mr Sam Walker, Mr David S Walton, Mrs Rosemary Wass, Mr Alan R P<br />
Weeks, Mr Ivan Weekes, Mrs Ruth M Wilton, Ms Helen Woodall, Mr Rob Wylie, with the<br />
Secretary of the <strong>Conference</strong> as convener.<br />
53/3. The <strong>Conference</strong> appoints the panel for Connexional Discipline, Pastoral and<br />
Appeal Committees and persons with associated functions:<br />
Connexional Complaints Officer: Mr David Booth, the Revd Alison McDonald (Deputy).<br />
Chairs: Mr Stephen Allinson, Mr Graham Danbury, Mr Robert Gaitskell, Mrs Susan R<br />
Howdle, Miss Jennifer Jones, Ms Jane McIvor, Mr Justice Norris, Miss Elizabeth Ovey, Mr<br />
Brian Rollins.<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 615
53. Committee Appointments<br />
Advocates: The Revd Alison McDonald, Mr Stephen Allinson, Mr Joseph Anoom,<br />
Mr John Birtwell, Mr Graham Danbury, Mr Brian Rollins, Mr Adrian Turner, the Revd Stuart<br />
Wild.<br />
Conveners:<br />
Discipline and Pastoral: The Revds James A Booth, Paul H Davis (Deputy), Ian Yates<br />
Appeal:<br />
The Revds Derek A Aldridge, Peter E Barber, Brian E Beck, Inderjit S Bhogal, Neil A<br />
Bishop, Jill B Bowden, Kathleen M Bowe, Nick Blundell, Anne E Brown, Stuart J Burgess,<br />
R Graham Carter, David Clowes, John A Cooke, K Hilary Cooke, Geoff R Cornell, Judy<br />
M Davies, Valentin Dedji, Neil Dixon, Christine A Dybdahl, Jennifer M Dyer, Stuart Earl,<br />
Veronica M S Faulks, Hazel M Forecast, David Gamble, Albert Gayle, Anne E Gibson, Diane<br />
M Hare, Yvonne Haye, David A Haslam, John Hellyer, Brian R Hoare, Ermal Kirby, John S<br />
Lampard, Christina Le Moignan, Julie A Lunn, Paul Martin, Will Morrey, Paul Nzacahayo,<br />
Hayford Ofori-Attah, Lionel E Osborn, R Stephen Penrose, David W Perry, Stephen Poxon,<br />
Kathleen M Richardson, Neil G Richardson, J Roger Roberts, John D Robinson, Calvin T<br />
Samuel, D Paul C Smith, Ian Souter, Kenneth Stokes, Thomas J Stuckey, John B Taylor, G<br />
Jeff Thomas, Alison Tomlin, Michael J Townsend, Martin H Turner, C Norman R Wallwork,<br />
Peter Whittaker, Julia M Wiktorska.<br />
Deacons Eunice Attwood, Kate Barrett, Denise Creed, Sue Culver, Jane Middleton, Myrtle<br />
Poxon, Marion Sharp, Rowland H Wilkinson.<br />
Mrs Jane Allison, Mr Donald B Appleyard, Ms Ruby Beech, Mr John A Bell, Mr Simon Birks,<br />
Mrs Stella Bristow, Mrs Teresa Broadbent, Miss Joan Charlesworth, Mr Dudley Coates,<br />
Mr John Connor, Mr Colin Cradock, Mr Andrew Cross, Mr Brian Davies, Prof Peter Howdle,<br />
Mrs Sophie Kumi, Mrs Judy Jarvis, Dr Mary Jefferson, Mrs Ann Leck, Mrs Helen R Letley,<br />
Dr Edmund I Marshall, Mr Leon A Murray, Mrs Nwabueze Nwokolo, Mrs Sonia J O’Connor,<br />
Mrs Margaret Parker, Mrs Ruth Pickles, Mr Timothy Ratcliffe, Mrs Jean Schroeder, Mr<br />
Stephen Schroeder, Dr Alan Thomson, Mr Brian Thornton, Mr David Walton, Mrs Rosemary<br />
Wass, Mr Ivan Weekes, Sister Eluned Williams.<br />
53/4. The <strong>Conference</strong> appoints the panel for Connexional Complaints Teams:<br />
The Revds Catherine H Bird, Hilary Cheng, Keith Harbour, Richard Harrison, Brian Jenner,<br />
Christopher Jones, Alison McDonald, Brenda Mosedale, Stephen Penrose, Mary R Teed,<br />
Paul S Weir, Stuart Wild<br />
Deacon Myrtle Poxon<br />
Miss Maureen Anderson, Mr Graham Arthurs, Miss Joan Ball, Mr Peter Binks, Mr John<br />
Birtwell, Mr Russell Buley, Mr David M Chandler, Mr Leo Cheng, Mr David Dalziel, Mr Denis<br />
616 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
53. Committee Appointments<br />
Hagon, Mr David Honour, Dr John Jefferson, Mr G David Kendall, Mr Chris Kitchin, Miss<br />
Kathryn Larrad, Mr David Laycock, Mrs Ann Leck, Mrs Kathleen Loveridge, Mrs Helen<br />
Martyn, Mrs Nwabueze Nwokolo, Mrs Jean Schroeder, Mr Stephen Schroeder, Mr Roger<br />
Thorne, Mr Ray Warren, Mrs Ann Willey, Mr Graham Wilson, Mr John Woosey<br />
53/5. The <strong>Conference</strong> appoints the Ministerial Candidates Selection Committee:<br />
The Revds Sean Adair, Sheryl Anderson, Peter E Barber, John N Bates, Christopher Blake,<br />
Alan Boyd, David Butterworth, Richard J Byass, Helen Cameron, John A Cooke, Deborah<br />
Cornish, Jane V Craske, Stephen Dunn, Matthew Finch, Vivienne Gasteen, Christine<br />
Gillespie, David Hewlett, David Hinchliffe, Hilary Howarth, Christine Jones, Margaret P<br />
Jones, Teddy Kalongo, Patrick Kandeh, Susan Keegan von Allmen, Jane Leach, Julie Lunn,<br />
Jonathan Mead, Malcolm Peacock, Barbara T Routley, Calvin Samuel, Kathryn Stephens,<br />
Neal H Street, Roberto Viana, Rose Westwood, Susan Wigham, Linda Williams, Stephen<br />
Yelland, Deacons Andrew Carter, Margaret Cox, Susan Culver, Ann Shephard, Janet<br />
Thomas. Mrs Akua Agyepong. Mr Richard Armiger, Mr Terry Ayres, Mrs Pat Bates, Mr Ray<br />
Battye, Mr David Clitheroe, Dr Maggie Costen, Mrs Janet Dobinson, Mrs Glena Griffin,<br />
Mrs Christine Haigh, Mrs Rosemary Harrison, Ms Sylvia Hart, Mrs Audry Hensman, Mrs<br />
Veronica Hickox, Mrs Elisabeth Holmes, Mr Rene Lamisere, Mrs Patsy Lindo, Ms Rosalind<br />
Middleton, Mrs Charlotte Osborn, Mr David Osborne, Mr Siôn Rhys Evans, Mrs Rhiannon<br />
Richardson, Mr Colin Ride, Ms Selve Selvaretnem, Mrs Karen Stefanyszyn, Mr Peter R<br />
Symes, Mrs Alison Wood.<br />
53/6. The <strong>Conference</strong> appoints the Diaconal Candidates Selection Committee:<br />
The Warden of the Order Deacon Sue Culver; the Revds Sheryl Anderson, Peter Barber,<br />
Jane Carter, David Ellis, Paul Flowers, Sheila Foreman, Christopher Jones; Deacons<br />
Richard Beckett, Andrew Carter, Jackie Fowler, Jane Gibson, Angleena Keizer, Michelle<br />
Legumi, Phil Osborne, Andrew Packer, Sylvie Phillips, Myrtle Poxon, Brian Purchase, Janet<br />
Stafford, Jan Sutton; Mrs Audrey Hensman, Ms Sarah Akindole, Mr Phil Langdale, Mr Alf<br />
Philpott, Ms Rachel Starr.<br />
53/7. The <strong>Conference</strong> appoints oversight tutors [in accordance with Standing Order<br />
321(5)(b)]:<br />
Where more than one oversight tutor is appointed for the same institution one shall be<br />
identified as having oversight responsibility. In the following list, that person is identified<br />
by an asterisk.<br />
Eastern Region Ministry Course: Ms Cathy Michell<br />
Hartley Victoria College, Manchester: *Dr Anthony Moodie (Principal), the Revd Dr<br />
Andrew Pratt, the Revd Nicola Price-Tebbutt<br />
Queen’s Foundation, Birmingham: *the Revd Helen Cameron, the Revd Gary Hall, Ms<br />
Rachel Starr<br />
South East Institute for Theological Education: the Revd Dr Hillary Nyika<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 617
53. Committee Appointments<br />
South West Ministry Training Course: tbc<br />
Southern Theological Education Training Scheme: *the Revd Dr Judith Rossall, the Revd<br />
Dr Philip Richter<br />
Urban Theology Unit, Sheffield: the Revd Dr Noel Irwin (Director)<br />
Wesley House, Cambridge: *the Revd Dr Jane Leach (Principal), the Revd Dr Jonathan<br />
Hustler<br />
Wesley Study Centre, Durham: *the Revd Dr Calvin Samuel (Principal), Dr Jocelyn Bryan,<br />
the Revd Andrew Lunn<br />
York Institute for Community Theology: the Revd Richard Andrew (Director), the Revd<br />
Sean Adair<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Training in Scotland: Ms Helen Wareing (National Learning & Development<br />
Officer)<br />
Wales Training Network: Mr Luke Curran (Director)<br />
53/8. The <strong>Conference</strong> appoints the Faith and Order Committee:<br />
To follow on the Order Paper.<br />
53/9. The <strong>Conference</strong> appoints the Stationing Committee under Standing Order 322:<br />
Lay Chair Mr Andrew Owen (7)<br />
Secretary of the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
The Revd Dr Martyn D Atkins<br />
South-East The Revd Jenny Impey (35)<br />
Mrs Jenny Jackson (36)<br />
South-West Mr Mike Petter (26)<br />
Wales/Midlands The Revd Dr Stephen D Wigley (2)<br />
Mr Malcolm Pearson (11)<br />
Yorkshire The Revd Stephen J Burgess (29)<br />
Mrs Kate Woolley (29)<br />
East Midlands The Revd Dr Peter Hancock (23)<br />
Mr Peter Sercombe (23)<br />
North-West The Revd Stephen Poxon (21)<br />
Mr Iain Henderson (18)<br />
North/Scotland The Revd Ruth Gee (13)<br />
Mrs Lesley Morland (13)<br />
Warden of the <strong>Methodist</strong> Diaconal Order<br />
Deacon Susan Culver<br />
Chair of the Diaconal Stationing Sub-Committee The Revd Peter E Barber (11)<br />
Lay member of the Diaconal Stationing Sub-Committee to be confirmed<br />
Chair of the Stationing Matching Group The Revd David Emison (29)<br />
Chair of the Stationing Advisory Committee The Revd Vernon Marsh (25)<br />
Convener of the Stationing Action Group The Revd Anne Brown (34)<br />
One Team member responsible for ministerial and diaconal selection and training<br />
[Vacant]<br />
One Team member responsible for the stationing of probationers:<br />
618 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
53. Committee Appointments<br />
[Vacant]<br />
One Team member responsible for overseas personnel [Vacant]<br />
Connexional Secretary<br />
[Vacant]<br />
In attendance:<br />
Assistant Secretary of the <strong>Conference</strong> [SO 322(3)]<br />
Head of Personnel<br />
Ministries and Learning Coordinator<br />
Head of Discipleship and Ministries Cluster<br />
Ministries and Learning Officer<br />
The Revd Gareth J Powell<br />
Ms Carmila Legarda<br />
Mr Siôn Rhys Evans<br />
Mr Doug Swanney<br />
The Revd Dr Sheryl Anderson<br />
53/10. The <strong>Conference</strong> appoints the officers of the <strong>Methodist</strong> Missionary Society:<br />
Secretary: the Revd Stephen J Poxon<br />
Treasurer: Mr Andrew Gibbs<br />
53/11. The <strong>Conference</strong> appoints representatives to ecumenical bodies as follows:<br />
(a) The Annual General Meeting of Churches Together in Britain and Ireland:<br />
Ms Christine Elliott<br />
(b) The Enabling Group and the Free Churches Group of Churches Together in England:<br />
the Revds Ruth M Gee, Neil A Stubbens<br />
(c) ACTS Forum (Action of Churches Together in Scotland):<br />
the Revd Lily P Twist; Dr William M Reid<br />
(d) The Commission for Covenanted Churches in Wales:<br />
the Revds Catherine Gale, Delyth A Liddell, Gordon W Sollis, Sister Eluned Williams<br />
(e) Cytûn Trustees<br />
the Revd Dr Stephen Wigley<br />
(f) Group for Local Unity of Churches Together in England:<br />
the Revds Hilary Cooke, Neil A Stubbens<br />
(g) <strong>Methodist</strong>/United Reformed Church Liaison Group:<br />
the Revds Richard Teal (Co-Chair), Roger K Hides, Kavula J John, Neil A Stubbens; Dr<br />
William M Reid<br />
(h) Churches’ Legislation Advisory Service:<br />
The Revd Gareth J Powell; Ms Jatinder Kandola, Mrs Louise Wilkins<br />
(i) Roman Catholic/<strong>Methodist</strong> Dialogue Commission:<br />
the Revds Dr Gerald Bostock, Dr David M Chapman (Co-Secretary), Kenneth G<br />
Howcroft, Christine M Howe, Dr Neil G Richardson (Co-Chair), Neil A Stubbens, Peter<br />
G Sulston, Dr Martin Wellings, Dr Stephen D Wigley; Mr David Carter<br />
(j) <strong>Methodist</strong> Representative to the General Synod of the Church of England:<br />
the Revd Dr Roger Walton<br />
(k) <strong>Methodist</strong> Representative to the United Reformed Church General Assembly (6-9 July<br />
2012):<br />
the Revd Dr John C A Emmett<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 619
53. Committee Appointments<br />
(l) Churches Together in England Forum (23-25 October 2012):<br />
Pursuant to SO 212(7), the following are nominated by the <strong>Methodist</strong> Council:<br />
Mr Neil Bolus, Jennifer Crook, Ms Christine Elliott, Ms Penny Fuller, Mr Michael King,<br />
Mr Tim Stacey; the Revds Ruth Gee, Dr Peter M Phillips, Neil A Stubbens<br />
In addition, the <strong>Conference</strong> is invited to appoint the following:<br />
Deacon Ellie Griffin, the Revd Katei Kirby, Ms Helen Woodall<br />
(m) <strong>Conference</strong> of European Churches Assembly (3-8 July 2013):<br />
Mr Roy Crowder, Ms Emma T Johnson, Ms Anthea Sully; the Revd Celia M Phillips,<br />
the Revd Harvey S Richardson,<br />
(n) World Council of Churches’ General Assembly (October – November 2013):<br />
Mrs Sarah Friswell, the Revd Neil A Stubbens<br />
53/12. The <strong>Conference</strong> appoints the Directors of Westminster College Oxford Trust<br />
Limited:<br />
Mrs Susan Barratt, Mrs Susan Howdle, Dr Cliff Marshall and the Revd Dr Martin Wellings,<br />
together with (ex officio), the General Secretary nominee Mrs Ann Leck.<br />
53/13. The <strong>Conference</strong> appoints the lay persons nominated by the Synod to the<br />
General Committee of the Relief and Extension Fund for Methodism in<br />
Scotland and notes the membership of the Committee as otherwise provided<br />
for in Standing Order 476(1)(i), (ii) and (iii) as follows:<br />
(i) the Chair and Ministerial Secretary of the <strong>Methodist</strong> Synod in Scotland and the<br />
Ministerial Secretaries responsible for “Mission in Britain” and “Property” (being the “ex<br />
officio Trustees” of the Fund);<br />
The Revd Lily P Twist, Chair of the District<br />
The Revd T Alan Anderson, Ministerial Secretary of the Synod<br />
Vacancy, Unit Coordinator for Church Life (which covers “Mission in Britain”)<br />
The Revd Dr Michael J Hill, Ministerial Secretary for Property<br />
(ii) Four nominated by Synod and appointed by the <strong>Conference</strong> (or appointed by the existing<br />
trustees if Synod fails to act within two years to nominate for a vacancy).<br />
Mr David A Easson, Synod Secretary<br />
Mr Edward A L Wallace, General Secretary of the Fund<br />
Dr Alan J Hayes, Lay Secretary for Property<br />
Miss Maureen G Anderson<br />
(iii) The Superintendent of each Circuit in the District (not otherwise appointed)<br />
The Revd Andrew Letby<br />
The Revd Dr Elizabeth J B Adam<br />
The Revd Allan Y Loudon<br />
The Revd David B Archer<br />
The Revd J Kenneth Morgan<br />
620 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
53. Committee Appointments<br />
The Revd Mary M Patterson<br />
The Revd Dr Peter J Howson<br />
(iv) Lay persons nominated by the Synod and appointed by the <strong>Conference</strong>;<br />
Mrs Ann Bradley, General Treasurer of the Fund<br />
Mrs Margaret Brown<br />
Mrs Jennifer H Easson<br />
Mr Sandy Laurie<br />
53/14. The <strong>Conference</strong> appoints the Audit Committee:<br />
Mr Rodney Betts, Mr John Chastney (Chair), Mr Andrew Whitley, Mr Peter Mills<br />
In attendance: Mr Edward Awty, Mr Andrew Gibbs, Mr Nick Moore, Ms Maureen<br />
Sebanakitta<br />
53/15. The <strong>Conference</strong> appoints the <strong>Methodist</strong> Council of 2012:<br />
The ex officio members specified in Standing Order 201, and:<br />
The chair of the Council:<br />
the Revd David Gamble<br />
The Assistant Secretary of the <strong>Conference</strong>:<br />
the Revd Gareth J Powell<br />
The lead Connexional Treasurer:<br />
Mr Andrew Gibbs<br />
Four District Chairs:<br />
the Revds Ruth M Gee, A Ward Jones, Loraine Mellor, Dr Stephen D Wigley<br />
Thirty-one District representatives:<br />
the Revds Nigel F Barton, Jade Bath, Christopher Briggs, Mr Stephen Cooper, Mr Gerry<br />
Davis, the Revd Rachel Deigh, Dr Martyn Evans, the Revds Ruth Goodland, Graeme J<br />
Halls, Dr Nigel Hardwick, the Revds Paul Hill, Graham Horsley, Robert Hufton, Mr Graham<br />
Illingworth, Mrs Jean Jackson, Mr Sandy Laurie, Mr Tim Layhe, the Revds Edwin T Myers,<br />
Gillian Newton, Mr Andrew Owen, the Revd Timothy M Perkins, Mr Richard Saunders-<br />
Hindley, the Revd D Paul C Smith, Mr Christopher Stephens, Dr Alan Sykes, the Revds<br />
David Warnock, Mr Ian White, Alison Wilkinson, Mr R Arfon Williams, Mr Richard Wills, Mr<br />
John Woosey<br />
The Connexional Secretaries:<br />
the Revd Dr Martyn D Atkins, Ms Christine Elliott, Mr John Ellis, the Revd Dr Mark H<br />
Wakelin<br />
The Chair and two members of the SRC:<br />
Professor Peter Howdle, Mr Adrian Burton, Mrs Alison Jackson<br />
A representative of the Diaconal Order:<br />
Deacon Susan Culver<br />
Two representatives of the Youth Assembly:<br />
Ms Megan Bunce, Ms Emma Hunter<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 621
53. Committee Appointments<br />
Two representatives of the Committee for Racial Justice:<br />
The Revds Olufemi Cole-Njie, Joseph B Suray<br />
Up to four <strong>Conference</strong>-appointed persons<br />
53/16. The <strong>Conference</strong> directs that in accordance with Standing Order 210(2)(a) the<br />
Districts shall be represented on the <strong>Methodist</strong> Council of 2013 as follows:<br />
By a minister or deacon:<br />
Bolton and Rochdale, Bristol, Channel Islands, East Anglia, Leeds, Lincoln and Grimsby,<br />
Liverpool, Manchester and Stockport, Nottingham and Derby, Plymouth and Exeter,<br />
Southampton, West Yorkshire, Wolverhampton and Shrewsbury, Bedfordshire Essex<br />
Hertfordshire, South East<br />
By a lay person:<br />
Cymru, Wales, Birmingham, Cumbria, Chester and Stoke, Cornwall, Darlington, Isle of<br />
Man, Newcastle, Lancashire, Northampton, Sheffield, York and Hull, Scotland, Shetland,<br />
London<br />
53/17. The <strong>Conference</strong> appoints the following to accompany the President and the<br />
Vice-President as its representatives to the Irish <strong>Conference</strong>:<br />
To follow on the Order Paper.<br />
53/18. The <strong>Conference</strong> appoints the following officers of the 2013 <strong>Conference</strong>:<br />
To follow on the Order Paper.<br />
53/19. The <strong>Conference</strong> appoints the trustees of Epworth Old Rectory as follows:<br />
the Revd Brian Bailey, Mrs Jennifer Carpenter, the Revd Graham Carter, Mr Roger Kuhnel,<br />
Mr Barry Clarke, Mr David Harris, the Revd David Leese, Mr Cliff Lewer, Mr Eddie Mardell,<br />
the Revd Drs Herbert McGonigle, David Perry, Mr William Platts, Mr John Purdy (Secretary),<br />
Mr Keith Rothery (Treasurer), the Revd Ian R S Walker<br />
World <strong>Methodist</strong> Council (WMC) Trustees:<br />
the Revd Dr John Barrett, Bishop Heinrich Bolleter, Mrs Thelma Crowder, the Revd George<br />
Freeman, Mr Robert Williams<br />
53/20. The <strong>Conference</strong> appoints the following officers of the <strong>Conference</strong> Diaconal<br />
Committee:<br />
Recording Officers: Deacons Susan Hibberd and Myrtle Poxon<br />
Reporting Officer: Deacon Myrtle Poxon<br />
53/21. The <strong>Conference</strong> appoints the Ministries Committee:<br />
The Revd Dr Martyn Atkins, Deacon Eunice Attwood, Mrs Ruby Beech, Mr John Bell, the<br />
622 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
53. Committee Appointments<br />
Revd Anne Brown (Deputy Chair), Deacon Susan Culver, the Revd Mark Hammond, the<br />
Revd Elizabeth Hunter, the Revd Jenny Impey, Ms Jenny Jackson, the Revd Vernon Marsh,<br />
the Revd Lionel E Osborn (Chair), the Revd Marcus Torchon,the Revd Dr Andrew Wood<br />
Consultants: the Revd Helen Cameron, Mr Luke Curran, the Revd Philip Jackson, the Revd<br />
Stephen Lindridge, Ms Helen Wareing<br />
Details of New Nominations (underlined above):<br />
Mrs Akua Agyepong LLB MSc, Corporate Lead for Equality and Diversity for Kent County<br />
Council, member at Bermondsey Central Hall <strong>Methodist</strong> Church.<br />
Ms Megan Bunce, elected to the Council by the Youth Assembly<br />
Mr Neil Bolus, <strong>Methodist</strong> Youth Assembly’s Ecumenical Representative<br />
The Revd Olufemi Cole-Njie, Chair of the Equality and Diversity Race Stakeholder Forum<br />
Jennifer Crook, Equalities and Diversity Adviser in the Connexional Team<br />
Mr Roy Crowder, World Church Relationships Partnership Coordinator: Europe<br />
The Revd Paul H Davis, Superintendent Minister of the Preston Ribble Circuit and<br />
Secretary of the Lancashire District Synod<br />
Ms Christine Elliott, Secretary for External Relationships<br />
The Revd Dr John C A Emmett, <strong>Methodist</strong> observer on the URC-Church of England joint<br />
study group on God’s Reign and Our Unity<br />
Dr Martyn Evans, nominated to the Council by the Cumbria District<br />
Mr Siôn Rhys Evans, Ministries Learning and Development Co-ordinator, the Connexional<br />
Team<br />
Mrs Glena Griffin, Accountancy Officer, Peabody Trust, married to a <strong>Methodist</strong> presbyter<br />
Mrs Sarah Friswell, Taught in Malawi 1992-95; PR Manager at St Edmundsbury Cathedral;<br />
member of British Committee of the WMC; Chair of Heritage Committee<br />
Ms Penny Fuller, Children’s Ministries Development Officer in the Connexional Team<br />
The Revd David Gamble, nominated as the new Chair of the Council<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 623
53. Committee Appointments<br />
The Revd Ruth Gee, a Chair of District<br />
The Revd David Goodall, nominated to the SRC by the Council<br />
Deacon Ellie Griffin, a deacon involved in Fresh Expressions<br />
The Revd Graeme J Halls, nominated to the Council by the Channel Islands District<br />
The Revd Paul Hill, nominated to the Council by the Nottingham and Derby District<br />
Professor Peter Howdle, nominated as the new Chair of the SRC<br />
The Revd Robert Hufton, nominated to the Council by the East Anglia District<br />
Mrs Jean Jackson, nominated to the Council by the Birmingham District<br />
The Revd Kavula J John, Superintendent of the South West Sussex United Area<br />
Ms Emma T Johnson, from the <strong>Methodist</strong> Youth Assembly<br />
Mr Michael King, Vice-President Designate<br />
The Revd Katei Kirby, Belonging Together Partnership Officer in the Connexional Team<br />
Mr Sandy Laurie, nominated to the Council by the Scotland District<br />
Dr Daleep Mukarji, nominated to the SRC by the Council<br />
The Revd Edwin T Myers, nominated to the Council by the Wolverhampton and Shrewsbury<br />
District<br />
The Revd Lionel E Osborn, President of the <strong>Conference</strong> 2011-12, Chair of the Newcastle<br />
District<br />
The Revd Timothy M Perkins, nominated to the Council by the Leeds District<br />
The Revd Celia M Phillips, experience of ecumenical matters in the Cornwall District<br />
The Revd Dr Peter Phillips, secretary of the Faith and Order Committee<br />
Mrs Ruth Pickles, ex Vice-President of the <strong>Conference</strong>.<br />
624 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
53. Committee Appointments<br />
The Revd Harvey S Richardson, representative to, and British Advocate for the Community<br />
of Protestant Churches in Europe, County Ecumenical Officer<br />
Mrs Heather Shipman, nominated to the SRC by the Council<br />
Mr Tim Stacey, Public issues<br />
The Revd Neil A Stubbens, Connexional Ecumenical Officer<br />
Ms Anthea Sully, Local Preacher; member of the Central Committee of CEC; former<br />
co-moderator of the CEC Church and Society Commission; National organiser for the<br />
Ecumenical Forum of European Christian Women<br />
Dr Alan Sykes, nominated to the Council by the Lancashire District<br />
Mr Adrian Turner, barrister and Deputy District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts)<br />
Mr Ian White, nominated to the Council by the Chester and Stoke-on-Trent District<br />
The Revd Dr Stephen D Wigley, nominated to the Council by the Chairs’ Meeting<br />
Mrs Louise Wilkins, Governance Officer in the Connexional Team<br />
Sister Eluned Williams, Chair of the Ecumenical Stakeholders’ Forum, a former Vice-<br />
President of the <strong>Conference</strong> and Chair of the Commission of Covenanted Churches in<br />
Wales<br />
Mr R Arfon Williams, nominated to the Council by Synod Cymru<br />
Ms Helen Woodall, has wide ecumenical experience and has served on the <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Council and SRC<br />
The Revd Ian Yates, supernumerary minister, previously convener of panels for the<br />
Stationing Advisory Committee<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 625
54. Appointments and Appreciations<br />
1. Appointments<br />
***RESOLUTIONS<br />
54/1. The <strong>Conference</strong> appoints Peter D Howdle as Chair of the Strategy and<br />
Resources Committee of the <strong>Methodist</strong> Council for an initial period of six<br />
years from 1 September 2012.<br />
54/2. The <strong>Conference</strong> appoints the Revd David Gamble as Chair of the <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Council for a period of three years from 1 September 2012.<br />
REASONED STATEMENTS<br />
Professor Peter D Howdle<br />
Peter Howdle is a well-known and<br />
respected figure in many fields. As a<br />
former Vice-President he is known for his<br />
wide connexional experience, taking time<br />
to absorb and reflect upon the detail of<br />
all that he encounters. In chairing the<br />
Joint Implementation Commission of the<br />
Anglican-<strong>Methodist</strong> Covenant since its<br />
inception in 2003 he has shown himself<br />
a thoughtful chair able to grasp a range of<br />
theological discourses and offering to both<br />
partners hard and incisive questions. As<br />
Emeritus Professor of Clinical Medicine at<br />
Leeds Medical School and a Consultant<br />
Gastroenterologist at St James’s University<br />
Hospital, Leeds Peter is respected for his<br />
skill and scholarship.<br />
In light of this he brings to the Strategy and<br />
Resources Committee (SRC) a wealth of<br />
experience across a wide breadth of church<br />
life, most recently serving as a Circuit<br />
Steward in the Leeds (North East) Circuit,<br />
where he is also a local preacher. His<br />
professional career, including a period as<br />
Chair of Clinical Guidelines Committees for<br />
the National Institute of Clinical Excellence,<br />
has given him considerable experience of<br />
complex budgets and staffing structures.<br />
In all of this Peter is a humble and gracious<br />
follower of Christ who is committed to<br />
the good and graceful governance of the<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Church. His skills will help<br />
enable the SRC to continue to think and<br />
act strategically, and to be rooted in<br />
the context of the community of faith.<br />
The Council makes this nomination with<br />
confidence that the whole Connexion will<br />
benefit from Peter’s impressive experience,<br />
ability and Christian commitment.<br />
The Revd David Gamble (President 2009)<br />
David Gamble is well-known in many parts<br />
of the Connexion and understands well<br />
the various challenges and opportunities<br />
experienced across the diverse body of<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> people in these islands. Whilst<br />
the majority of his ministry has been spent<br />
in connexional roles, David has a clear<br />
grasp of local <strong>Methodist</strong> experience. He<br />
ensures that awareness of local <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
experience is consistently set alongside<br />
the work of connexional bodies. As such<br />
he will bring to the <strong>Methodist</strong> Council the<br />
ability to hold together detail, broad vision,<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 627
54. Appointments and Appreciations<br />
a focus on the call of God and the need to<br />
be disciplined in the task of governance<br />
leadership. A former Chair of Barnardo’s<br />
Council, its Executive, Finance Committee,<br />
and its adoption sub-committee, David’s<br />
experience is in no way limited to<br />
Methodism. He brings considerable<br />
experience in representing the Church<br />
in wider society and of ensuring that the<br />
Church heeds the needs of wider and<br />
diverse society. His clear understanding<br />
of the role of governance bodies within the<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Church will be of assistance<br />
to the Council as it fulfils its various<br />
responsibilities. His name is brought to<br />
the <strong>Conference</strong> as the nominee of the<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Council.<br />
2. Appreciations<br />
The Revd David Gamble<br />
David Gamble has served as <strong>Conference</strong><br />
Officer for Legal and Constitutional Practice<br />
since the creation of the post in 2008.<br />
David’s ministry in the Connexional Team<br />
and its predecessor bodies extends back<br />
to 1987 when he joined the Division of<br />
Education and Youth as Children’s Work<br />
Secretary, becoming General Secretary<br />
as the Divisions evolved to form the<br />
Connexional Team where he served first in<br />
the Pastoral Care and Christian Education<br />
Office, and then as a Coordinating<br />
Secretary for Legal and Constitutional<br />
Practice (2003-2008). All of his work has,<br />
in diverse ways, reflected a passionate<br />
concern for the creation of a safer and<br />
more pastorally aware church – themes<br />
prominent during 2009/10 – the year he<br />
served as President of the <strong>Conference</strong>.<br />
In recent years David has been an<br />
invaluable support to many in the life of<br />
the Church as he has had, amongst other<br />
things, oversight of the complaints and<br />
discipline processes. He has brought<br />
to this work, and his involvement in the<br />
development of safeguarding procedures, a<br />
pastoral concern for the whole community.<br />
A characteristic of his ministry is that<br />
he has sought to support with fairness<br />
and integrity any who have turned to him<br />
for guidance on delicate and complex<br />
matters. He has given generously of his<br />
time and skills far beyond Methodism<br />
and has always made himself available at<br />
times when others have felt isolated and<br />
unsupported.<br />
***RESOLUTION<br />
54/3. The <strong>Conference</strong> thanks David Gamble for his work as <strong>Conference</strong> Officer for<br />
Legal and Constitutional Practice and wishes him well in his future life and<br />
ministry.<br />
Mr Kenvyn Wales<br />
Ken Wales has served as Chair of the<br />
Strategy and Resources Committee (SRC)<br />
since 2006. During this period he has<br />
overseen considerable and significant<br />
change, not least in the development of<br />
628 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
54. Appointments and Appreciations<br />
the work of the SRC, particularly in terms<br />
of its engagement with budgeting and<br />
personnel issues, and also in respect of<br />
the reshaping of the Connexional Team<br />
during and following the Team Focus<br />
process. Ken has brought to the SRC<br />
and to the wider Church considerable<br />
professional expertise from a career in<br />
education, the insights from continuing<br />
academic commitment to reflection<br />
on leadership and management, and<br />
the valuable perspectives arising from<br />
commitment and office holding in his local<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> church and Circuit. As chair of<br />
the SRC Ken has offered generously of<br />
his time and expertise to several senior<br />
members of the Connexional Team and<br />
played a full and productive part in the<br />
Connexional Leaders Forum, the <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Council and the <strong>Conference</strong>. His<br />
enthusiasm for the whole Church to think<br />
creatively and act prophetically in all that it<br />
does has been brought to bear on a range<br />
of topics with which he has ensured the<br />
SRC has engaged, and to the benefit of the<br />
wider Connexion.<br />
***RESOLUTION<br />
54/4. The <strong>Conference</strong> thanks Ken Wales for his work as Chair of the Strategy and<br />
Resources Committee and wishes him well in his future life and ministry.<br />
Mr David Walton<br />
David Walton has chaired the <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Council since 2009 and has brought to<br />
every aspect of this role a deep awareness<br />
of the opportunities facing Methodism<br />
today, together with the needs and<br />
challenges facing the Connexion. Whether<br />
in the chair at meetings or in the numerous<br />
demands made of his time he has held<br />
together the responsibilities of the Council<br />
as an employing body; a decision making<br />
body; and a body offering advice and<br />
comment to a range of people and groups<br />
charged with particular responsibilities.<br />
His knowledge of the Connexion has been<br />
invaluable to the affairs of the Council.<br />
In chairing meetings David has exuded<br />
a calmness and ease of style that has<br />
been coupled with acute perception of the<br />
unspoken as much as the spoken. He has<br />
given freely of his time and professional<br />
expertise in dealing with a number of<br />
complex and demanding matters. A wise<br />
counsellor to many in the life of the Church<br />
he has brought to all his responsibilities<br />
an enquiring mind, an ecumenical spirit,<br />
and clarity of thought that has enriched the<br />
common life of the Connexion.<br />
***RESOLUTION<br />
54/5. The <strong>Conference</strong> thanks David Walton for his work as chair of the <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Council and wishes him well in his future life and ministry.<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 629
Xx 55. Law and Polity Report (Part 3)<br />
Standing Order 138 Memorials Committee<br />
SO 138 requires the Committee to be chaired by the ex-President. The Committee<br />
considers that it would be more appropriate, and in line with other Committees, to provide<br />
for a former President or Vice-President to chair the Committee. Other than the chair all<br />
members of the Committee are appointed for not less than three years and it is therefore<br />
proposed that, so as to enable continuity in the chairing of the meeting, the person<br />
appointed as Chair should serve for a period of three years.<br />
***RESOLUTION<br />
55/1. The <strong>Conference</strong> amends SO 138(2)(i) as follows<br />
(2) (i) the ex-President a former President or Vice-President appointed for three years,<br />
who shall be chair;<br />
Standing Order 342 State Funded Schools<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> in 2011 made a number of amendments to Standing Order 343 in<br />
response to recent changes in legislation that affect state funded <strong>Methodist</strong> and<br />
ecumenical schools. Under that legislation, the Church as the providing body is<br />
responsible for matters relating to standards, ethos and school improvement and that<br />
responsibility is reflected in the proposed amendment below. In practice, the <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Council will delegate that responsibility to the <strong>Methodist</strong> Academies and Schools Trust,<br />
and this will be made clear in an appropriate editorial note in the Constitutional Practice<br />
and Discipline of the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church.<br />
(The editorial note would read along these lines: ‘In 2011 the Council set up the <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Academies and Schools Trust (MAST) and delegated these responsibilities to it.’)<br />
***RESOLUTION<br />
55/2. The <strong>Conference</strong> amends Standing Order 342 as follows:<br />
‘342 State Funded Schools (including academies, free schools and children’s centres<br />
where appropriate). (1)(i) The <strong>Methodist</strong> Council is responsible for the oversight of<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> state funded schools and for <strong>Methodist</strong> responsibilities in the oversight of<br />
state funded schools which are ecumenical projects with other denominations.<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 631
55. Law and Polity Report (Part 3)<br />
(ii) The <strong>Methodist</strong> Council shall also be responsible for matters within the state funded<br />
schools relating to standards, ethos and school improvement.<br />
……..’<br />
Standing Order 344 Institutions in the Higher Education Sector<br />
The committee brought to the <strong>Conference</strong> of 2011 some amendments to SO 344, to<br />
reflect the present position in relation to appointment of the chaplain to Southlands<br />
College and the Westminster chaplain, Oxford Brookes University. It was indicated<br />
then that further minor changes would be needed in relation to the latter appointment,<br />
arising from a university restructuring process. That has now been completed, and the<br />
amendments proposed below reflect the current relationships and agreement as to the<br />
processes involved.<br />
344 Institutions in the Higher Education Sector. (1) This Standing Order applies to the<br />
appointment of a minister as:<br />
(i) the chaplain to Southlands College; or<br />
(ii) the Westminster chaplain, Oxford Brookes University.<br />
(2) … The invitation and re-invitation process shall follow, as closely as circumstances<br />
allow, the equivalent provision in Standing Orders and Guidance approved by the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> as to circuit appointments. The functions which, in the case of a circuit<br />
appointment, would be performed by the circuit stewards, Circuit Meeting or invitation<br />
committee shall be performed:<br />
(i) as to the Southlands chaplain, by the <strong>Methodist</strong> members of the Southlands Liaison<br />
Group, appointing one or two of their number to fulfil the functions performed by the<br />
circuit stewards in such a case; and<br />
(ii) as to the Westminster chaplain, by the directors of Westminster College Oxford Trust<br />
Limited, acting in consultation with the Dean of the Faculty of Humanities and Social<br />
Sciences of Oxford Brookes University Dean of the Westminster Institute of Education.<br />
In either instance the persons so acting shall appoint one or two of their number to fulfil<br />
the functions performed by the circuit stewards in such a case.<br />
(3) Those responsible for the process shall act in consultation with the relevant<br />
member of the Connexional Team.<br />
…<br />
(7) Standing Order 544 shall apply to appointments made under clause (2) above, with<br />
the following adaptations:<br />
(i) for references to the circuit Invitation Committee substitute<br />
as to the Southlands College chaplain: the <strong>Methodist</strong> members of the Southlands Liaison<br />
group;<br />
632 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
55. Law and Polity Report (Part 3)<br />
as to the Westminster chaplain: the directors of Westminster College Oxford Trust<br />
Limited (acting in consultation, as in clause (2)(ii))Dean of the Westminster Institute of<br />
Education ;<br />
(ii) in clause (1)(a)(i) of Standing Order 544 delete ‘after consulting the church stewards<br />
of the Local Churches in which the person concerned exercises pastoral responsibility’.<br />
(8) Each such chaplain shall act in respect of ministerial duties under the direction of<br />
the Chair of the District.<br />
***RESOLUTION<br />
55/3. The <strong>Conference</strong> receives the report and amends Standing Order 344 as set<br />
out above.<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 633
55. Law and Polity Report (Part 3)<br />
SIGNALLING VOCATION AND CLARIFYING IDENTITY<br />
Since preparation of the resolutions appearing in <strong>Volume</strong> 2 at Section 30, some minor<br />
errors have been identified, and the corrections are being presented below rather than in<br />
the Order Paper so as to assist <strong>Conference</strong> members in preparation for dealing with this<br />
item.<br />
Corrections:<br />
Resolution 30/5(a)<br />
002: renumber item (xvii) as (xviiiB), and number new item (xviiA) as (xviiiA).<br />
005(ii): the final part of the clause to read: “have a corresponding meanings in relation<br />
to training for the diaconate”.<br />
Resolution 30/5(b)<br />
Amend the items in the lists as follows:<br />
(iii) 1134: delete (6)(i)<br />
(iv) 785(4): delete (iv)<br />
(vi) 433: for (3) read (2)<br />
(xii) 1105: delete (11)<br />
(xiii) 633: delete (1).<br />
Resolution 30/5(c)<br />
729(1)(i): in the proposed new phrase insert “in” at the end.<br />
Resolution 30/5(d)(i)<br />
512: delete the first “(2)” at the beginning<br />
Resolution 30/5(d)(ii)<br />
732: In the Title, for “Ministers” substitute “Presbyters”<br />
(5) The amendment to the 2 nd sentence to read:<br />
“They shall be accountable both for their ministerial presbyteral or diaconal practice and<br />
for their general vocation and development as ministers presbyters or deacons to the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> in the first instance and, through the <strong>Conference</strong>, to their own conferences or<br />
churches ….”<br />
634 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
56. Special Resolutions<br />
Basic Information<br />
Title<br />
Contact Name and Details<br />
Status of Paper<br />
Action Required<br />
Resolutions<br />
Special Resolutions<br />
The Revd Gareth J Powell,<br />
Assistant Secretary of the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
asc@methodistchurch.org.uk<br />
Final<br />
For approval<br />
As set out in the paper<br />
Summary of Content<br />
Subject and Aims<br />
Approval of Special Resolutions remitted to the<br />
Council from the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 635
56. Special Resolutions<br />
Special Resolutions Submitted by the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> of 2011 to the <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Council<br />
Under Standing Order 126, special<br />
resolutions of the <strong>Conference</strong> require<br />
to be confirmed the following year after<br />
appropriate consultation before they can<br />
become effective. For the purpose of<br />
consultation, they are either referred to the<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Council (unless moved on the<br />
Council’s behalf, in which case they are<br />
referred to the Law and Polity Committee)<br />
or dealt with as provisional legislation<br />
under Standing Order 122 and submitted<br />
to the Synods and the Law and Polity<br />
Committee.<br />
The bodies consulted may approve or<br />
disapprove the resolution but may not<br />
amend it.<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> of 2011 referred four such<br />
resolutions to the <strong>Methodist</strong> Council. The<br />
first of which related to changes proposed<br />
in Signalling Vocation and Clarifying Identity<br />
and these changes are set out on pages<br />
407-443 of the agenda. The text of the<br />
other three Special Resolutions on which<br />
the Council voted are set out below,<br />
together with some relevant background<br />
information.<br />
Section A<br />
Trustee Indemnity Insurance and the<br />
Model Trusts<br />
Background Information<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong>s of 2009 and 2010<br />
amended the Model Trusts and<br />
Standing Orders in order to give effect<br />
to the judgment that since what is<br />
commonly called Trustee Indemnity<br />
Insurance is now, in England and<br />
Wales, permitted and regulated by<br />
statute law, it is better left to be dealt<br />
with under that regime rather than<br />
under a special power in the Model<br />
Trusts. That was done by deleting<br />
paragraph 16(o) of the Model Trusts,<br />
in so far as it applied in England<br />
and Wales, and adopting, for that<br />
jurisdiction, a new Standing Order 911.<br />
In accordance with Standing Order<br />
919A there have been consultations<br />
as to the situation in the other<br />
jurisdictions in which versions of the<br />
Model Trusts apply - Scotland, the Isle<br />
of Man, Jersey and Guernsey. The<br />
Law and Polity Committee has been<br />
advised that in Scotland (i) paragraph<br />
16(o) was and is ineffective, and<br />
(ii) there is now a statute making<br />
substantially the same provision as<br />
in England and Wales, although not<br />
in identical words. The <strong>Conference</strong><br />
has therefore judged that paragraph<br />
16(o) should be deleted, in so far as<br />
it applies in Scotland. The Committee<br />
has also ascertained that the situation<br />
in Guernsey is now also covered by a<br />
similar statute, and the <strong>Conference</strong> has<br />
therefore judged that paragraph 16(o)<br />
should be deleted in so far as it also<br />
applies there.<br />
As a corollary, the Law and Polity<br />
Committee has judged that Standing<br />
Order 911 should be extended to<br />
Scotland and Guernsey , but some<br />
slight modifications will be required,<br />
636 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
56. Special Resolutions<br />
and proposals to that effect will be<br />
brought to next year’s <strong>Conference</strong><br />
with a view to their adoption once<br />
the deletion of paragraph 16(o) is<br />
confirmed.<br />
As to the remaining jurisdictions,<br />
the Law and Polity Committee has<br />
been advised that it is necessary to<br />
retain paragraph 16(o) for Jersey. The<br />
committee intends, during the coming<br />
year, to complete the review of the<br />
position in the Isle of Man.<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> deletes sub-paragraph<br />
(o) of paragraph 16 of the Model<br />
Trusts in so far as it relates to the<br />
country of Scotland and the Bailiwick<br />
of Guernsey.<br />
The <strong>Methodist</strong> Council approved the<br />
Resolution.<br />
***RESOLUTION<br />
56/1. The <strong>Conference</strong> confirms the amendments to the Model Trusts as set out in<br />
section A above.<br />
Section B<br />
Leading and Presiding: Developing the<br />
Presidency of the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
Background Information<br />
The following amendments to the Deed<br />
of Union enact the decisions of the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> of 2011 with regard to<br />
the above named report (see further<br />
paragraph (28) of section 1.4 of the<br />
Minutes to be found above).<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> amends the Deed of<br />
Union as follows:<br />
25A [Diaconal Committee]<br />
(b) [membership]<br />
(i) The President and Vice-President of<br />
the <strong>Conference</strong>;<br />
(d) (i) When the committee meets<br />
to hear an appeal in a matter of<br />
discipline the person who shall<br />
preside shall be determined in<br />
accordance with the relevant<br />
Standing Order.<br />
(ii) At every other meeting of the<br />
committee the President or the Vice-<br />
President shall preside, or, if both<br />
are absent if present shall preside.<br />
If the President is absent from any<br />
meeting, he or she shall appoint the<br />
Vice-President or a former President<br />
or Vice-President to preside, failing<br />
which the Warden or such other<br />
person as the committee may choose,<br />
shall during the their absence of the<br />
President preside.<br />
28 Who presides at the <strong>Conference</strong>.<br />
(a) At every meeting The function<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 637
56. Special Resolutions<br />
of presiding at meetings of the<br />
Representative Session of the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> is one to be shared<br />
between the President and the Vice-<br />
President if present shall preside.<br />
While one only of them is present that<br />
one shall preside, and while both are<br />
present they shall preside alternately.<br />
save that the President may at his<br />
or her absolute discretion, without<br />
leaving the <strong>Conference</strong>, invite the Vice-<br />
President to preside for such period<br />
as the President may determine.<br />
<br />
(b) If the President and the Vice-<br />
President are is absent from any<br />
meeting of the Representative<br />
Session then the person who shall<br />
during such absence preside shall be:<br />
(i) the person who has most recently<br />
held the substantive office of<br />
President or Vice-President the Vice-<br />
President shall during the absence<br />
of the President preside and if both<br />
are absent the ex-President, failing<br />
whom the ex-Vice-President, who has<br />
most recently held the substantive<br />
office and who is present and willing<br />
to act, and if two such persons are<br />
equally qualified the one whom the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> may choose, and<br />
(ii) failing any such person then such<br />
other member of the <strong>Conference</strong> as<br />
the <strong>Conference</strong> may choose, shall<br />
during the absence of the President<br />
preside and act as President of the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> and in each such case<br />
with all the powers rights and duties<br />
of the President.<br />
(c) At every meeting of the Presbyteral<br />
Session the President shall preside.<br />
In the absence of the President If<br />
the President is absent from any<br />
meeting of the Ministerial Session the<br />
ex-President who has most recently<br />
held the substantive office and who is<br />
present and willing to act, and failing<br />
any such person then such other<br />
member of the <strong>Conference</strong> (being a<br />
presbyter) as the <strong>Conference</strong> may<br />
choose shall during the such absence<br />
of the President preside and act as<br />
President of the <strong>Conference</strong> and in<br />
each such case with all the powers<br />
rights and duties of the President.<br />
(d) Notwithstanding anything<br />
contained in sub-clauses (a) to (c)<br />
above when the <strong>Conference</strong> in either<br />
Session meets to hear an appeal in a<br />
matter of discipline the person who<br />
shall preside shall be determined<br />
in accordance with the relevant<br />
Standing Order.<br />
(e) The person who presides over the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> under the provisions of<br />
sub-clauses (a) to (d) of this clause<br />
shall during the period of such<br />
presidency act as the President with<br />
all the powers rights and duties of the<br />
President.<br />
29A Exercise of Presidential Powers.<br />
(a) In order to ensure that so far<br />
as possible the powers and duties<br />
of the presidency are exercised<br />
collaboratively by the President and<br />
Vice-President the <strong>Conference</strong> shall<br />
have power to direct by Standing<br />
Order that all or some, as specified,<br />
638 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
56. Special Resolutions<br />
of the powers rights and duties of<br />
the President or a former President<br />
conferred by sub-clause (i) of clause<br />
23, sub-clauses (b), (c) and (i) of<br />
clause 25A, clause 29 and (excepting<br />
the last sentence of sub-clause<br />
(c)) clause 42 of this Deed may be<br />
exercised from time to time by the<br />
Vice-President or a former Vice-<br />
President.<br />
(b) The exercise by the Vice-President<br />
or former Vice-President of any of<br />
the powers rights and duties of the<br />
President or former President under<br />
the provisions of sub-clause (a) of this<br />
clause shall be taken for all purposes<br />
as acts of the President or former<br />
President as the case may require.<br />
The <strong>Methodist</strong> Council approved the<br />
Resolution.<br />
***RESOLUTION<br />
56/2. The <strong>Conference</strong> confirms the amendments to the Deed of Union as set out in<br />
section B above.<br />
Section C<br />
Titles of Chairs in Districts where<br />
there are two or more Chairs<br />
Background Information<br />
The following amendments to the Deed<br />
of Union and the Model Trusts enact the<br />
decisions of the <strong>Conference</strong> of 2011<br />
with regard to the reply to Memorial 31<br />
(see further paragraph (30) of section<br />
1.4 of the Minutes to be found above).<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> therefore amends the<br />
Deed of Union and the Model Trusts<br />
as follows:<br />
Deed of Union<br />
1. Particular Expressions<br />
(xiiA) ‘district Policy Committee’<br />
means a committee appointed by the<br />
Synod, by that or any other name, to<br />
fulfil the functions assigned to the<br />
district Policy Committee in this Deed<br />
and Standing Orders;<br />
14. The Representative Session.<br />
(2) Membership. The <strong>Conference</strong><br />
in its Representative Session shall<br />
comprise: …<br />
(v) The Chair or co-Chairs of each<br />
home District …<br />
40. Church Courts.<br />
... District Synods, district Policy<br />
Committees, Church Councils ...<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 639
56. Special Resolutions<br />
42. Chairs of Districts.<br />
(a) For each Every District there shall<br />
be either a single Chair or two or more<br />
co-Chairs, as have at least one Chair,<br />
the number of Chairs for each District<br />
being determined from time to time by<br />
the <strong>Conference</strong>. Every Chair or co-Chair<br />
shall be a minister and shall upon first<br />
appointment as such to the relevant<br />
District be elected by the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
by a clear majority of the votes cast. If<br />
a District has co-Chairs one of them<br />
shall be identified by the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
as Lead Chair, and any reference to a<br />
Chair in this Deed or Standing Orders<br />
which can by its nature apply only to a<br />
single person shall in relation to such a<br />
District be construed as a reference to<br />
the Lead Chair. Standing Orders may<br />
provide for the appointment by District<br />
Synods, and the functions, of deputies<br />
for Chairs or co-Chairs, and for the<br />
appointment by or on behalf of District<br />
Synods of persons to undertake<br />
specified duties on behalf of Chairs, co-<br />
Chairs or deputies temporarily unable<br />
to fulfil them.<br />
(b) Subject to sub-clause (bb) below,<br />
tThe Chair or Lead Chair of each<br />
District shall, ex officio, preside over<br />
the Synod of that District and the<br />
Chair or a co-Chair over all other<br />
district meetings having relation to<br />
that Synod, when present, If there are<br />
more Chairs than one, the right and<br />
responsibility of presiding over any<br />
meeting of the Synod or of any other<br />
such body shall, unless otherwise<br />
agreed among the Chairs, be<br />
determined in accordance with clause<br />
(e) below.<br />
(bb) save that (i) aAny Chair, Lead<br />
Chair or co-Chair entitled as above<br />
to preside may at his or her absolute<br />
discretion, without leaving the Synod<br />
or any other such meeting, invite<br />
another co-Chair, or a deputy or other<br />
person appointed under the last<br />
sentence of sub-clause (a) above, to<br />
preside for a period, and.<br />
(ii) tThe President of the <strong>Conference</strong>, if<br />
present, shall have the right to preside<br />
at the meetings of the Synod of which<br />
he or she is a member.<br />
(c) The Each Chair of each a home<br />
District elected by the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
held in any year shall enter upon<br />
his or her duties on the first day of<br />
September after being elected and<br />
continue in office while appointed to<br />
that station under clause 20 above;<br />
provided that if the a Chair of any<br />
such District becomes incapable<br />
of acting or unfit to act or ceases<br />
to be a minister he or she shall be<br />
disqualified from being Chair and<br />
shall thereupon vacate office as Chair<br />
and a casual vacancy in the office of<br />
Chair of that District shall be deemed<br />
to have arisen; provided further that<br />
if any casual vacancy arises in a<br />
home District, whether under the<br />
provisions of this present clause or<br />
by death or otherwise, after the end<br />
of the <strong>Conference</strong> it shall be filled<br />
by the substitution as Chair of that<br />
District of such other person, being a<br />
minister in the active work stationed<br />
in the District, as the members of<br />
the district Policy Committee choose,<br />
being able and willing to act; and it<br />
shall be the duty of the President of<br />
640 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
56. Special Resolutions<br />
the <strong>Conference</strong> upon receiving notice<br />
of any such casual vacancy to convene<br />
a meeting of the district Policy<br />
Committee over which the President,<br />
or an ex-President designated by him<br />
or her, shall preside to ascertain their<br />
choice, and thereupon to appoint<br />
and declare the minister thus chosen<br />
to be the hold the office of Chair of<br />
such District until the entry upon<br />
his or her duties of a new Chair duly<br />
elected by the <strong>Conference</strong> under subclause<br />
(a) above (whether already so<br />
elected when the vacancy arises or<br />
to be elected by the next succeeding<br />
<strong>Conference</strong>). Until the casual vacancy<br />
has been so filled the President of the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> shall act as the Chair of<br />
the District.<br />
(d) In relation to the provisions<br />
of sub-clause (c) concerning the<br />
incapacity or unfitness of a Chair:<br />
(i) any issue whether a Chair is unfit<br />
to act on grounds apt to be the<br />
subject of a charge affecting his or<br />
her standing as a minister shall be<br />
determined in accordance with the<br />
regulations of the <strong>Conference</strong> for<br />
the time being in force in relation to<br />
disciplinary proceedings;<br />
(ii) any issue whether a Chair is<br />
incapable of acting or unfit to act on<br />
any other grounds shall be determined<br />
in accordance with regulations from<br />
time to time made by the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
for that purpose;<br />
(iii) pending determination of any such<br />
issue there shall be power to suspend<br />
a Chair from all or any of his or her<br />
functions in accordance with the<br />
relevant regulations.<br />
(e) In sub-clauses (c) and (d) above<br />
“Chair” includes “co-Chair”. In a<br />
District which has more than one Chair,<br />
any reference in this Deed or Standing<br />
Orders to a right, duty, privilege or<br />
responsibility (however described)<br />
of the Chair of a District which can<br />
by its nature apply only to a single<br />
person shall be construed as applying<br />
to such one of the Chairs of the<br />
relevant District as may be determined<br />
by the district Policy Committee of<br />
that District in accordance with and<br />
subject to Standing Orders or other<br />
regulations from time to time made<br />
by the <strong>Conference</strong> for that purpose. If<br />
a case arises which is not covered by<br />
the preceding sentence, the relevant<br />
reference shall be construed as<br />
applying to that one of the Chairs of<br />
the relevant District who has been<br />
longest stationed in that appointment.<br />
As between Chairs of equal length of<br />
service in the appointment, the issue<br />
to which Chair the relevant reference<br />
is to be construed as applying shall be<br />
determined by drawing lots.<br />
Model Trusts<br />
1. Interpretation<br />
‘District manse’ means, in relation to<br />
any District, a dwelling for occupation<br />
by the a Chair of the District<br />
The <strong>Methodist</strong> Council approved the<br />
Resolution.<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 641
56. Special Resolutions<br />
***RESOLUTIONS<br />
56/3. The <strong>Conference</strong> confirms the amendments to the Deed of Union as set out in<br />
section D above.<br />
56/4. The <strong>Conference</strong> confirms the amendments to the Model Trusts as set out in<br />
section D above.<br />
642 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
Basic Information<br />
Title<br />
Contact Name and Details<br />
Status of Paper<br />
Resolutions<br />
The Fruitful Field Project<br />
Ken Jackson, Chair of the Ministries Committee<br />
ken@jackson7117.freeserve.co.uk<br />
Doug Swanney, Head of Discipleship & Ministries<br />
Swanneyd@methodistchurch.org.uk 020 7467 3791<br />
Final report<br />
Contained within the report<br />
Summary of Content<br />
Subject and Aims<br />
A report of the recommendations of the Ministries<br />
Committee at the end of The Fruitful Field project – a<br />
project about the Church’s activities in the fields of<br />
formation, learning, training, theological education,<br />
scholarship, research and development<br />
Main Points See the overview of the report in paragraphs 1 and 2<br />
Background Context<br />
and Relevant Documents<br />
(with function)<br />
Impact<br />
Ministries, Learning and Development, <strong>Agenda</strong> 2010: an<br />
introductory report received by the 2010 <strong>Conference</strong><br />
The Fruitful Field project, <strong>Agenda</strong> 2011<br />
The Fruitful Field: A consultation document, October<br />
2011; An interim response to The Fruitful Field<br />
consultation, February 2012: two consultative documents<br />
published by the Ministries Committe<br />
The report’s recommendations have significant<br />
educational, financial, legal and constitutional<br />
consequences.<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 643
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
Overview of the Report<br />
1 Part 1 of the report is concerned<br />
with the context for The Fruitful<br />
Field project. Section A (paragraphs<br />
3-5) briefly introduces the report’s<br />
scope and mandate. Section B (6-<br />
24) roots our task of discernment in<br />
reflection upon scripture in the light<br />
of the tradition of the Church and our<br />
present experiences and contexts.<br />
Section C (25-47) outlines the origins<br />
of The Fruitful Field and describes<br />
the processes which the Ministries<br />
Committee has implemented<br />
since the 2011 <strong>Conference</strong>, which<br />
included a consultation period<br />
during the autumn of 2011. Section<br />
D outlines the current provision<br />
which the <strong>Conference</strong> sponsors and<br />
supports in the fields of formation,<br />
learning, training, theological<br />
education, scholarship, research and<br />
development. This section describes<br />
the pathways, opportunities,<br />
programmes and resources which<br />
are currently offered (49-55), the<br />
expert staff and the institutions,<br />
colleges and centres which support<br />
this provision (56-82), and the overall<br />
budget for this area (83-85). Section<br />
E outlines the financial, infrastructural<br />
and educational challenges and<br />
opportunities faced by the Church<br />
in this area (86-111). Section F<br />
outlines the ways forward explored<br />
by the Ministries Committee during<br />
the current connexional year. This<br />
section includes extracts from a<br />
consultation document published in<br />
October 2011 (113) and from the<br />
Committee’s interim response to the<br />
consultation published in February<br />
2012 (114). Those who have already<br />
read the consultation document and<br />
the interim response will be familiar<br />
with much of the content of sections<br />
D-F. The inclusion of these sections<br />
within this report formally places the<br />
information before the <strong>Conference</strong>.<br />
2 Part 2 of the report outlines<br />
the Ministries Committee’s<br />
recommendations. Section G<br />
outlines the primary and overarching<br />
recommendation, namely the<br />
establishment of the Discipleship<br />
and Ministries Learning Network,<br />
whose purposes (117-126) are the<br />
support of discipleship development,<br />
ministry development, and church<br />
and community development across<br />
the Connexion, and the nurturing of<br />
scholarship, research and innovation.<br />
This section also identifies the values<br />
of the Network (127) and some of its<br />
early goals (128). A redevelopment<br />
of pathways for Local Preachers<br />
and Worship Leaders within the<br />
context of the Network is explored<br />
(132-147), as is the opportunity<br />
for the Network to participate<br />
within a developing ecumenical<br />
Higher Education partnership with<br />
the Church of England (148-156).<br />
Section H outlines the recommended<br />
structure of a staff team to support<br />
the Network’s activities. The ways<br />
in which the staff team will work<br />
regionally (163-171) and in centres<br />
(172-177) are explored, as is the<br />
make-up of the Network’s coordinating<br />
team (178-179). Implications for<br />
the Connexional Team which flow<br />
644 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
from the establishment of such<br />
a staff team are also outlined<br />
(180-186). Section I identifies the<br />
importance of appropriate spaces<br />
across the Connexion to support the<br />
Network’s activities (187-193), as<br />
well as the scope for greater use of<br />
virtual learning environments (194-<br />
196). Section J recommends the<br />
establishment of two connexional<br />
centres to serve the Network, one<br />
based at Cliff College and the other<br />
at the Queen’s Foundation. The<br />
role of centres within the Network<br />
is explored (198-200), as is the<br />
number of centres required (201-<br />
204). The section then assesses<br />
the institutions, colleges and centres<br />
currently sponsored and supported<br />
by the Church in the light of the<br />
Network’s needs and activities (205-<br />
219). The contribution to be made<br />
by Cliff College is outlined (220-226),<br />
followed by a description of the<br />
various options which the Committee<br />
explored during the final stages<br />
of its deliberations (227-242). A<br />
single governance structure for the<br />
Network is recommended in section<br />
K (249-258), and the Network’s<br />
recommended expenditure, funding<br />
streams, funds and assets are<br />
outlined in section L (259-274).<br />
Part 1: Context<br />
Section A: Introduction<br />
3 The final resolution which<br />
accompanies this report invites<br />
the <strong>Conference</strong> to record its deep<br />
gratitude to all those across the<br />
Connexion who work diligently in the<br />
fields of formation, learning, training,<br />
theological education, scholarship,<br />
research and development, and<br />
to give thanks to God for their<br />
faithful service and witness. It is<br />
appropriate to begin in the same<br />
place, by drawing attention to<br />
the manifold gifts brought to the<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Church by the expert staff<br />
who serve the Connexion as tutors<br />
and officers in these fields. Often<br />
working in a context of insecurity<br />
and change, their contribution to<br />
the life of the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church has<br />
been significant; it is their diligent<br />
endeavours, sustained good practice<br />
and commitment to formation, growth<br />
and development in all its rich forms<br />
which makes much of what this<br />
report recommends possible.<br />
4 The <strong>Methodist</strong> Church values deeply<br />
its activities in the fields of formation,<br />
learning, training, theological<br />
education, scholarship, research and<br />
development. Through its support<br />
of these activities within and across<br />
the Connexion, the <strong>Conference</strong> fulfils<br />
some fundamental aspects of its<br />
purpose and calling. At their best,<br />
these activities help to nurture and<br />
equip the <strong>Methodist</strong> people to be<br />
Christ-like disciples in an often un-<br />
Christ-like but never Christ-less world.<br />
At their best, these activities help to<br />
form and equip those called to a wide<br />
range of ministries and roles within<br />
and beyond the life of the Church to<br />
be effective leaders and servants of<br />
God’s mission. At their best, these<br />
activities challenge and equip Circuits<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 645
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
and Local Churches as they change<br />
and grow as Christian communities of<br />
faith, hope, love and mission.<br />
5 The <strong>Conference</strong> last reviewed its<br />
strategy in the fields of formation,<br />
learning, training, theological<br />
education, scholarship, research and<br />
development in 2008, in the light<br />
of decisions about the allocation<br />
of resources made at the previous<br />
meeting of the <strong>Conference</strong> in 2007. 1<br />
In response to the timescales laid<br />
down by the 2007 <strong>Conference</strong>,<br />
a process of reassessment of<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> activities in these fields<br />
was requested by the <strong>Conference</strong> in<br />
2010. This process was named The<br />
Fruitful Field, and an interim report<br />
about The Fruitful Field project was<br />
brought to the 2011 <strong>Conference</strong>. The<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> tasked the Ministries<br />
Committee with oversight of the<br />
project during 2011/2012. The<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> agreed a timeline<br />
for activities during 2011/2012,<br />
including an open consultation period,<br />
and asked the Committee to report<br />
to the 2012 <strong>Conference</strong>. This report<br />
about The Fruitful Field offers the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> a comprehensive picture<br />
of the issues at stake, a careful<br />
exploration of the ways forward, as<br />
well as the Committee’s developed<br />
recommendations.<br />
Section B: Our Starting Point<br />
6 We start where many <strong>Methodist</strong>s have<br />
done, by reflecting upon scripture in<br />
the light of our tradition as part of<br />
the one Church of Christ and mindful<br />
of our present experiences and<br />
contexts in order to seek to discern<br />
and pursue God’s will for us. The<br />
New Testament is filled with material<br />
pertinent to Christian believers and<br />
Christian communities as they seek<br />
to be faithful and obedient. For our<br />
purposes here a good and appropriate<br />
place to begin is with the twelfth<br />
chapter of the letter to the Romans.<br />
I appeal to you therefore,<br />
brothers and sisters, by the<br />
mercies of God, to present your<br />
bodies as a living sacrifice, holy<br />
and acceptable to God, which<br />
is your spiritual worship. Do not<br />
be conformed to this world, but<br />
be transformed by the renewing<br />
of your minds, so that you may<br />
discern what is the will of God<br />
– what is good and acceptable<br />
and perfect.<br />
For by the grace given to me I<br />
say to everyone among you not<br />
to think of yourself more highly<br />
than you ought to think, but to<br />
think with sober judgment, each<br />
according to the measure of<br />
faith that God has assigned.<br />
For as in one body we have<br />
many members, and not all<br />
the members have the same<br />
function, so we, who are many,<br />
are one body in Christ, and<br />
1 Stirring up the Spark of Grace: Connexional Training Strategies, <strong>Agenda</strong> 2008; Talking of God, Acting for God:<br />
Report of the Training Institutions Review Group, <strong>Agenda</strong> 2007<br />
646 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
individually we are members<br />
one of another. We have gifts<br />
that differ according to the<br />
grace given to us: prophecy,<br />
in proportion to faith; ministry,<br />
in ministering; the teacher,<br />
in teaching; the exhorter,<br />
in exhortation; the giver, in<br />
generosity; the leader, in<br />
diligence; the compassionate,<br />
in cheerfulness.<br />
Let love be genuine; hate what<br />
is evil, hold fast to what is good;<br />
love one another with mutual<br />
affection; outdo one another in<br />
showing honour. Do not lag in<br />
zeal, be ardent in spirit, serve<br />
the Lord.<br />
Romans 12:1-11 (NRSV)<br />
7 In this passage are three important<br />
motivations for the work which is<br />
presented here.<br />
“Be transformed”<br />
8 First, we hear the bold instruction to<br />
God’s people: “Be transformed by the<br />
renewing of your minds, so that you<br />
may discern what is the will of God<br />
– what is good and acceptable and<br />
perfect.”<br />
9 This injunction reminds us of our<br />
fundamental calling as Christians<br />
to be transformed and transforming<br />
disciples. We are called to be life-long<br />
learners, life-long followers of Jesus,<br />
growing in confidence, and growing<br />
in Christian character and virtue. We<br />
are called to be hospitable, gracious<br />
and reflective disciples, fired by our<br />
knowledge and love of God, crossing<br />
boundaries, stepping into the new,<br />
engaging boldly with the world as it is<br />
now, challenging injustice, led by the<br />
Holy Spirit to be authentic bearers<br />
of the gospel in our families and<br />
communities.<br />
10 This emphasis on transformation<br />
through renewal and growth reminds<br />
us of John Wesley’s zeal for the<br />
transforming power of knowledge in<br />
all its forms. Wesley was clear about<br />
his priorities – “I would throw away<br />
all libraries rather than be guilty of<br />
the loss of one soul” – but he saw<br />
no conflict between learning and<br />
missionary activity. Indeed, he saw<br />
them as complementary, as his mix of<br />
evangelistic and educational activities<br />
at the London Foundery, at the Orphan<br />
House in Newcastle and at Kingswood<br />
School bear witness. Wesley also<br />
clearly identified the importance of<br />
the education and development of his<br />
preachers, and dedicated much of his<br />
own energy to ensuring that preachers<br />
were “more holy and more knowing.”<br />
11 This emphasis is not merely historic.<br />
In recent years we have reminded<br />
ourselves about the importance of<br />
this transformed and transforming<br />
discipleship. “The ministry of the<br />
people of God in the world is both the<br />
primary and the normative ministry<br />
of the Church... This ministry in<br />
the wider world, outside explicitly<br />
ecclesiastical contexts, and away<br />
from church premises, is expressed<br />
in Christ-like living, in social action<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 647
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
and in witness to the Christian<br />
Gospel.” 2 “We affirm the validity of<br />
people’s witness, and their attempts<br />
to hammer out a theology to enable<br />
them to discover the holy in their daily<br />
lives, to be true to Christ wherever<br />
they are, and to experience the<br />
presence of Christ in all the confusion<br />
of the world as it is.” 3<br />
12 When, in 2008, the <strong>Conference</strong> last<br />
reviewed its strategy in the fields of<br />
formation, learning and development<br />
it prioritised the integrating of “all<br />
kinds of training and learning for<br />
lay and ordained. All are called to<br />
grow as disciples: all are charged to<br />
‘go and make disciples.’ Learning<br />
for discipleship is not radically<br />
separate from learning for ministry,<br />
for ministry is the service of<br />
God’s mission, and that mission<br />
is entrusted to the whole Church.<br />
Today’s mission context calls for<br />
Christians who are engaged with<br />
their faith at the deepest levels<br />
of their being, who are able to<br />
speak of God and faith in ways that<br />
make sense in a challenging and<br />
sometimes hostile context and who<br />
are so skilled in the practice of godly<br />
living as to be able to show what the<br />
Kingdom looks like.” 4<br />
13 This report continues that<br />
commitment, found in the scriptures<br />
and our tradition; that a key<br />
responsibility of the Church is to<br />
nurture and equip the <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
people to be Christ-like disciples in an<br />
often un-Christ-like but never Christless<br />
world.<br />
Gifts and grace<br />
14 The passage from Romans also<br />
offers a well-loved description of<br />
God’s people as one body made up<br />
of many parts, with each part using<br />
distinctive gifts to serve the whole.<br />
“We have gifts that differ according<br />
to the grace given to us: prophecy,<br />
in proportion to faith; ministry, in<br />
ministering; the teacher, in teaching;<br />
the exhorter, in exhortation; the giver,<br />
in generosity; the leader, in diligence;<br />
the compassionate, in cheerfulness.”<br />
15 There are a range of lay and ordained<br />
ministries, offices and responsibilities<br />
which enflesh our discipleship of<br />
Christ and make up our church<br />
communities – “ministries which<br />
enable God-centred worship and<br />
prayer; ministries which help people<br />
to grow and learn as Christians;<br />
ministries which engage with the<br />
everyday acts of love, kindness and<br />
service of the people of God in the<br />
world; ministries which encourage<br />
patterns of witness and evangelism” 5<br />
– ministries which depend on one<br />
another and which are nurtured<br />
by one another to create loving,<br />
2 Called to Love and Praise, <strong>Agenda</strong> 1999, 4.5.4<br />
3 The Ministry of the People of God in the World, <strong>Agenda</strong> 1990, preface<br />
4 Stirring up the Spark of Grace: Connexional Training Strategies, <strong>Agenda</strong> 2008, 1.1<br />
5 Taking Forward the Stationing Review Group’s Report, <strong>Agenda</strong> 2009, 4.3<br />
648 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
participative, rooted, pioneering and<br />
contextual church communities.<br />
16 We have asserted that a healthy<br />
Connexion is properly a community<br />
of learning where every disciple is<br />
learning about their faith and telling<br />
the story of their faith, where every<br />
minister is both an educator and a<br />
reflective learner, and where every<br />
Circuit is a learning Circuit. We are<br />
reminded of our calling as disciples to<br />
be open to learning from a variety of<br />
sources, opportunities and disciplines<br />
within and beyond the life of the<br />
Church. Becoming “more holy and<br />
more knowing” is as much a priority<br />
for today’s <strong>Methodist</strong> Church as it<br />
was for Wesley’s movement 260<br />
years ago. Our interdependence<br />
as Christians, our emphasis on<br />
“relatedness” as essential to the<br />
concept of “Church,” and our societal<br />
past rooted in mutual fellowship and<br />
shared discipline – these elements<br />
of our common life make manifest for<br />
us the teaching about God’s people<br />
as a body.<br />
17 A recurrent theme and emphasis<br />
of the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church in recent<br />
times has been the importance of<br />
the ministry of the whole people of<br />
God within the corporate life of the<br />
Church. “‘The ministry of the whole<br />
people of God’ can be discerned<br />
in the recurring insistence [in the<br />
New Testament] that each has a gift<br />
(Romans 12:3-5; Ephesians 4:7; 1<br />
Peter 4:10). The interdependence of<br />
all within the body of Christ issues in<br />
corporate forms of leadership (eg 1<br />
Peter 5:1-2); even strong individual<br />
leaders such as Paul engaged<br />
in collaborative ministry (as the<br />
frequency of the word ‘fellow-worker’<br />
in his letters shows, eg Romans<br />
16:3, 9, 21)... The ministry of the<br />
people of God in the world is both the<br />
primary and the normative ministry<br />
of the Church... But the ministry of<br />
all Christians within the corporate<br />
life of the Church is also important.<br />
By their various gifts the members of<br />
Christ’s Body contribute to the health<br />
and growth of the Church. Indeed,<br />
the ministry of laypeople has been<br />
essential to the very functioning of<br />
Methodism from its earliest days.<br />
Far more <strong>Methodist</strong> services of<br />
worship are led by Local Preachers<br />
than by ordained ministers [and<br />
much pastoral work is conducted by<br />
class leaders and pastoral visitors].<br />
The partnership of ordained and lay<br />
ministers remains vital to the work<br />
and well-being of the Church, even<br />
though this truth has often been lost<br />
sight of in the history of the Church.” 6<br />
18 In light of this it is unsurprising that<br />
another of the priorities identified by<br />
the <strong>Conference</strong> in 2008, when it last<br />
reviewed its strategy in the fields of<br />
formation, learning and development,<br />
was to emphasise the need to offer<br />
to “all learners opportunities to<br />
develop in godly knowledge, practice<br />
and character within the Christian<br />
community. Acquisition of knowledge<br />
6 Called to Love and Praise, <strong>Agenda</strong> 1999, 2.3.17 and 4.5.4<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 649
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
and skills, developing the ability to<br />
perform tasks; these are held within<br />
a cycle of reflection which continually<br />
links what is being learned with the<br />
great story of salvation. Learning in<br />
this context is a means of growth<br />
in grace and holiness. Discipleship<br />
is rooted in the warmed heart, but<br />
in the ‘heart’ understood in its<br />
classical and biblical sense as the<br />
seat of will and conviction, not mere<br />
‘feeling’ (emotion). Both Christian<br />
living and effective mission require<br />
feeling, thinking and doing to inform<br />
one another in openness to the<br />
Holy Spirit. In the words of John<br />
Wesley, “God works; therefore you<br />
can work… God works; therefore you<br />
must work… You can do something,<br />
through Christ strengthening you.<br />
Stir up the spark of grace which is<br />
now in you, and he will give you more<br />
grace.” 7<br />
19 This report continues that<br />
commitment, found in the scriptures<br />
and our tradition; that a key<br />
responsibility of the Church is to<br />
form and equip all those who share<br />
in the ministry of God within the life<br />
of the Church to be effective leaders,<br />
servants and partners in God’s<br />
mission.<br />
“Be ardent in spirit”<br />
20 The passage from Romans 12 is<br />
unambiguous about the urgency of<br />
our high calling: “Do not lag in zeal,<br />
be ardent in spirit, serve the<br />
Lord.”<br />
21 As a Church we have expressed our<br />
desire to be a more effective vessel<br />
for use by a missionary God, and our<br />
readiness to make difficult decisions<br />
to ensure that our focus matches our<br />
zeal. “The sharp challenge before<br />
us now is the extent to which we are<br />
willing to continue to reshape our life<br />
together in faithful obedience to God<br />
– locally, in Circuits, Districts, regions,<br />
and in terms of the whole Connexion<br />
– for the sake of the world... There<br />
is always a fertile period for making<br />
hard choices which must not be<br />
missed, a finite season in which the<br />
varied resources and energy needed<br />
to implement necessary decisions<br />
are available. Sadly what often<br />
happens in organisations, including<br />
Churches, is that decisions are not<br />
made at the point when resources<br />
and energy are sufficient to enact<br />
them, but are then made, usually<br />
reluctantly and as a last resort, when<br />
the required resources and energy<br />
to implement them are no longer<br />
available. Thankfully we are not yet in<br />
that deadly and disillusioning place,<br />
but... the fertile season when we are<br />
able to properly implement the kind<br />
of decisions we need to make is fast<br />
coming to an end.” 8<br />
22 This report is written mindful of the<br />
ways in which Circuits and Districts<br />
have reflected on their own life and<br />
7<br />
Stirring up the Spark of Grace: Connexional Training Strategies, <strong>Agenda</strong> 2008, 1.1<br />
8<br />
Contemporary Methodism: a discipleship movement shaped for mission [The General Secretary’s Report],<br />
<strong>Agenda</strong> 2011, 12 and 14<br />
650 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
witness. Across the Connexion<br />
over recent years, Circuits have<br />
mapped the size and growth of<br />
Local Churches, and considered<br />
the demography and mission needs<br />
of their communities. Having then<br />
reflected on the stewardship of the<br />
resources in their care, many Circuits<br />
have changed their structures so<br />
that they can better share in God’s<br />
mission with their members, with<br />
those seeking Christ, and with the<br />
world. Such a willingness to reflect<br />
and to change should also mark our<br />
connexional structures.<br />
23 This desire and intention to serve<br />
the Lord and “serve the present age”<br />
resulted in a third priority identified<br />
by the <strong>Conference</strong> in 2008. It is a<br />
priority to structure “the provision<br />
of training and learning resources<br />
so as best to serve the mission of<br />
the Church as a whole. This means<br />
in practice clustering resources<br />
regionally in a connexional and<br />
ecumenical context. It means making<br />
use of the resources for training and<br />
learning available outside the Church.<br />
It necessitates a flexible approach<br />
to boundaries within the Church in<br />
order to make the best use of scarce<br />
resources.” 9<br />
24 This report echoes that priority,<br />
taking seriously the injunction in the<br />
passage in Romans about ardency<br />
of faith, zeal in doing God’s will, and<br />
resolve to serve Christ, here and now.<br />
In the present context this manifests<br />
itself in an owned responsibility of the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> to challenge and equip<br />
Circuits and Local Churches as they<br />
change and grow as mission-focused<br />
Christian communities of faith, hope<br />
and love. The responsibility to change<br />
and to develop our connexional<br />
structures and resources to meet the<br />
contemporary needs of Methodism<br />
and better serve the Lord is also<br />
taken with the utmost seriousness.<br />
Section C: Our Processes<br />
The origins of The Fruitful Field project<br />
25 In 2010 the <strong>Conference</strong> received<br />
the report Ministries, Learning and<br />
Development. The report noted that<br />
activities in the fields of formation,<br />
learning, training, theological<br />
education, scholarship, research and<br />
development had:<br />
demanded a great deal of the<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> <strong>Conference</strong>’s attention<br />
over recent years. For example,<br />
proposals regarding the institutions<br />
at which student ministers<br />
undertake initial ministerial learning<br />
programmes were considered<br />
at length by the <strong>Conference</strong> in<br />
2006, and again in 2007.<br />
It is, however, clear that this<br />
area of the Church’s life does<br />
not lend itself to fallow years.<br />
Indeed in the report presented<br />
to the 2006 <strong>Conference</strong>,<br />
Future Use and Configuration<br />
9 Stirring up the Spark of Grace: Connexional Training Strategies, <strong>Agenda</strong> 2008, 1.1<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 651
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
of Training Institutions, it<br />
was noted: “because the<br />
whole education and training<br />
field is changing so rapidly<br />
any proposals should allow<br />
modification and development<br />
to take place as flexibly as<br />
possible and be robust enough<br />
to respond to future changes<br />
and opportunities.” In other<br />
words, despite the significant<br />
amount of work undertaken<br />
during the 2005/2006 and<br />
2006/2007 connexional<br />
years, ongoing change and<br />
opportunity are prophesied,<br />
and a willingness to modify<br />
and develop is demanded.<br />
This should not be surprising.<br />
A willingness to modify and<br />
develop is a natural requirement<br />
in the field of learning, education<br />
and training, and becomes<br />
obligatory for the Church’s work<br />
in this area as it seeks to learn<br />
from, and to work alongside,<br />
secular education providers.<br />
More generally, as the missional<br />
context of the Connexion<br />
changes, so should the learning<br />
and development structure<br />
which resources it. Moreover,<br />
this area of the Church’s work<br />
accounts – however justifiably<br />
– for a significant component<br />
of the Connexional Central<br />
Services Budget; consequently,<br />
willingness to assess the return<br />
achieved on resources expended,<br />
and to modify and develop the<br />
Church’s provision accordingly,<br />
is a mark of good stewardship.<br />
Above all, a willingness to modify<br />
and develop is a proper part of<br />
the Christian experience, flowing<br />
from our response to the work of<br />
the Holy Spirit...<br />
It is the responsibility of the<br />
governance bodies of the Church<br />
to exercise oversight of the<br />
modification, development and<br />
growth of this vital area of the<br />
Church’s work. However, as the<br />
processes implemented during<br />
the 2005/2006 and 2006/2007<br />
connexional years demonstrated,<br />
the tasks of ploughing, reaping,<br />
pruning and nurturing are<br />
complex. 10<br />
26 In order to support this ongoing<br />
task of assessment, modification,<br />
development and review, the report<br />
proposed the establishment of The<br />
Fruitful Field project. The project<br />
took its name from a reference in<br />
the “Liverpool Minutes”, a series<br />
of resolutions on pastoral work<br />
adopted by the Wesleyan <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
<strong>Conference</strong> of 1820 and revised in<br />
1885. The resolutions outline the<br />
pragmatic, practical and efficient<br />
actions and structures discerned<br />
by the <strong>Conference</strong> as necessary to<br />
“spread Scriptural holiness through<br />
the land.” Yet, throughout, it is<br />
emphasised that, in order to secure<br />
the “revival and extension of the Work<br />
of God, the great thing to be desired<br />
10 Ministries, Learning and Development, <strong>Agenda</strong> 2010, 2.2-2.3<br />
652 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
is an abundant effusion of the Holy<br />
Spirit on ourselves and our families,<br />
our Societies and our Congregations.”<br />
Accordingly, the resolutions conclude<br />
with the affirmation that “we desire<br />
to ‘continue with one accord in prayer<br />
and supplication’... ‘until the Spirit be<br />
poured upon us from on high, and the<br />
wilderness becomes a fruitful field,<br />
and the fruitful field be counted for a<br />
forest.’” 11 This concluding image is<br />
taken from the thirty-second chapter<br />
of the book of Isaiah, where the<br />
prophet foresees the Spirit’s gifts<br />
creating, for a chastened people, a<br />
land of fruitfulness, righteousness,<br />
quietness and trust. It is a vision<br />
of organic development – a vision<br />
of ploughing, reaping, pruning,<br />
nurture and growth – and, as such,<br />
was judged to be an appropriate<br />
foundational image for a project<br />
which concerns the development of<br />
the Church’s existing connexional<br />
activities in the fields of formation,<br />
learning, training, theological<br />
education, scholarship, research and<br />
development.<br />
27 The primary aims of the project were:<br />
[a] to support the governance<br />
bodies of the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church as<br />
they exercise their oversight of the<br />
Church’s learning and development<br />
infrastructure and programmes, by<br />
providing an overview of the Church’s<br />
connexional commitments and<br />
activities;<br />
[b] to ensure that modifications<br />
and developments across the<br />
Church’s learning and development<br />
infrastructure and programmes<br />
are coherent, and that the work<br />
undertaken across the Church’s<br />
connexional commitments and<br />
activities is consistently reflective,<br />
collaborative, ambitious and<br />
prophetic. 12<br />
28 The report noted that the new Ministries<br />
Committee would be the natural<br />
locus for oversight of the project, and<br />
the project consequently became part<br />
of the work of the Shadow Ministries<br />
Committee during 2010/2011.<br />
The decisions of the 2011 <strong>Conference</strong><br />
29 The 2011 <strong>Conference</strong> received the<br />
report The Fruitful Field project. The<br />
report had been prepared under the<br />
oversight of the Shadow Ministries<br />
Committee and an earlier version<br />
discussed and received by the<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Council. The report offered<br />
an overview of the Church’s existing<br />
commitments and resources in the<br />
fields of formation, learning, training,<br />
theological education, scholarship,<br />
research and development; this<br />
overview is revisited in section D<br />
of this report. This overview was<br />
informed by significant research and<br />
consultative work to establish, in<br />
particular, a robust understanding<br />
of the institutions, colleges and<br />
centres sponsored by the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
11 The “Liverpool Minutes 1820”, CPD, Vol 1, Book V, Part 3<br />
12 Ministries, Learning and Development, <strong>Agenda</strong> 2010, 2.4<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 653
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
to undertake activities associated<br />
with formation, learning and<br />
development in terms of their (a)<br />
core and peripheral activities, (b)<br />
learning environments, (c) premises,<br />
(d) partnerships, (e) governance<br />
arrangements, (f) financial activities,<br />
and (g) assets, funds and liabilities.<br />
Expanding on the general case for<br />
development and review made in<br />
the report to the 2010 <strong>Conference</strong>,<br />
the report also outlined particular<br />
challenges and opportunities faced by<br />
the Connexion in this area of its work,<br />
giving an indication of the possible<br />
future direction of travel in each case;<br />
these challenges and opportunities<br />
are revisited in section E of this<br />
report. The report also outlined the<br />
care which had been taken during<br />
2010/2011 to prepare the report<br />
in a reflective and collaborative<br />
manner. It noted that the report’s<br />
considerations:<br />
have been developed through<br />
informal discussions with a<br />
range of partners, practitioners<br />
and stakeholders. The direction<br />
of travel has been explored<br />
at meetings of the Shadow<br />
Ministries Committee and<br />
the Connexional Leaders’<br />
Forum, and through informal<br />
discussions with a number of<br />
learning institution principals<br />
and tutors, Training Officers,<br />
Local Preachers’ meetings and<br />
Superintendents’ meetings.<br />
Further informal consultations,<br />
including discussions with<br />
ecumenical partners, will<br />
follow over coming weeks...<br />
Explorations during the current<br />
connexional year have been<br />
reflective and collaborative, and<br />
several partners have welcomed<br />
this way of working, and<br />
expressed their confidence in<br />
the character of the judgements<br />
likely to emerge from such a<br />
reflective and collaborative<br />
undertaking. The importance of<br />
the Church’s learning, formation,<br />
training, theological education,<br />
scholarship, research and<br />
development activities is such<br />
that a positive and inclusive<br />
way of working, fostered by<br />
reflection and collaboration, is<br />
crucial if misunderstandings<br />
and apprehensions are to be<br />
minimised. However, reflection<br />
and collaboration cannot<br />
and should not preclude the<br />
consideration of prophetic and<br />
ambitious proposals.<br />
30 The report concluded that a<br />
report to the 2012 <strong>Conference</strong><br />
would consolidate the project’s<br />
deliberations and proposals. Factors<br />
which determine this timeline are<br />
outlined in section E below. However<br />
the report also noted that the<br />
deliberations and proposals brought<br />
to the 2012 <strong>Conference</strong> would need<br />
to be the subject of wide and open<br />
consultation, and a timeline for<br />
work during 2011/2012 (to include<br />
an open consultation period) was<br />
presented to the <strong>Conference</strong> for its<br />
approval. The <strong>Conference</strong> received<br />
the report and approved the proposed<br />
654 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
timeline, directing the Ministries<br />
Committee to have oversight of the<br />
project and to bring a report to the<br />
2012 <strong>Conference</strong>.<br />
Preliminary work after the 2011<br />
<strong>Conference</strong><br />
31 Working within the mandate given to<br />
it by the <strong>Conference</strong>, the Committee<br />
undertook its own assessment of the<br />
Church’s connexional commitments,<br />
activities and resources in the fields<br />
of formation, learning, training,<br />
theological education, scholarship,<br />
research and development. This<br />
assessment was informed by the<br />
research, informal consultations<br />
and analysis undertaken since the<br />
2010 <strong>Conference</strong>. The outcome<br />
of the Committee’s assessment<br />
was a vision for the future of the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong>’s commitments, activities<br />
and resources in this area. The<br />
Committee was grateful for the<br />
opportunity to discuss its analysis<br />
and vision at a residential meeting<br />
of the Connexional Leaders’ Forum<br />
held in late September 2011, to<br />
which members of the Strategy<br />
and Resources Committee and the<br />
Ministries Committee itself were also<br />
invited.<br />
The formal consultation<br />
32 Working to the timeline and<br />
processes approved by the 2011<br />
<strong>Conference</strong>, the Committee then<br />
moved to prepare and publish<br />
a consultation document, which<br />
outlined much of the background<br />
and analysis which had informed the<br />
Committee’s deliberations, as well as<br />
the Committee’s vision for the future.<br />
The vision which was shared in the<br />
consultation document is outlined in<br />
section F of this report.<br />
33 Reflections on all aspects of the<br />
consultation document were invited<br />
from “the <strong>Methodist</strong> people and<br />
all of our partners, colleagues and<br />
friends” from 17 October 2011 until<br />
2 December 2011. Hard copies<br />
of the consultation document<br />
were sent to all those institutions<br />
and postholders whose work was<br />
discussed in the document. Hard<br />
copies were also sent to all District<br />
Chairs, Superintendent ministers,<br />
Synod secretaries and members of<br />
the <strong>Methodist</strong> Council. Several other<br />
office-holders and representatives<br />
received emails directing them to<br />
the consultation’s website. Hard<br />
copies were also sent to church<br />
leaders and officers within partner<br />
denominations and within <strong>Methodist</strong>related<br />
organisations. Hard copies<br />
of the document could be ordered<br />
free of charge from the Connexional<br />
Team, and an electronic copy could be<br />
downloaded from the website. Over<br />
1,900 hard copies of the consultation<br />
document were dispatched during<br />
the consultation period. The<br />
consultation’s web page was viewed<br />
5,001 times, and the electronic<br />
version of the consultation document<br />
was downloaded 1,661 times.<br />
34 During the consultation period,<br />
members of the Committee,<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 655
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
supported by members of the<br />
Connexional Team, accepted a<br />
number of invitations to meet with<br />
staff teams and governing bodies at<br />
the institutions within the remit of<br />
the project. A residential conference<br />
of District and regional postholders<br />
(District Development Enablers,<br />
District Evangelism/ Mission<br />
Enablers, Participation Project<br />
Managers and Training Officers) and a<br />
meeting of oversight tutors were also<br />
able to dedicate time to a discussion<br />
of the consultation document. Each of<br />
the Regional Training Forums held a<br />
special meeting to make a response<br />
to the consultation, as did many other<br />
groupings throughout the Connexion.<br />
Meetings with ecumenical partners<br />
were also held. The consultation<br />
document was discussed by the<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Council, and at a meeting<br />
of past Presidents and past Vice-<br />
Presidents. Some of the Ministries<br />
Committee’s wider reflections were<br />
also shared through a series of<br />
podcasts/ vodcasts, which were<br />
able to respond to some frequently<br />
asked questions and requests<br />
for clarification raised during the<br />
consultation period.<br />
35 The Committee received five hundred<br />
and eighty consultation submissions,<br />
running to nearly a thousand pages<br />
and containing over half a million<br />
words. Submissions were received<br />
from 382 individuals and postholders.<br />
The remaining 198 submissions<br />
came from Circuits, Districts, forums,<br />
institutions, ecumenical partners<br />
and other bodies. The Committee<br />
is particularly conscious of the<br />
volume of submissions received<br />
during the consultation period, and<br />
wishes to note its thanks to all who<br />
spent a significant amount of time<br />
preparing considered, detailed,<br />
creative, impassioned and informative<br />
submissions. The Committee is<br />
also grateful to all those who raised<br />
awareness of the consultation period<br />
and who encouraged others to share<br />
their views and experiences.<br />
Responding to the consultation<br />
36 Each submission made during the<br />
consultation period was seen by<br />
every member of the Committee. The<br />
Committee met residentially in late<br />
January 2012 so that members could<br />
discuss their reflections and their<br />
analysis of all that had been shared<br />
within the consultation submissions.<br />
On the basis of these deliberations,<br />
the Committee issued, on 21<br />
February 2012, an interim response<br />
to the consultation. Electronic<br />
copies of the Committee’s interim<br />
response were sent to all those who<br />
had made submissions during the<br />
consultation period (unless those<br />
making a submission had done so<br />
by post, in which case hard copies<br />
were sent). Electronic copies of the<br />
interim response were also sent to<br />
all those institutions and postholders<br />
whose work was discussed in the<br />
consultation document, to all District<br />
Chairs, and to the members of the<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Council.<br />
37 The interim response contained<br />
656 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
key reflections drawn from the<br />
consultation submissions. These key<br />
reflections are outlined in section<br />
F of this report. Within the interim<br />
response, most of the key reflections<br />
were accompanied by relevant<br />
extracts from the consultation<br />
submissions. The extracts included<br />
were diverse and, occasionally, one<br />
extract contradicted another which<br />
appeared under the same heading. In<br />
this respect, they echoed the range of<br />
voices heard through the consultation<br />
submissions. The interim response<br />
also contained a summary of areas<br />
for further exploration.<br />
38 It was not the Committee’s<br />
intention, when it launched the<br />
consultation period, to publish<br />
all of the submissions. When the<br />
Committee, in response to a concern<br />
raised in one of the submissions,<br />
revisited the question of whether the<br />
submissions should all be published,<br />
the Committee did not judge it<br />
appropriate to change its earlier<br />
decision. It was evident from many<br />
of the submissions that several of<br />
those making submissions had been<br />
able to share reflections (for example<br />
about their own ministry or about an<br />
institution for which they exercise<br />
legal responsibilities) which could not<br />
be shared more publicly. The volume<br />
of submissions was such that the<br />
Committee also judged it to be its<br />
responsibility to digest and identify<br />
the key reflections included within the<br />
submissions, and to share these key<br />
reflections in an accessible format.<br />
39 In its interim response, the<br />
Committee noted:<br />
In order to ensure that our<br />
deliberations take full and fair<br />
account of the consultation<br />
submissions, we have asked a<br />
small number of past officers<br />
of the <strong>Conference</strong> for their<br />
assistance. These past officers<br />
will be given access to all of the<br />
consultation submissions, to the<br />
notes from our meetings and to<br />
preparatory papers drawing on<br />
the consultation submissions.<br />
We will ask these past officers<br />
to reflect on whether the key<br />
reflections which we have<br />
drawn from the consultation<br />
submissions are supported by<br />
their reading of the submissions.<br />
We will also ask them to<br />
identify any key reflections<br />
which they feel have been left<br />
out of our considerations so<br />
far. We are fully aware that<br />
the final responsibility for<br />
our recommendations to the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> rests with us, but we<br />
are grateful in advance to those<br />
who are helping to support our<br />
deliberations in this way.<br />
40 The Revd Dr Brian Beck and the<br />
Revd Alison Tomlin agreed to act<br />
as verifiers. In their report they<br />
confirmed that the key reflections<br />
which the Committee had drawn<br />
from the consultation submissions<br />
were supported by the submissions<br />
themselves. They wrote that “our<br />
overall response is to congratulate<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 657
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
the Committee on the way in which<br />
it has picked up and incorporated<br />
in its revised vision so many of<br />
the concerns expressed.” They<br />
acknowledged that the Committee’s<br />
response was an interim response<br />
and that many of the details raised<br />
in the consultation submissions had<br />
yet to be addressed. They noted that<br />
“more could have been done to allay<br />
the fears and suspicions expressed<br />
in the responses” but were reassured<br />
that further detail would be provided<br />
by the Committee in its report to<br />
the <strong>Conference</strong>. On the question<br />
of whether the submissions should<br />
all be published, they noted that<br />
“there were some calls from those<br />
who did not trust the process for the<br />
submissions to be published. We<br />
support the decision not to do so.<br />
Some submissions were offered in<br />
confidence. Some were simply rude<br />
and reflected poorly on those who<br />
sent them.”<br />
Subsequent deliberations<br />
41 The Committee’s interim response<br />
to the consultation was discussed<br />
by the <strong>Methodist</strong> Council in March<br />
2012. Further reflections were also<br />
invited from the leaders of institutions<br />
whose work was discussed in the<br />
consultation document.<br />
42 Since March, and prior to the<br />
preparation of this report, the<br />
Committee has met on two<br />
occasions. At these meetings, as at<br />
previous meetings, the Committee<br />
has interrogated material closely,<br />
debated propositions robustly, and<br />
proceeded by consensus. Where<br />
the Chair of the Committee has<br />
requested a vote, as happened in<br />
the case of the recommendations<br />
agreed by the Committee at its late<br />
April meeting, the members present<br />
voted unanimously. The developed<br />
recommendations which were agreed<br />
by the Committee at these meetings<br />
are outlined in sections G-L.<br />
43 As the Committee’s recommendations<br />
have been formed, advice has<br />
been sought from the Connexional<br />
Treasurers. As section K of this report<br />
(focusing on expenditure, funding<br />
streams, funds and assets) has been<br />
developed, it has been scrutinised by<br />
one of the Connexional Treasurers on<br />
behalf of the Strategy and Resources<br />
Committee.<br />
A reflection from the Ministries Committee<br />
on its work<br />
44 The Committee has sought to work<br />
reflectively, collaboratively, ambitiously<br />
and prophetically in response to<br />
the task which it was given by the<br />
2011 <strong>Conference</strong>. This report<br />
constitutes the culmination of a<br />
year’s deliberations and of an even<br />
longer period of evidence-gathering<br />
and analysis. The Committee is<br />
pleased that so many voices from<br />
across the Connexion and beyond<br />
have already been able to contribute<br />
to the development of the project.<br />
45 The Committee hopes that this<br />
report, read in the context of the<br />
658 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
other documents produced by the<br />
Committee during 2011/2012,<br />
provides the <strong>Conference</strong> with a<br />
comprehensive picture of the issues<br />
at stake, a careful exploration<br />
of the ways forward, as well<br />
as the Committee’s developed<br />
recommendations.<br />
46 However the Committee is clear that<br />
the decisions of the <strong>Conference</strong> –<br />
whatever they may be – will mark<br />
the beginning, and not the end, of<br />
a period of change. The need to<br />
nurture and enable reflection and<br />
collaboration, as well as ambitious<br />
and prophetic vision, does not end<br />
with the presentation of this report.<br />
The Committee is grateful for the<br />
care, imagination and patience which<br />
so many – not least those most<br />
affected by its work – have shown<br />
over recent months, and its prayer<br />
is that good will and mutual trust<br />
will continue to be a mark of our<br />
discussions.<br />
47 The Committee has been very aware<br />
of being supported by the prayers of<br />
a large number of people across the<br />
Connexion as it has undertaken its<br />
work over recent months, and wishes<br />
to record its thanks for the support<br />
and sustenance which has been so<br />
generously offered by so many. The<br />
Committee has sought to underpin<br />
all of its work in worship and prayer,<br />
and the Committee’s members<br />
wish to assure all those across the<br />
Connexion who work so diligently in<br />
the fields of formation, learning and<br />
development of their prayers as we<br />
take our next steps forward together<br />
in the direction which the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
will determine.<br />
Section D: Our Current Provision<br />
48 This section describes the current<br />
provision which the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
supports in the fields of formation,<br />
learning, training, theological<br />
education, scholarship, research<br />
and development. It does so by<br />
describing current pathways – those<br />
opportunities, programmes and<br />
resources which are made available<br />
to a wide range of students, learners<br />
and researchers. It then describes<br />
the expert staff posts and the<br />
institutions, colleges and centres<br />
which design, deliver and support<br />
these pathways. Finally, it describes<br />
the expenditure and the funding<br />
streams which make up the budget<br />
for this provision.<br />
Pathways: Opportunities, programmes and<br />
resources<br />
Pathways for student ministers<br />
49 Diaconal and presbyteral candidates<br />
accepted by the <strong>Conference</strong> follow<br />
either two-year or three-year pathways<br />
as student ministers. Pathways are<br />
currently offered at ten institutions,<br />
though only three of these are<br />
normally able to offer the full-time<br />
pathway. Every effort is made to<br />
structure each student minister’s<br />
programme so that it is appropriate<br />
for individual learning needs and for<br />
personal circumstances. However, it<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 659
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
is anticipated that student ministers<br />
following the full-time pathway do so<br />
as their primary occupation, while<br />
student ministers following the parttime<br />
pathway are likely to be doing so<br />
alongside other commitments, and<br />
not as their sole undertaking. Student<br />
ministers following the full-time<br />
pathway receive a bursary of around<br />
£12,000 per annum, from which all<br />
maintenance costs must be met,<br />
along with means-tested dependent<br />
child payments where relevant. For<br />
student ministers following the parttime<br />
pathway, travel expenses and<br />
some other expenses incurred during<br />
the course of following the pathway<br />
are reimbursed.<br />
50 All student ministers seek to meet<br />
a common set of competencies<br />
clustered around six headings:<br />
Vocation (call and commitment);<br />
Being in relationship (with God,<br />
self and others); The Church’s<br />
ministry in God’s world; Leadership<br />
and collaboration; Learning and<br />
understanding; Communication.<br />
Although the competencies are<br />
common for all student ministers and<br />
across the ten learning institutions,<br />
the courses and curricula offered<br />
at each institution are different<br />
and designed by the institution<br />
itself. The vast majority of courses<br />
and curricula involve the student<br />
minister working towards a Higher<br />
Education award. The Higher<br />
Education awards are made available<br />
through partnerships negotiated by<br />
each institution. Student ministers<br />
who are judged by the local<br />
and the connexional Oversight<br />
Committees to have met the required<br />
competencies are recommended to<br />
the <strong>Conference</strong> for stationing, usually<br />
as probationers.<br />
51 The 2007 <strong>Conference</strong> decided to plan<br />
to support 120 student ministers<br />
at any one time, half of whom were<br />
projected to follow full-time pathways,<br />
and half to follow part-time pathways.<br />
This projection has proved largely accurate<br />
over the intervening five years.<br />
The pathways for those preparing to<br />
be admitted as Local Preachers and<br />
for those preparing to be appointed<br />
as Worship Leaders<br />
52 Faith & Worship is the standard<br />
course for those preparing to be<br />
Local Preachers: seventeen units<br />
of study, grouped into four sections,<br />
typically tutored in the Circuit.<br />
The course was first published in<br />
1990, and revisions intended to<br />
give another five years’ ’shelf life‘<br />
were phased in from 2001. At this<br />
point examinations were replaced<br />
by submission of exegeses and a<br />
worship portfolio for each section.<br />
Each unit (after the introductory three)<br />
is assessed by written assignment,<br />
marked by a local tutor and submitted<br />
for second marking and moderation<br />
by connexional assessors. A pass<br />
mark of 40% is required for each<br />
piece of work in order to progress.<br />
The Local Preachers’ Meeting has<br />
oversight of the key elements of the<br />
pathway and its progress: providing<br />
a mentor, arranging for service<br />
660 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
reports, conducting interviews at the<br />
required stages, and recommending<br />
continuance on trial and readiness<br />
for admission as a Local Preacher.<br />
Recently, a number of alternative<br />
pathways have been developed<br />
and appropriately authorised.<br />
Currently seven such courses are<br />
in existence. Some are based in<br />
learning institutions, and some<br />
carry university validation. Some are<br />
ecumenical programmes developed by<br />
Regional Training Partnerships; others<br />
are <strong>Methodist</strong> courses offered by a<br />
particular District. Those who have<br />
previously completed other courses<br />
or have relevant experience can apply<br />
for exemptions from units of the Faith<br />
& Worship course by applying for<br />
accreditation of prior experience and<br />
learning (APEL). To be granted APEL,<br />
evidence is required to show that<br />
prior learning meets all the learning<br />
outcomes of units from which they<br />
are requesting exemption. Because<br />
of the particular way those learning<br />
outcomes are expressed, and also<br />
because of the way in which Faith &<br />
Worship units combine theory and<br />
practice, it can be difficult to grant<br />
exemptions. As well as successfully<br />
completing a course, preachers on<br />
trial must also successfully complete<br />
two Circuit interviews held at the Local<br />
Preachers’ Meeting, which will draw on<br />
an assessment of two trial services.<br />
There are currently approximately<br />
1,500 preachers on note and on trial<br />
across the Connexion.<br />
53 The Worship Leaders’ Training Pack is<br />
the connexionally approved pathway<br />
offered to those becoming Worship<br />
Leaders. This was first published<br />
in 1996, and consists of seven<br />
sessions designed for use in a small<br />
study group. There is no formal<br />
assessment. Appointment as a<br />
Worship Leader is subject to triennial<br />
review.<br />
Other pathways and opportunities<br />
54 Beyond these major pathways, several<br />
other pathways and opportunities<br />
have recently been supported, or are<br />
currently supported, by connexional<br />
resources. These include:<br />
54.1 Foundation Training: This was<br />
adopted by the 1999 <strong>Conference</strong> as<br />
a pathway for those “judged to have<br />
a strong sense of Christian vocation<br />
to exercise their discipleship through<br />
some form of ordained or authorised<br />
lay ministry,” and aimed “to enable<br />
the particular form of vocation and<br />
the person’s ability to exercise it to<br />
be more accurately discerned.”<br />
54.2 Extending Discipleship, Exploring<br />
Vocation (EDEV): A successor to<br />
Foundation Training adopted by<br />
the 2006 <strong>Conference</strong>, EDEV was<br />
envisaged as “a new approach<br />
to exploration of discipleship and<br />
vocation for a wider group of people,<br />
located closer to their home Circuit<br />
or area, with the support of training<br />
institutions.” Connexional funds<br />
were made available to support the<br />
development of EDEV across Regional<br />
Training Networks for three years from<br />
September 2008.<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 661
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
54.3 Continuing development in ordained<br />
ministry: These pathways are enabled<br />
both through grants (annual grants<br />
to Districts, and application grants<br />
to ministers and probationers<br />
studying for Higher Education awards)<br />
and through connexional courses<br />
(including courses in supervision<br />
skills for Superintendents, the annual<br />
Superintendents’ conferences, and<br />
pathways for ministers from other<br />
denominations or Partner Churches<br />
selected to serve the <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Church).<br />
54.4 Continuing development for Local<br />
Preachers: Although appointment<br />
as a Local Preacher is not subject<br />
to any formal review, all those<br />
admitted as Local Preachers<br />
from September 1995 onwards<br />
undertake to “participate in a<br />
programme of continuing Local<br />
Preacher development.” The<br />
type of programme is not further<br />
defined, and provision of suitable<br />
opportunities varies greatly across<br />
the Connexion.<br />
54.5 A number of focused programmes<br />
and courses are supported, including:<br />
Core Skills for Churches, for children’s<br />
workers (launched in 2006); Creating<br />
Safer Space, Foundation Module,<br />
for office-holders who require<br />
safeguarding training (2011); Disciple,<br />
a course designed to nurture and<br />
deepen discipleship through Bible<br />
study (1993); Don’t Panic, for church<br />
stewards (1998); Encircled in Care,<br />
for pastoral visitors (2007); Mission<br />
Shaped Intro (MSI), an introduction<br />
to Fresh Expressions of Church;<br />
Mission Shaped Ministry (MSM), for<br />
those launching and leading Fresh<br />
Expressions of Church; Spectrum,<br />
for youth workers (1996); Step<br />
Forward, a course for small groups<br />
(2009); Talking of God, a course<br />
on faith-sharing for individuals and<br />
congregations (2011); and What Shall<br />
We Do Now?, for those working with<br />
older people (2002).<br />
54.6 World Church-related pathways: These<br />
include pathways for those selected<br />
to become Mission Partners, and<br />
for leaders from overseas Partner<br />
Churches sponsored for study in<br />
Britain as part of the Scholarship<br />
and Leadership Training programme.<br />
54.7 The Oxford Institute of <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Theological Studies: The core activity<br />
of the institute, governed by a British<br />
Committee and a committee based<br />
in the United States of America,<br />
constitutes a week-long conference,<br />
gathering scholars from around the<br />
world for lectures and working groups<br />
in a variety of areas, including biblical<br />
studies, theology, history, worship,<br />
liturgy, evangelism, mission and<br />
ecumenism.<br />
54.8 Research opportunities: Connexional<br />
resources support a number of<br />
research activities, which have a<br />
particular focus on contemporary<br />
issues of local, national and global<br />
significance for the Church and<br />
society. See in particular paragraphs<br />
82.13 and 82.18 below.<br />
662 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
54.9 Opportunities for Higher and Further<br />
Education students and careerstarters:<br />
Two centres currently offer<br />
accommodation and related support<br />
for students and career-starters in<br />
London. These centres offer a safe<br />
and supportive place to live, and can<br />
allow access to advice and life-skills<br />
input within a <strong>Methodist</strong> environment.<br />
See in particular paragraphs 82.14<br />
and 82.16 below.<br />
55 Connexionally-resourced postholders<br />
also design and deliver pathways<br />
within Circuits, Districts and regions<br />
in the areas of: adult education,<br />
candidating, change, children<br />
and youth, collaborative working,<br />
discipleship, faith-sharing, leadership,<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> identity, the ‘Missing<br />
Generation’, mission, safeguarding,<br />
visioning and vocation.<br />
People: Expert staff<br />
Tutors<br />
56 The longest-standing cohort of<br />
expert staff are tutors deployed<br />
within institutions, colleges and<br />
centres to support and oversee<br />
the education and formation of<br />
student ministers. The existence and<br />
distribution of tutorial posts have<br />
naturally been closely connected<br />
to the existence and distribution of<br />
institutions, colleges and centres,<br />
and these are considered at greater<br />
length in paragraphs 75-82 below.<br />
Today a nominal 18 tutorial posts<br />
are supported by connexional<br />
resources across 10 institutions<br />
primarily to oversee the education<br />
and formation of student ministers,<br />
but also to nurture and contribute<br />
to communities of formation,<br />
scholarship and research.<br />
57 As well as tutors overseeing the<br />
education and formation of student<br />
ministers, connexional resources also<br />
support tutors within a wider range<br />
of institutions, whose emphasis is<br />
on training, theological education,<br />
research and development for a wider<br />
audience. The Inspire Network, a<br />
connexional project of the <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Church, has its roots in the work of<br />
tutors at Cliff College. Similarly the<br />
Step Forward pathway, mentioned<br />
above, is designed and supported by<br />
staff within the Guy Chester Centre.<br />
District Youth Officers<br />
58 As well as tutors at institutions,<br />
colleges and centres, Methodism<br />
has a long tradition of supporting<br />
officers working within and across<br />
Districts. This tradition began in the<br />
1950s with the post of District Youth<br />
Officer. A report from the Division of<br />
Education and Youth to the 1996<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> noted that the strengths<br />
of the provision of District Youth<br />
Officers included:<br />
l<br />
l<br />
l<br />
the development of strong<br />
ecumenical working relationships<br />
in youth and children’s work<br />
the establishment of training<br />
programmes, including<br />
Kaleidoscope and Spectrum<br />
the promotion of the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 663
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
l<br />
safeguarding of children and<br />
young people within the whole<br />
Church community<br />
the development and sustaining<br />
of youth projects.<br />
District Evangelism/ Mission Enablers<br />
59 Meanwhile, a report from the Home<br />
Mission Division to the 1993<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> “urge[d] every District<br />
to consider appointing a District<br />
Evangelist/Mission Enabler/team<br />
to encourage and assist churches<br />
in their evangelistic task.” The<br />
report suggested that “people, not<br />
paper, are our best resource” and<br />
encouraged every District to explore<br />
making an appointment, “in order that<br />
Local Churches may be motivated,<br />
guided, trained and resourced in the<br />
development and implementation of<br />
their evangelistic strategy.”<br />
60 Since 1993, many Districts have<br />
invested in District Evangelist/<br />
Mission Enablers and have been able<br />
to supplement their own funds with<br />
connexional grants from the Mission<br />
in Britain Fund. During 2010/2011<br />
there were 17 District Evangelist/<br />
Mission Enablers working in 15<br />
Districts. Of these 17 individuals, 12<br />
are presbyters, many of whom are<br />
also serving in a part-time Circuit<br />
appointment.<br />
Training and Development Officers<br />
61 In 1996, District Youth Officers were<br />
replaced by Training and Development<br />
Officers (TDOs) – a move made<br />
in response both to the changing<br />
needs of the Church, and to the<br />
development by local authorities<br />
of their own youth provision. The<br />
Division of Education and Youth’s<br />
report to the 1996 <strong>Conference</strong><br />
envisaged that:<br />
l<br />
l<br />
l<br />
all Local Churches and Circuits<br />
should have access to a team<br />
of TDOs who will cooperate with<br />
and utilise ecumenical links and<br />
theological resource centres<br />
the officers should enable the<br />
whole people of God to become<br />
more effective in mission and<br />
ministry, particularly among<br />
young people<br />
the officers should encourage<br />
the Local Church to develop as a<br />
learning community.<br />
62 By 2000 every mainland District<br />
had access to a half-time TDO, who<br />
were all members of the Connexional<br />
Team, and were supported by a<br />
number of other Connexional Team<br />
staff in a variety of implementation<br />
and coordination roles. Each TDO<br />
had a Strategic Management<br />
Committee with a membership<br />
that included representation from<br />
the District and a member of the<br />
Connexional Team.<br />
District Development Enablers,<br />
Training Officers and Regional<br />
Training Networks<br />
63 The Team Focus report from the Joint<br />
Secretaries Group to the 2007 <strong>Conference</strong><br />
assessed the role of TDOs<br />
664 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
and “overwhelmingly pointed to the<br />
appreciation in the Districts for the<br />
work of TDOs, for two main reasons:<br />
(1) the capacity to do vital work that<br />
having a TDO provides and (2) the<br />
way in which the TDOs strengthen a<br />
sense of connexionalism within the<br />
Church.” However the report also concluded<br />
“that the current TDO scheme<br />
is unnecessarily complex in its management<br />
structure.”<br />
64 The conclusion of a number of<br />
reports to the 2007 <strong>Conference</strong> was<br />
that the training and development<br />
functions previously held together<br />
within the role of the TDOs should be<br />
split into two distinct roles, that of the<br />
District Development Enabler and that<br />
of the Training Officer.<br />
65 The District Development Enabler role<br />
was:<br />
l<br />
l<br />
l<br />
to facilitate and organise the<br />
District’s implementation of<br />
initiatives arising from the<br />
Priorities for the <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Church<br />
to facilitate changes within<br />
the District in response to the<br />
changing context of its mission<br />
and ministry, including support<br />
for the Regrouping for Mission:<br />
Mapping a Way Forward process<br />
to encourage the implementation<br />
of these initiatives across<br />
the District and within the<br />
Circuits, in particular the use of<br />
resources – people, property, and<br />
finance.<br />
66 Each English District received funding<br />
for a half-time District Development<br />
Enabler with separate arrangements<br />
being made for Scotland, Wales and<br />
the Island Districts. Twenty-one District<br />
Development Enablers were appointed<br />
in England, nine of whom had<br />
been TDOs.<br />
67 The District Development Enabler<br />
posts are funded as a fixed-term<br />
project, finishing at the end of<br />
2012/2013.<br />
68 The creation of the role of Training<br />
Officer was closely tied to the<br />
simultaneous creation, by the 2007<br />
<strong>Conference</strong>, of Regional Training<br />
Networks. The report of the Training<br />
Institutions Review Group to the<br />
2007 <strong>Conference</strong> led to the creation<br />
of five Regional Training Networks<br />
in England and one each in Scotland<br />
and Wales. 13 The Networks were<br />
to:<br />
l<br />
l<br />
l<br />
assess the training needs of the<br />
region<br />
deliberate on the distribution of<br />
connexional and other resources<br />
to meet those needs across the<br />
network<br />
maintain the best possible<br />
training systems for the region<br />
13 The five Regional Training Networks (RTNs) in England are: North-West RTN (districts 6, 9, 11, 15, 18, 19 and<br />
21); the Yorkshire and North-East RTN (13, 16, 20, 25, 27 and 29); Midlands RTN (5, 17, 22, 23 and 28);<br />
South and South-West RTN (7, 10, 12, 24 and 26); South-East RTN (14, 34, 35 and 36)<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 665
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
l<br />
l<br />
be connexionally accountable to<br />
the <strong>Methodist</strong> Council<br />
coordinate the work of the<br />
Training Officers.<br />
69 Each English Regional Training<br />
Network received funding for two fulltime<br />
Training Officers, whose role was<br />
“to assist the network in the delivery<br />
of connexional needs for the whole<br />
people of God.” It was assumed that<br />
Training Officers would be regional<br />
officers, working collaboratively<br />
across the network, but the<br />
underlying District structure made this<br />
difficult, and most officers were based<br />
in one or two Districts. Eighteen<br />
Training Officers were appointed in<br />
England, seven of whom had been<br />
TDOs, and separate arrangements<br />
were again made for Scotland, Wales<br />
and the Island Districts.<br />
70 The outcome of discussions in<br />
Scotland and Wales was the<br />
appointment in each case of three<br />
officers to cover both the role of the<br />
District Development Enabler and<br />
the role of the Training Officer, one<br />
of whom was to be the director or<br />
manager, coordinating the work of the<br />
other two officers. The Island Districts<br />
responded in different ways, some<br />
utilising staff and others funding more<br />
localised input.<br />
Participation Project Managers<br />
71 One of the integral parts of the Youth<br />
Participation Strategy, as identified<br />
by a report to the 2007 <strong>Conference</strong>,<br />
was that each of the Regional Training<br />
Networks would also have at least<br />
one youth participation worker, whose<br />
role would be:<br />
l<br />
l<br />
l<br />
l<br />
supporting youth enablers,<br />
now known as One Programme<br />
Participants (OPPs)<br />
delivering training at Local<br />
Church, Circuit, District and<br />
connexional levels<br />
project development and<br />
networking with external and<br />
ecumenical bodies and agencies<br />
providing additional support to<br />
Training Officers and institutions,<br />
colleges and centres for<br />
children’s and youth work training<br />
and coordination.<br />
72 These posts were entitled<br />
Participation Project Managers<br />
(PPMs). Each English Regional<br />
Training Network has a full-time PPM;<br />
however, funding was not available for<br />
the envisaged roles in Scotland and<br />
Wales in the wake of reductions made<br />
to the overall budget of the Youth<br />
Participation Strategy.<br />
73 The PPM posts are funded as a fixedterm<br />
project, finishing at the end of<br />
2012/2013.<br />
Other District posts<br />
74 It should be noted that, over recent<br />
years, most Districts have moved to<br />
employ administrators, and some<br />
have created salaried posts for other<br />
specialities (eg youth, safeguarding,<br />
property and finance).<br />
666 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
Places: Institutions, colleges and<br />
centres<br />
75 John Wesley spent part of March<br />
1749 at Kingswood School. His<br />
journal for that time notes:<br />
My design was to have as many<br />
of our preachers here during the<br />
Lent as could be spared: and to<br />
read lectures to them every day,<br />
as I did to my pupils in Oxford.<br />
I had 17 of them in all. These<br />
I divided into two classes, and<br />
read to one Bishop Pearson On<br />
the Creed, to the other Aldrich’s<br />
Logic and to both Rules of Action<br />
and Utterance.<br />
76 This gathering probably constitutes<br />
the first course for <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
preachers. Something more<br />
intense and sustained – indeed,<br />
the establishment of a seminary<br />
– had been in the mind of the first<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> convened by Wesley in<br />
1744. At the turn of the nineteenth<br />
century, there was renewed pressure<br />
for “some kind of seminary for<br />
educating workmen for the vineyard of<br />
our God,” and the 1806 <strong>Conference</strong><br />
went as far as to circulate a sort of<br />
consultation document advocating the<br />
same. However it was not until the<br />
1830s that nervousness about the<br />
dampening effect of a college on the<br />
evangelistic zeal of young preachers<br />
gave way to recognition of the need<br />
for those younger preachers to be<br />
equipped to offer an apologetic to an<br />
increasingly literate population within<br />
a growing Wesleyan Connexion. The<br />
1834 Wesleyan <strong>Conference</strong> therefore<br />
agreed to the establishment of a<br />
theological institution, and, by January<br />
1835, students were beginning<br />
their studies at the institution’s<br />
first home in rented premises in<br />
Hoxton. The next 50 years saw a<br />
radical growth in learning institutions<br />
across the <strong>Methodist</strong> Connexions.<br />
The Wesleyan <strong>Methodist</strong>s opened<br />
four large establishments: Didsbury<br />
in Manchester; Richmond in Surrey;<br />
Headingley in Leeds; Handsworth in<br />
Birmingham – all deemed branches of<br />
the Wesleyan Theological Institution.<br />
The Primitive <strong>Methodist</strong> Church, the<br />
United <strong>Methodist</strong> Free Churches<br />
and the <strong>Methodist</strong> New Connexion<br />
also moved to establish learning<br />
institutions, with a strong focus on<br />
the north of England.<br />
77 A century after the beginnings at<br />
Hoxton, and thus a few years after<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Union in 1932, Hartley<br />
Victoria College in Manchester served<br />
the united Church alongside the four<br />
original Wesleyan establishments at<br />
Didsbury, Richmond, Headingley and<br />
Handsworth and the newer Wesleyan<br />
foundation of Wesley House,<br />
Cambridge.<br />
78 Looking beyond institutions for student<br />
ministers, Cliff College was, by<br />
this time, established at its present<br />
site in Derbyshire, having moved from<br />
its roots in Bolton and Rochdale; Ilkley<br />
College was providing a base for<br />
the training and organisation of the<br />
Wesley Deaconess Order; Southlands<br />
College, from premises in south Lon-<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 667
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
don, was training female teachers.<br />
Also a partnership in Birmingham was<br />
allowing some <strong>Methodist</strong> missionaries<br />
to be trained at Kingsmead College;<br />
Guy Chester’s first gift of land in<br />
Muswell Hill in London is only a few<br />
years away; and Hilda Porter’s vision<br />
of a <strong>Methodist</strong> International House in<br />
London is surely in gestation.<br />
79 The late 1960s and early 1970s were<br />
years of significant change for institutions<br />
forming student ministers. The<br />
1967 <strong>Conference</strong> closed Headingley<br />
College, merging its activities with<br />
those of Didsbury College, already<br />
relocated from Manchester to Bristol.<br />
The 1971 <strong>Conference</strong> approved a<br />
merger of Handsworth College and<br />
the Queen’s College (an Anglican<br />
theological college), to establish what<br />
is now known as the Queen’s<br />
Foundation for Ecumenical Theological<br />
Education. Finally, the 1972<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> elected to close Hartley<br />
Victoria College.<br />
80 Though the site of Hartley Victoria<br />
was sold, the College itself<br />
maintained an existence through a<br />
pioneering relationship with the Free<br />
Churches in Manchester. Luther King<br />
House Educational Trust, of which<br />
Hartley Victoria College now forms<br />
a part, was the first in a series of<br />
ecumenical ventures in which the<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Church participated, which<br />
saw new forms of education for<br />
student ministers – pathways which<br />
largely did not rely on residence in a<br />
college community. This development<br />
led to a proliferation in the number<br />
of institutions sponsored by the<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Church for the delivery of<br />
pathways for student ministers. In<br />
1955, six colleges educated student<br />
ministers. By 2005, 20 institutions<br />
were being used by the Church to<br />
educate student ministers – 2 of<br />
them recently established by the<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Church itself, in the form<br />
of the Wesley Study Centre in Durham<br />
and the York Institute for Community<br />
Theology.<br />
81 Major decisions about our learning<br />
institutions were made by the 2007<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> (the 2006 <strong>Conference</strong><br />
having rejected proposals brought for<br />
its consideration). The decision of the<br />
2007 <strong>Conference</strong> located full-time,<br />
bursaried student ministers at three<br />
institutions (the 2006 <strong>Conference</strong><br />
having been asked to locate such<br />
pathways at only two institutions).<br />
The most recent decision of the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
in this context was the decision<br />
of the 2010 <strong>Conference</strong> to close<br />
Wesley College, Bristol.<br />
82 Today’s distribution of <strong>Methodist</strong>sponsored<br />
institutions, colleges and<br />
centres is as follows:<br />
Institutions receiving student<br />
ministers following full-time pathways<br />
82.1 The Queen’s Foundation, Birmingham:<br />
The Queen’s Foundation receives<br />
student ministers from the <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Church and ordinands from the<br />
Church of England, the latter as<br />
full-time students and, in higher<br />
numbers, as part-time students from<br />
668 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
the Midlands region. It also hosts<br />
the Selly Oak Centre for Mission<br />
Studies (SOCMS; see paragraph<br />
82.17 below), the Centre for Black<br />
Leadership and Ministries (largely<br />
sponsored by Anglican funding<br />
streams) and a research centre.<br />
Governance: Independent ecumenical<br />
entity with both the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church<br />
and the Church of England having<br />
seats on the governing body<br />
82.2 Wesley House, Cambridge: Wesley<br />
House forms part of the Cambridge<br />
Theological Federation with ten other<br />
Cambridge-based or regional learning<br />
institutions from the Anglican,<br />
Reformed, Roman Catholic and<br />
Orthodox traditions; teaching and<br />
aspects of common life are shared<br />
across the federation. Several of<br />
the other institutions rent space<br />
within the confines of Wesley House.<br />
Governance: Independent <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
entity where the <strong>Conference</strong> appoints<br />
the governing body<br />
82.3 The Wesley Study Centre, Durham:<br />
The Wesley Study Centre is linked by<br />
a memorandum of association to St<br />
John’s College, Durham – a college of<br />
Durham University. St John’s is also<br />
the parent body of Cranmer Hall, a<br />
theological college serving the Church<br />
of England; teaching and aspects of<br />
common life are shared by Cranmer<br />
Hall and the Wesley Study Centre.<br />
Governance: <strong>Methodist</strong> Council entity<br />
Institutions receiving student<br />
ministers following part-time<br />
pathways<br />
82.4 The Eastern Region Ministry Course:<br />
ERMC is a provider of part-time<br />
pathways for the Church of England<br />
and the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church, based<br />
in Cambridge and the surrounding<br />
region. Governance: Independent<br />
ecumenical entity with both the<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Church and the Church<br />
of England having seats on the<br />
governing body<br />
82.5 Hartley Victoria College, Manchester:<br />
Hartley Victoria College is part of<br />
Luther King House, within which<br />
it works in partnership with the<br />
Northern College (serving the<br />
United Reformed Church and the<br />
Congregational Federation), the<br />
Northern Baptist Learning Community<br />
and Manchester Unitarian College.<br />
Governance: <strong>Methodist</strong> Council entity<br />
82.6 The South-East Institute for Theological<br />
Education: SEITE is a provider of<br />
part-time pathways for the Church of<br />
England and the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church,<br />
based in London and Canterbury.<br />
Governance: Independent ecumenical<br />
entity with both the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church<br />
and the Church of England having<br />
seats on the governing body<br />
82.7 The Southern Theological Education &<br />
Training Scheme: STETS is a provider<br />
of part-time pathways for the Church<br />
of England and the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church,<br />
based in Salisbury. Governance:<br />
Independent ecumenical entity with<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 669
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
both the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church and the<br />
Church of England having seats on<br />
the governing body<br />
82.8 The South-West Ministry Training<br />
Course: SWMTC is a provider of parttime<br />
pathways for the Church of<br />
England and the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church,<br />
based in Exeter and the surrounding<br />
region. Governance: Independent<br />
ecumenical entity with both the<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Church and the Church<br />
of England having seats on the<br />
governing body<br />
82.9 The Urban Theology Unit: UTU is a<br />
provider of part-time pathways for the<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Church, based in Sheffield.<br />
Governance: Independent ecumenical<br />
entity<br />
82.10 Wesley College, Bristol: The 2010<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> made the decision<br />
to close Wesley College, Bristol.<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> formational activities<br />
have now come to an end at the<br />
College, even though the College<br />
site continues to be used during<br />
2011/2012 for a limited number of<br />
academic and commercial purposes.<br />
Governance: <strong>Methodist</strong> Council entity<br />
82.11 The York Institute for Community<br />
Theology: The York Institute for<br />
Community Theology is a provider of<br />
part-time pathways for the <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Church, based within the precincts of<br />
York St John University. Governance:<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Council entity<br />
Other connexionally-sponsored<br />
institutions associated with<br />
formation, learning, training,<br />
theological education, scholarship,<br />
research and development<br />
82.12 Cliff College, Derbyshire: Cliff<br />
College offers a range of learning<br />
opportunities, from summer schools<br />
and short courses to residential<br />
undergraduate programmes and<br />
post-graduate awards. Governance:<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Council entity<br />
82.13 CODEC (the Centre for Biblical Literacy<br />
and Communication): CODEC is a<br />
research centre in communication in<br />
the digital environment. It is a centre<br />
within St John’s College, Durham and<br />
has no legal status apart from St<br />
John’s.<br />
82.14 The Guy Chester Centre, London:<br />
The Guy Chester Centre is a major<br />
provider of student accommodation.<br />
The Centre also provides<br />
conferencing facilities, and offers<br />
quiet days and retreats along with<br />
a range of short courses and day<br />
courses in a number of spiritual,<br />
pastoral and organisational fields.<br />
Governance: <strong>Methodist</strong> Council entity<br />
82.15 The <strong>Methodist</strong> Diaconal Order Centre,<br />
Birmingham: The Centre provides<br />
a base for some of the formational<br />
activities of the <strong>Methodist</strong> Diaconal<br />
Order. Governance: <strong>Methodist</strong> Council<br />
entity<br />
82.16 <strong>Methodist</strong> International Centre,<br />
London: MIC is a provider of student<br />
670 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
accommodation. It is also seeking to<br />
establish a bursary fund to support<br />
the academic studies of overseas<br />
students. MIC’s activities are<br />
supported by the activities of MIC Ltd,<br />
which provides hotel accommodation<br />
and conferencing facilities in part<br />
of the MIC building. Governance:<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Council entity<br />
82.17 The Selly Oak Centre for Mission<br />
Studies: SOCMS exists as a centre<br />
within the Queen’s Foundation.<br />
SOCMS provides a base for preparing<br />
Mission Partners and pathways<br />
for leaders from overseas Partner<br />
Churches sponsored for study in<br />
Britain as part of the <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Church’s Scholarship and Leadership<br />
Training (SALT) programme. SOCMS<br />
has no legal status apart from the<br />
Queen’s Foundation.<br />
82.18 Southlands <strong>Methodist</strong> Trust<br />
(associated with Southlands College<br />
and the University of Roehampton):<br />
The Trust exists to support research<br />
and other activities of relevance to<br />
the life and public witness of the<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Church through the making<br />
of grants and in partnership with the<br />
Higher Education sector.<br />
82.19 The Oxford Centre for Methodism and<br />
Church History: The Centre, based<br />
within the precincts of Oxford Brookes<br />
University, supports research-related<br />
posts and activities, especially in the<br />
field of <strong>Methodist</strong> history, and hosts<br />
a number of archival collections.<br />
The Centre was not placed by the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> within the remit of the<br />
project, and the terms on which the<br />
Trust is resourced do not enable<br />
the 2012 <strong>Conference</strong> to assess the<br />
use of those resources within the<br />
context of The Fruitful Field project.<br />
Its presence and contribution is<br />
acknowledged here at the request of<br />
its trustees. See also paragraph 248<br />
below.<br />
Archival and heritage-focused<br />
institutions or resources<br />
82.20 The <strong>Methodist</strong> Archives and<br />
Research Centre (deposited<br />
with the John Rylands University<br />
Library, Manchester): Historic and<br />
contemporary archives pertaining to<br />
the life and witness of the <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Church in Britain are held for the<br />
Church by the John Rylands University<br />
Library.<br />
82.21 The <strong>Methodist</strong> Missionary Society<br />
Library (deposited with the School of<br />
Oriental and African Studies (SOAS),<br />
London): Historic and contemporary<br />
archives pertaining to the overseas<br />
missionary work of the <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Church are held for the Church by<br />
SOAS.<br />
82.22 The New Room, Bristol: The governing<br />
body of the New Room is considering<br />
developments on the site in order to<br />
be able to improve its educational<br />
facilities. In order to enable such<br />
developments to be aligned with<br />
The Fruitful Field, the New Room<br />
has, at the request of its trustees,<br />
been included within the remit of the<br />
project.<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 671
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
Expenditure and funding streams<br />
83 The Church currently spends<br />
approximately £6.2 million each<br />
year on the learning pathways,<br />
expert staff and institutions<br />
described above. The division of<br />
that expenditure budgeted for<br />
2012/2013 is illustrated in table A.<br />
Table A: Division of expenditure<br />
(2012/2013)<br />
Grants and fees to institutions,<br />
centres and colleges<br />
Maintenance payments to<br />
student ministers<br />
Other ministerial development<br />
programmes and costs<br />
District Evangelism / Mission<br />
Enablers<br />
£2,232k<br />
£1,116k<br />
£620k<br />
£186k<br />
Training Officers £930k<br />
District Development Enablers £868k<br />
Participation Project Managers £248k<br />
Total<br />
£6,200k<br />
84 It is possible to recategorise the<br />
division of expenditure into (a)<br />
practitioner staff costs, (b) other<br />
costs at institutions, colleges and<br />
centres, (c) maintenance payments<br />
to student ministers, and (d) pathway<br />
and programme costs. This division<br />
is illustrated in table B.<br />
Table B: Alternative division of expenditure<br />
(2012/2013)<br />
Practitioner staff costs<br />
Non-staff costs at institutions,<br />
colleges and centres<br />
Maintenance payments to<br />
student ministers<br />
Other pathway and<br />
programme costs<br />
Total<br />
£3,325k<br />
£1,139k<br />
£1,116k<br />
£620k<br />
£6,200k<br />
85 These significant costs are met from<br />
a number of connexional funding<br />
streams, as illustrated in table C.<br />
Approximately £3 million is received<br />
more or less directly from the District<br />
Assessment (contributed by Circuits<br />
through Districts). The remainder<br />
of the £6.2 million is received from<br />
four funds. The Connexional Priority<br />
Fund (CPF), the Mission in Britain<br />
Fund and the World Mission Fund<br />
are three connexional funds which<br />
receive income largely from levies (in<br />
the case of the CPF) and donations.<br />
The remaining contribution from<br />
funds is received from the Training<br />
Assessment Fund. This was built up<br />
at the turn of the millennium and<br />
has been used over recent years,<br />
with the <strong>Conference</strong>’s permission, to<br />
sustain a high level of connexional<br />
expenditure on learning pathways,<br />
expert staff and institutions.<br />
672 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
Table C: Division of funding streams<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Church Fund<br />
The Training Assessment Fund<br />
The Connexional Priority Fund<br />
The Mission in Britain Fund<br />
and the World Mission Fund<br />
Total<br />
£3,038k<br />
£1,674k<br />
£1,116k<br />
£372k<br />
£6,200k<br />
Section E: Challenges and Opportunities<br />
86 This section outlines the financial,<br />
infrastructural and educational<br />
challenges facing the <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Church in the fields of formation,<br />
learning, training, theological<br />
education, scholarship, research and<br />
development.<br />
Expenditure, funding streams,<br />
funds and assets<br />
87 The future of the funding streams<br />
which support the <strong>Conference</strong>’s<br />
current provision in the fields<br />
of formation, learning, training,<br />
theological education, scholarship,<br />
research and development presents<br />
a significant challenge. Commitments<br />
from the World Mission Fund and<br />
the Connexional Priority Fund come<br />
to an end in their present form<br />
at the end of 2012/2013. These<br />
commitments constitute almost<br />
24% of existing funding streams.<br />
Similarly, as the <strong>Conference</strong> no<br />
longer solicits donations towards<br />
the Training Assessment Fund, the<br />
balance of the fund is diminishing,<br />
and will be exhausted by the end<br />
of 2012/2013. It constitutes 27%<br />
of existing funding streams. This<br />
is a fundamental challenge to the<br />
capacity to fund future costs.<br />
88 As existing funding streams dry up,<br />
there is necessarily the challenge<br />
of planning for lower expenditure so<br />
that the core elements of connexional<br />
activities in these fields can be<br />
maintained and developed by lower<br />
and more sustainable expenditure<br />
from connexional funds. Alongside<br />
this challenge stands the opportunity<br />
to identify and nurture new funding<br />
streams. In this context arises the<br />
need to assess, with some urgency,<br />
the future use of those capital assets<br />
which are dedicated to formation,<br />
learning and development, to ensure<br />
that the <strong>Conference</strong>’s funds held in<br />
this way are focused on contemporary<br />
needs.<br />
89 This financial climate and the ongoing<br />
responsibilities of good stewardship<br />
also emphasise the need to ensure<br />
that funding streams are used to<br />
support effective expenditure. There<br />
can be no room for duplication<br />
of effort or competition between<br />
different components. On the<br />
contrary, it is essential to maximise<br />
collaboration and coherence in<br />
order to exercise wise stewardship<br />
of limited but still considerable<br />
resources.<br />
Premises and capital expenditure<br />
90 An ongoing challenge for the leaders<br />
and governing bodies of institutions,<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 673
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
colleges and centres is that of<br />
maintaining a balance between<br />
expenditure on educational activity<br />
and tutorial staff on the one hand,<br />
and on bursarial functions (such<br />
as administrative staff, domestic<br />
activities, and premises) on the<br />
other. The proportion of expenditure<br />
which many of our institutions have<br />
been able to dedicate to educational<br />
activity and tutorial staff has been<br />
higher than that achieved in the<br />
secular sector, which has brought<br />
significant benefits. However, it has<br />
also meant, within a wider context<br />
of tight budgets, that expenditure on<br />
premises in particular may not have<br />
been as high as it ought to have<br />
been to maintain buildings, teaching<br />
spaces and student accommodation<br />
to a good standard. Added to these is<br />
the need to be proactive in meeting<br />
new requirements and expectations<br />
(eg the 2010 Equality Act enabling<br />
disabled students to take part in the<br />
full range of activities of student life<br />
at learning institutions). Moreover it<br />
has rarely been possible to identify or<br />
to set aside funds for even moderate<br />
capital expenditure projects. Five<br />
institutions directly or indirectly<br />
governed by the <strong>Conference</strong> and<br />
the <strong>Methodist</strong> Council currently face<br />
the need to embark on projects to<br />
maintain, refurbish and improve their<br />
premises which involve expenditure<br />
of approximately £12.3 million. The<br />
free reserves available within the five<br />
institutions to support this work stand<br />
at approximately £4.5 million. Other<br />
institutions are unable to embark on<br />
expansionary projects which require<br />
moderate levels of capital expenditure<br />
as funds to support these activities<br />
are not available.<br />
91 This scale of the potential investment<br />
opportunities across the Connexion<br />
challenges the <strong>Conference</strong> to respond<br />
in a coherent and holistic way to a<br />
number of significant decisions within<br />
different institutions. The challenge is<br />
a bold one – to make sure that we are<br />
making the best use of the premises<br />
which the <strong>Conference</strong> dedicates to<br />
learning activities.<br />
Changes in the Higher Education sector<br />
92 A further set of challenges emerges<br />
from the changes taking place<br />
within the Higher Education (HE)<br />
sector. Government changes to HE<br />
funding mean that a form of hidden<br />
subsidy which has supported the<br />
Church’s theological education<br />
activities has now been removed.<br />
In narrow terms, this means that<br />
it is extremely likely that the costs<br />
for the Church of engaging with<br />
theology departments in the HE<br />
sector will increase. It is also very<br />
likely that serious questions will be<br />
raised about the future of theology<br />
departments within many universities.<br />
The long-term consequences of the<br />
HE sector changes currently being<br />
implemented are likely to be more<br />
far-reaching still. A more competitive<br />
and diverse sector is envisaged by<br />
the government’s reforms. Therefore,<br />
as well as navigating a reactive<br />
path through present insecurities<br />
as universities absorb the effects of<br />
674 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
a significant change of culture, the<br />
Church will be required to engage<br />
with the HE sector in a manner<br />
which moves away from established<br />
assumptions.<br />
Ecumenical and international partnerships<br />
93 Resources in the field of formation,<br />
learning and development are<br />
often shared with those of other<br />
denominations and traditions. Several<br />
learning institutions, for example, are<br />
deeply embedded in partnerships<br />
with other institutions affiliated with<br />
the Anglican, Reformed, Baptist,<br />
Roman Catholic and Orthodox<br />
traditions.<br />
94 Regional Training Partnerships<br />
(RTPs) – which often include learning<br />
resources from the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church,<br />
the Church of England and the United<br />
Reformed Church – were seen by<br />
many as offering the possibility of<br />
coherent, systematic ecumenical<br />
collaboration across regions in<br />
England. However, it is by now clear<br />
that RTPs have delivered only patchy<br />
and sporadic successes, and are<br />
sometimes seen as demanding a<br />
disproportionate amount of energy<br />
for minimal results. Ecumenical<br />
partnerships in Scotland and Wales<br />
have often found more effective ways<br />
of releasing energy and resources for<br />
shared learning and development.<br />
95 The success of the Mission Shaped<br />
Intro and Mission Shaped Ministry<br />
courses, developed by the Fresh<br />
Expressions agency, offers an<br />
example of energising pathways<br />
which can emerge from ecumenical<br />
partnerships.<br />
96 Any assessment of connexional<br />
learning commitments must take<br />
seriously the opportunities offered<br />
by ecumenical partnerships, and<br />
an alignment of visions across<br />
denominational boundaries will<br />
be crucial for future growth and<br />
development. It is also important to<br />
note the opportunities offered by a<br />
wider ecumenical agenda. Many of<br />
our learning institutions are already<br />
reaching out to new ecumenical<br />
partners in the Black Majority<br />
Churches, para-church organisations,<br />
large non-aligned churches, and<br />
smaller denominations in the<br />
holiness tradition.<br />
97 Similarly, it is important to act on<br />
the opportunity for more structured<br />
partnerships with the learning<br />
activities of overseas Partner<br />
Churches. Over recent months,<br />
several of our institutions have<br />
sought to implement exchange<br />
programmes with seminaries which<br />
serve the United <strong>Methodist</strong> Church,<br />
with positive results. During the<br />
same period the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church<br />
in Britain has been approached by<br />
learning institutions which serve<br />
other Partner Churches seeking<br />
national partnerships and structured<br />
collaboration. There are rich<br />
opportunities here for the <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Church to be able to respond to the<br />
desire of our partners for a richer<br />
and more accessible British base – a<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 675
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
base at which the <strong>Methodist</strong> family<br />
can gather and within which insights<br />
and challenges from across the world<br />
can be shared and nurtured.<br />
Making the most of our people<br />
98 The resources of skilled and<br />
knowledgeable staff in institutions<br />
and in regional and District teams<br />
have been a catalyst for many<br />
developments within the life of the<br />
Church in recent years. The role of<br />
tutors in developing supervision<br />
courses for Superintendents, the<br />
role of District Development Enablers<br />
in the Regrouping for Mission:<br />
Mapping a Way Forward process,<br />
and the role of a range of officers in<br />
delivering EDEV pathways are three<br />
examples of activities which have<br />
made a real impact within Circuits<br />
and Local Churches. Expert staff<br />
have been able to operate effectively<br />
to enable connexional priorities<br />
to be interpreted contextually and<br />
appropriately within Local Churches,<br />
Circuits and Districts.<br />
99 As the funding packages for some<br />
of these posts come to an end, it is<br />
important to seek a secure footing for<br />
some of these activities in the future.<br />
As this is done, it will be important<br />
to include, alongside paid staff, the<br />
great contribution made by volunteers<br />
within the life of the Church. In this<br />
area, as in many others, building<br />
up effective teams of lay, ordained,<br />
salaried and volunteer individuals will<br />
be crucial for future effectiveness and<br />
sustainability.<br />
Learning in communities<br />
100 An important opportunity arises<br />
from the hunger discerned across<br />
the Connexion for more of the work<br />
of learning and formation to take<br />
place within a greater number of<br />
communities. Such an appetite is,<br />
in many ways, a natural corollary of<br />
an emphasis on the Church as a<br />
discipleship movement shaped for<br />
mission. This invites the widest range<br />
of people to receive and share in the<br />
ministry of God, and invites the whole<br />
Connexion, in turn, to prioritise the<br />
wherewithal to equip and resource<br />
this vibrant activity.<br />
101 The result is a need for resources<br />
to be deployed to sustain or<br />
create a wide range of formational<br />
communities. In addition to the<br />
collegiate communities at institutions,<br />
colleges and centres, and in addition<br />
to the ad hoc gathered communities<br />
required for certain training events,<br />
there is a widely-discerned desire<br />
to nurture and sustain formational<br />
communities within the Circuit,<br />
District or region, and as web-based<br />
virtual communities. Our tradition<br />
of small groups, classes and bands<br />
gives us rich examples of what<br />
it means to have and to support<br />
formational communities within the<br />
life of Circuits and Local Churches.<br />
102 A vision for a wider and more<br />
dispersed group of learners chimes<br />
with the desires expressed both<br />
by student ministers and also by<br />
institutions, colleges and centres<br />
676 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
for a greater proportion of formal<br />
learning activity to take place in local<br />
contexts. There will always be a place<br />
for institutions, colleges and centres<br />
configured as stable communities<br />
of faith and formation. However,<br />
qualitative evidence also suggests a<br />
growing desire within the <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Church for the development of<br />
distributive learning programmes,<br />
where learning for lay and ordained<br />
people has, as its primary locus, the<br />
context in which ministry is being<br />
exercised and in which disciples are<br />
being formed.<br />
Local Preachers and Worship Leaders – a<br />
case study<br />
103 Patterns of resourcing and ministry<br />
across the Connexion are changing,<br />
and the support offered to emerging<br />
expressions of ministry must be<br />
effective and apposite. However,<br />
there is an equal need to provide<br />
support of the highest quality for<br />
established ministries within the life<br />
of the Church. Local Preachers and<br />
Worship Leaders make an immense<br />
contribution to the life of the<br />
Connexion. It is hard to overestimate<br />
the strategic importance of these<br />
ministries as a crucial public face<br />
of the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church, and as<br />
catalysts for the discipleship and<br />
mission of the whole people of<br />
God. This sub-section looks at the<br />
particular challenges of the Church’s<br />
existing arrangements for forming and<br />
training those called to preach and<br />
lead worship.<br />
104 The existing pathways for Local<br />
Preachers and Worship Leaders are<br />
outlined above in paragraphs 52-53.<br />
A proportion of people report a very<br />
positive experience of the current<br />
mainstream courses: Faith & Worship<br />
and the Worship Leaders Training<br />
Pack. However, there is widespread<br />
acknowledgement that existing<br />
pathways for forming and training<br />
Local Preachers and Worship Leaders<br />
need significant revision. This is<br />
seen in the number of Memorials to<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> addressing this area in<br />
recent years, as well as in the results<br />
of several consultation processes<br />
which have informed this section of<br />
the report.<br />
105 Some concerns focus on the<br />
accessibility of the pathways which<br />
are offered. This is particularly<br />
the case for pathways for forming<br />
and training Local Preachers.<br />
Although many people report that<br />
studying Faith & Worship was a good<br />
experience, at least a comparable<br />
number say that Faith & Worship has<br />
been a significant barrier or hurdle.<br />
105.1 Much of this may be to do with<br />
learning styles that do not match<br />
the way in which Faith & Worship<br />
is delivered and assessed. Some<br />
tutors manage to do excellent work<br />
in adapting delivery and supporting<br />
those on note and on trial in their<br />
care. However, there is evidence that<br />
considerable numbers of people<br />
who sense a call to preach find Faith<br />
& Worship an unrealistically timeconsuming<br />
process. It was originally<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 677
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
intended that Faith & Worship would<br />
take, on average, two years to<br />
complete. Based on connexional<br />
data for the 990 people who went<br />
on note from January 2000 onwards<br />
and have since been accredited as<br />
Local Preachers, the average time<br />
to complete is now a little over four<br />
years and four months (from on note<br />
to admittance), with an average of<br />
nine and a half months of that time<br />
on note. Nearly a fifth (191) required<br />
an extension to the five-year limit.<br />
One participant in a consultation<br />
meeting noted that “I felt a strong<br />
call to preach but the course was too<br />
much to cope with whilst having a<br />
young family... I felt extremely guilty<br />
stopping the preaching but that didn’t<br />
mean I was no longer called, it just<br />
meant that the time was difficult.”<br />
105.2 Others find Faith & Worship too ‘academic‘<br />
– which, when this is explored<br />
further with those expressing dissatisfaction,<br />
is not a criticism of a pathway<br />
which has theological depth and<br />
rigour, but a concern about the style<br />
of formation, training and assessment.<br />
Faith & Worship “only has one<br />
learning style: reading and writing,”<br />
says one person who was consulted;<br />
“this isn’t how I learn.” “The course<br />
material is dry and boring – it needs<br />
bringing alive,” noted another who<br />
was consulted. Another noted that<br />
Faith & Worship and its assessment<br />
“is based too much on words... When<br />
submitting details of my service I can<br />
only supply the written script which<br />
takes no account of the slides and<br />
music that I used.”<br />
105.3 Various groups find the style of Faith<br />
& Worship particularly inaccessible,<br />
including: (a) younger people,<br />
whose experience is usually of a<br />
very different style of education; (b)<br />
people with less experience of formal<br />
learning; (c) those with dyslexia;<br />
and (d) people for whom English is<br />
an additional language (who may be<br />
competent speakers of English, but<br />
find it difficult to study and write in<br />
English).<br />
105.4 It is worth noting that becoming a<br />
Local Preacher is a pre-requisite<br />
for being recommended to the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> as a candidate for<br />
presbyteral ministry, so potential<br />
hurdles for preachers also inevitably<br />
hinder people following a call to<br />
presbyteral ministry.<br />
105.5 As well as affecting the lives and<br />
calling of these individuals, there<br />
is a particular and specific impact<br />
on some linguistic and culturallydistinctive<br />
fellowships and societies,<br />
who report difficulty in finding<br />
preachers, or in offering accessible<br />
pathways for those within their<br />
congregations who discern a call to<br />
preach.<br />
105.6 Given these pressures, some fail to<br />
complete Faith & Worship. It should<br />
be acknowledged that any discerning<br />
formational process, however<br />
accessible, will result in a proportion<br />
of people deciding that preaching<br />
is not for them. However, stories<br />
have been shared about preachers<br />
’dropping out‘ because they run out<br />
678 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
of time, will and energy, rather than<br />
through positively discerning that their<br />
call lies elsewhere. This is not helpful<br />
pastorally, and does not demonstrate<br />
a godly valuing of the people involved.<br />
106 Other concerns focus on the content<br />
of Faith & Worship and the Worship<br />
Leaders Training Pack. New forms<br />
of worship have developed that<br />
were not envisaged at the time<br />
the materials were written, and<br />
both Local Preachers and Worship<br />
Leaders find themselves operating in<br />
contexts which are very different from<br />
those of 20 years ago. New hymns,<br />
worship styles and technological<br />
developments also have an impact<br />
on the way we worship. There is an<br />
increased awareness of the need to<br />
lead effective worship at services<br />
intended primarily for young people.<br />
Some areas of life and worship<br />
that are increasingly significant (for<br />
example all-age worship, declining<br />
levels of biblical literacy, or living<br />
in a multi-faith society) have a<br />
relatively low profile in the study<br />
materials. Equipping Local Preachers<br />
and Worship Leaders to become<br />
reflective practitioners is a key factor<br />
in enabling ministry in increasingly<br />
diverse contexts.<br />
107 Other concerns focus on the<br />
preparation offered for collaborative<br />
working between ministries. The<br />
authorisation of Worship Leaders is a<br />
relatively new development in the life<br />
of the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church. Pathways for<br />
forming and training Worship Leaders<br />
have developed independently from<br />
those for Local Preachers, but, given<br />
the overlap of the roles, it may be<br />
appropriate for common elements<br />
to be shared. This also presents an<br />
opportunity to see pathways shared<br />
with those who are being formed<br />
or trained for other ministries or<br />
roles. Moreover, there is a crucially<br />
important opportunity here to see<br />
pathways shared with the wider<br />
Circuit and Local Church community,<br />
and to configure and present some of<br />
these pathways as opportunities to<br />
deepen discipleship and knowledge<br />
of the story of the faith.<br />
108 Other concerns focus on supporting<br />
the delivery and resourcing of the<br />
pathways. Many tutors do excellent<br />
work, but some Circuits have difficulty<br />
recruiting tutors, and there is a<br />
lack of support and development<br />
opportunities for tutors themselves.<br />
Group study can often offer the better<br />
experience for most people, but many<br />
of those on trial report a sense of<br />
isolation, and the existing system<br />
does little proactively to encourage<br />
the establishment of cohorts or<br />
groups across a wider area than the<br />
Circuit. The potential for the use of<br />
virtual learning environments has<br />
grown, and needs to be explored<br />
alongside more traditional delivery<br />
methods.<br />
109 Other concerns have focused on<br />
the emphasis placed, in the case<br />
of Local Preachers, on onerous<br />
initial formation and training, which<br />
potentially results in a diminished<br />
emphasis on continuing development.<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 679
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
In a fast-changing world there is<br />
a need to find ways of promoting,<br />
resourcing and enabling continuing<br />
development for existing Local<br />
Preachers and Worship Leaders.<br />
110 Finally, consultations highlight<br />
concerns about perceptions. For<br />
many people across the Connexion,<br />
Faith & Worship is no longer an<br />
attractive and energising proposition.<br />
However, there are also some who<br />
are positive about Faith & Worship,<br />
and suspicious of “alternative routes”<br />
and changes that they perceive as a<br />
“dumbing down” of the formation and<br />
training of preachers. An urgent and<br />
comprehensive solution is required,<br />
and the report returns to this matter<br />
specifically in paragraphs 132-147.<br />
111 This case study demonstrates<br />
an area of particular need. More<br />
generally, it also demonstrates the<br />
need to dedicate greater resources<br />
to support strategically important<br />
but historically under-supported<br />
ministries within the life of the<br />
Connexion. However, it also begins<br />
to indicate some of the benefits<br />
which may accrue for the <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
people if it is possible to weave<br />
together the resources and the<br />
skills which successful formation<br />
and training require. By coordinating<br />
and networking these resources and<br />
skills, and by prioritising collaboration<br />
and openness in their ongoing use,<br />
it is possible to see energy for<br />
formation and training being shared<br />
widely and generously within and<br />
across the lives of Circuits and Local<br />
Churches. These motifs are explored<br />
further in section G below.<br />
Section F: Steps towards a Way Forward<br />
112 Section C has already outlined the<br />
processes which the Committee<br />
adopted during the current<br />
connexional year. A central<br />
component of the committee’s<br />
work was the production of two key<br />
public documents, one of which<br />
shared a vision of the future and<br />
invited comments from all interested<br />
parties, and the second of which<br />
offered a response to the comments<br />
shared with the Committee about<br />
its vision. The full versions of the<br />
documents remain available at<br />
www.methodist.org.uk/fruitfulfield.<br />
This section contains extracts from<br />
these two documents, thereby<br />
formally placing these elements of<br />
the Committee’s work before the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong>.<br />
The vision outlined in the consultation<br />
document<br />
113 The consultation document<br />
published in October 2011<br />
concluded by outlining the<br />
Ministries Committee’s vision for<br />
the future of the Church’s priorities,<br />
commitments and resources in the<br />
fields of formation, learning, training,<br />
theological education, scholarship,<br />
research and development. It did so<br />
as follows:<br />
680 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
Pathways<br />
113.1 We should seek to establish high quality, flexible connexional pathways, which<br />
can be delivered in a number of different communities and contexts, and which<br />
meet the needs of a discipleship movement shaped for mission and the needs<br />
of the ministries of the whole people of God.<br />
Why?<br />
113.2 We envisage pathways which help us as a Church to become a better<br />
discipleship movement shaped for mission. We therefore envisage pathways<br />
which help to deepen the discipleship of the <strong>Methodist</strong> people. We envisage<br />
pathways which will help us to be more confident in making new disciples of<br />
Jesus Christ. We envisage pathways which can equip and nurture the<br />
ministries of the whole people of God – including the ministry of Circuit<br />
leadership teams, small group leaders, Local Preachers and Worship Leaders,<br />
ministry among children and young adults, and the ministry of those in pastoral<br />
roles. We envisage pathways which will help us to identify, train and resource<br />
those appointed to be Superintendent ministers. We envisage pathways which<br />
serve a new world where ‘pastoral charge’ is also necessarily ‘missional<br />
charge’ – pathways which will help all who exercise ministries within the life of<br />
our Church to provide a renewed focus of pastoral and missional identity within<br />
our churches and communities. We envisage pathways which equip and support<br />
the patterns of leadership required to sustain the growth and development<br />
of fresh expressions of Church and the new communities which are flowering<br />
among us. We envisage pathways which will support the work of the Connexion<br />
as we seek to revitalise our worship, enhance our evangelism and make better<br />
use of our resources for kingdom purposes.<br />
113.3 We envisage pathways which can be delivered in a number of different<br />
communities – the local community of the Circuit, the regional community of<br />
the District or region, the virtual community of the Internet, and the gathered<br />
community of a learning hub. We envisage pathways which can be delivered<br />
by a number of different people and by effective teams of lay, ordained,<br />
salaried and volunteer individuals.<br />
113.4 We envisage pathways which are flexible and coherent enough to encourage<br />
and enable initial and continuing learning. Whereas our existing learning<br />
pathways (for example, for Local Preachers) focus on initial learning, having<br />
flexible and coherent pathways for continuing and ongoing learning will enable<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 681
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
greater access and a more balanced pattern of growth and development in<br />
ministry over several years.<br />
113.5 We envisage pathways of a consistently high quality, which are supported by<br />
sufficient resources to ensure that quality can continually be assessed and<br />
enhanced.<br />
What else did we consider?<br />
113.6 We considered maintaining our existing ad hoc approach to the development<br />
of pathways. New pathways are currently developed by individuals or groups<br />
within Local Churches, Circuits, Districts, learning institutions and the<br />
Connexional Team in response to a discerned need. Such developments can<br />
easily be reactive, as opposed to being a proactive response designed to help<br />
us meet declared outcomes or visions. Such developments can also frequently<br />
lead to under-resourced pathways being developed simultaneously across the<br />
Connexion, with insufficient sharing of knowledge and skills. Such an approach<br />
can easily starve new developments – such as online learning – of the energy<br />
and resources required to get them off the ground. We envisaged that the<br />
coherence which would be provided by the establishment of connexional<br />
pathways would release energy and enable much greater collaboration.<br />
People<br />
113.7 We should seek to establish a single connexional network of skilled and<br />
knowledgeable staff, including both regional staff (coordinated and resourced<br />
within regional teams) and tutorial staff based in a learning hub.<br />
Why?<br />
113.8 Connexional: We envisage a network which is focused on the priorities of the<br />
Church – focused on equipping the Church, equipping the <strong>Methodist</strong> movement,<br />
and equipping God’s people. We envisage a network which is coherently<br />
coordinated so as to enable information to be shared between colleagues<br />
(both tutors and trainers) and across regional and institutional boundaries. We<br />
envisage this contributing to the design and implementation of connexional<br />
pathways, and avoiding duplication of work. We envisage some of the energy<br />
released by this way of working enabling a greater focus on the needs of<br />
Circuits and Local Churches.<br />
682 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
113.9 Open: We envisage a network which shares its knowledge and skills with lay,<br />
ordained, salaried and volunteer individuals across the Connexion, and which<br />
learns from their experiences. We envisage a network with the capacity to<br />
nurture effective links with ecumenical partners within regions and localities,<br />
taking the initiative to instigate and create such links where they don’t already<br />
exist. We envisage a network which can develop knowledge of and links with<br />
best practice both within and outside the Church.<br />
113.10 Broad: We envisage a network which includes a broad range of knowledge<br />
and skills among its practitioners in the fields of learning, formation, training,<br />
theological education and development. We envisage a network which has the<br />
capacity to make the Church think, and to do some creative thinking and some<br />
detailed research and development on the Church’s behalf. We envisage a<br />
network which can continue to assist our Districts, Circuits and Local Churches<br />
as they change and grow. We envisage a network which can strive to be<br />
representative of the diversity of the Church, and which can engage with the<br />
diversity of the Church, helping us all to belong together.<br />
113.11 Sustainable: We envisage a network marked by warm colleagueship,<br />
collaboration and mutual support. We envisage a network which draws on the<br />
experience of good and weak practice over recent years, so as to minimise the<br />
need for radical overhaul in the near future. We envisage a network which, as<br />
an organic unit, can respond in an evolutionary manner to the changing needs<br />
of the Church.<br />
113.12 Excellent: We envisage a network made up of appropriately qualified<br />
practitioners, ably managed and coordinated. We envisage a network of<br />
individuals interested in their own professional development, and whose<br />
professional development is resourced. We envisage a network which can<br />
create and sustain an ethos of quality assurance and enhancement – a<br />
network which can design, deliver and offer pathways of the highest quality<br />
for the <strong>Methodist</strong> people.<br />
What else did we consider?<br />
113.13 We considered a radical reduction in the level of connexional resources<br />
dedicated to dispersed staff posts. We recognised the financial savings which<br />
this would produce, and we envisaged that some Districts would be able to<br />
resource some provision from their own funds. However we also acknowledged<br />
the level of acceptance and high regard for dispersed officers which has grown<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 683
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
<br />
since the creation of Training and Development Officers in 1996. We also<br />
acknowledged the ethos of connexionalism which undergirds the provision of<br />
such officers, funded from connexional resources and distributed with a degree<br />
of parity across the Connexion. We also acknowledged a crucial role for a<br />
dispersed staff function in supporting a desire to enable greater learning and<br />
development in Circuits and local communities.<br />
113.14 We considered maintaining the status quo, acknowledging that doing so would<br />
see the District Development Enabler and Participation Project Manager posts<br />
cease at the end of the 2012/2013 connexional year. We believed that wider<br />
change should be considered in order not to lose an emphasis on development,<br />
change and growth within our connexional learning resources. We also believed<br />
that wider change was required in order to seek to bring together our tutors and<br />
our dispersed staff within one network. Maintaining the status quo would risk<br />
maintaining an existing divide between ‘tutors’ and ‘trainers’.<br />
113.15 We considered alternative patterns of coordination. We acknowledged that there<br />
would always be a tension between connexional coordination and more local<br />
management patterns. We believed that grouping dispersed staff in regional<br />
teams, while ensuring that those teams were also part of a connexional<br />
network alongside tutorial staff, would sustain the links with local needs<br />
while also enabling involvement in the development and implementation of<br />
connexional pathways and policies. We emphasised the importance of drawing<br />
on the experience of good and weak coordinating practice over recent years.<br />
Places<br />
113.16 We should seek to establish a single connexional hub on one site.<br />
Why?<br />
113.17 Connexional: We envisage a hub which is focused on the priorities of the<br />
Church – focused on equipping the Church, equipping the <strong>Methodist</strong> movement,<br />
and equipping God’s people. We envisage a hub which is configured to equip,<br />
support and challenge Circuits in their work of discipleship and mission. We<br />
envisage a hub which is responsive and accountable to the <strong>Conference</strong> – and<br />
whose well-being is also the responsibility of the <strong>Conference</strong>. We envisage<br />
a hub of which the <strong>Methodist</strong> people can be proud – and a hub, at the heart<br />
of a network of learning, which can worthily appeal to the generosity of the<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> people for support. We acknowledge that such a hub will play a new<br />
684 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
and distinctive part in the life of our Connexion, and envisage much care being<br />
taken to locate its activity and charisms within our existing patterns of life,<br />
witness and leadership.<br />
113.18 Open: We envisage a hub which can choose to dedicate its resources to initiate<br />
and sustain key partnerships. We envisage a hub which is open to links with<br />
partner denominations and with Partner Churches, at home and overseas. We<br />
envisage a hub which can nurture intentional and mutually-beneficial links with<br />
the Higher Education sector, allowing the Church to listen to and learn from<br />
theologians and academics in the secular sphere, and enabling the Church to<br />
contribute to the discourses of academic theology and professional practice.<br />
We envisage a hub which can help the Church to be a presence in the world,<br />
not least by helping the Church to update its apologetic and to exist in places<br />
where culture is formed.<br />
113.19 Broad: We envisage a hub which has the capacity to engage in activities across<br />
the fields of learning, formation, training, theological education, scholarship,<br />
research and development. We envisage a hub which is comfortable equipping<br />
the discipleship of the <strong>Methodist</strong> people, and which is comfortable supporting<br />
both lay and ordained ministry. We envisage a hub which, working through the<br />
connexional network of skilled and knowledgeable staff, can have an impact<br />
across the Connexion. We envisage a hub which is representative of the<br />
theological breadth of Methodism. We envisage a hub which can strive to be<br />
representative of the diversity of the Church, and which can engage with the<br />
diversity of the Church, helping us all to belong together.<br />
113.20 Sustainable: We envisage a hub with a sound educational and business model,<br />
set up to succeed for 25-35 years, not 3 or 5. We envisage a hub which, as an<br />
organic unit, can respond in an evolutionary manner to the changing needs of<br />
the Church.<br />
113.21 Excellent: We envisage a hub which is an excellent environment for learning<br />
and formation. We envisage a hub which can offer accessible hospitality to the<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> people, and to our partners, colleagues and friends. We envisage<br />
a hub which, through the design and operation of its premises, helps us to<br />
reduce our carbon footprint. We envisage a hub steeped in an ethos of quality<br />
assurance and enhancement, designing, delivering and offering pathways<br />
of the highest quality for the <strong>Methodist</strong> people. We envisage a hub which<br />
can be a beacon of excellence for the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church and even for other<br />
denominations and traditions.<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 685
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
113.22 We acknowledged the advantages of locating the hub within a new and<br />
customised space, designed and properly configured to meet today’s learning<br />
needs. We acknowledged that energy and resources might be released by<br />
the creation of the hub on a new site. We considered issues of geographical<br />
location and accessibility. However we did not move to make a recommendation<br />
at this stage, as it was our preference to focus in the first instance on the<br />
principles and ethos of the hub and on the needs which it will meet, before<br />
moving on to consider the secondary issues of location and configuration.<br />
What else did we consider?<br />
113.23 We considered the radical option of not maintaining any connexional hub or<br />
learning institution, relying instead on patterns of regional and dispersed<br />
learning supported through a range of networks and partnerships. However<br />
we acknowledged our tradition of gathering together connexionally and our<br />
need for a place which can help us to be formed as connexional people. We<br />
acknowledged that the ability to offer connexional hospitality of this sort was<br />
not only important for our common life, but as a base from which to build<br />
relationships with partner denominations and Partner Churches. We also<br />
acknowledged the pragmatic need to house and care for the physical resources<br />
which we presently hold connexionally, including libraries and collections.<br />
113.24 We considered maintaining the status quo, acknowledging that budgeting<br />
pressures and issues of institutional viability would, in all likelihood, lead to<br />
some attrition and institutional failure over coming years. Such an outcome<br />
would inevitably prove very painful for the institutions concerned. We wished to<br />
exercise our duty of care for our institutions in a more proactive, strategic and<br />
holistic manner than could be envisaged within such a laissez-faire approach.<br />
Maintaining the status quo would also potentially mean that the Connexion<br />
would be forced to revisit the issue of the use of learning institutions again in<br />
the near future, as several systemic challenges would be left unaddressed. We<br />
were eager to identify a vision at this stage which had lasting potential and the<br />
promise of stability.<br />
113.25 We grouped our existing institutions in various ways, and considered alternative<br />
patterns of future use, favouring some groupings over others. As part of this<br />
exercise we also considered the possibility of supporting more than one<br />
connexional hub. We acknowledged the risks of being tempted by newness,<br />
and we acknowledged the powerful ties of history, tradition, colleagueship and<br />
partnership. However we also acknowledged the territorialism and competition<br />
686 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
which can exist between institutions, and the complications which the Church<br />
faces as it relates to institutions which are differently configured and controlled.<br />
We acknowledged the opportunities and challenges which we face, and<br />
believed that our desire to respond with vigour to the hope set before us made<br />
the identification or establishment of more than one hub counter-intuitive.<br />
The reflections contained in the interim<br />
response to the consultation<br />
114 In February 2012, the Committee<br />
published an interim response to the<br />
consultation. The document began<br />
by summarising the key reflections<br />
drawn by the Ministries Committee<br />
from the consultation submissions.<br />
It did so as follows:<br />
Pathways: Opportunities, programmes and resources<br />
114.1 The consultation submissions have helped the Ministries Committee to discern<br />
the importance of pathways, opportunities, programmes and resources which:<br />
(a) have at their heart a commitment to the formation of transformed and<br />
transforming disciples, ministries and communities; (b) are drawn from a deep<br />
understanding of the missiological and ecclesiological purpose of the <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Church; (c) are focused on equipping God’s people to be Christ-like disciples<br />
in the world; (d) are focused on equipping those called to a wide range of<br />
ministries within the Church; (e) support change, growth and organisational<br />
development within and across Circuits and Local Churches; (f) encourage<br />
widespread participation by being accessible, contextual, responsive, wellcommunicated<br />
and excellent; (g) are developed through interactive relationships<br />
and dialogue with local communities – their diverse and continually developing<br />
contexts, needs and aspirations; (h) are coherent and comprehensive,<br />
incorporating the breadth and diversity of Methodism; (i) can be experienced<br />
and delivered through a range of methods and in diverse contexts, including<br />
within and across Circuits and Local Churches, and in virtual learning<br />
environments; (j) enable practice-based formation for a significant number of<br />
student ministers preparing for ordained ministry; (k) emphasise ongoing (as<br />
well as initial) formation within a wide range of ministries; (l) nurture apt and<br />
excellent scholarship and research, in partnership with the Higher Education<br />
sector; (m) can be developed alongside and shared with ecumenical partners<br />
wherever possible; (n) are authorised in an appropriate manner.<br />
114.2 The Committee will therefore: (o) oversee work to identify and develop the<br />
principles and values of such pathways; (p) oversee work to identify and develop<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 687
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
a framework and scenarios for such pathways, with an emphasis in the first<br />
instance on contemporary discipleship formation, formation for accredited lay<br />
ministries (including Local Preachers and Worship Leaders) and initial<br />
ministerial formation; (q) oversee work to develop these principles, values<br />
and frameworks in collaboration with ecumenical partners.<br />
People: A team of expert staff<br />
114.3 The consultation submissions have helped the Ministries Committee to<br />
discern the importance of a team of expert staff: (a) which has at its heart<br />
a commitment to the formation of transformed and transforming disciples,<br />
ministries and communities; (b) which has an intentional impact within Local<br />
Churches and Circuits; (c) with skills across the team in formation, learning,<br />
training, theological education, scholarship and organisational development;<br />
(d) which is connexionally coordinated and developed; (e) which has both a<br />
dispersed presence across the Connexion (including across and within the<br />
nations and jurisdictions of the Connexion), and a gathered presence across<br />
and within centres; (f) which builds on current strengths and good practice<br />
across the Connexion.<br />
114.4 The Committee will therefore oversee work to develop and cost a model for<br />
such a team.<br />
Places: Centres and spaces<br />
114.5 The consultation submissions have helped the Committee to discern: (a)<br />
the importance of places, centres and spaces which have at their heart a<br />
commitment to the formation of transformed and transforming disciples,<br />
ministries and communities; (b) the importance of nurturing Learning Churches<br />
and Circuits as beacons of excellence in formation, learning and development;<br />
(c) the need for far-reaching changes to ensure viable, sustainable and excellent<br />
centres which are able to focus on the formation of disciples, ministries and<br />
communities; (d) the importance of effective and intentional connections<br />
between centres and Learning Churches and Circuits; (e) the importance of<br />
centres which can connect with partners across the World Church; (f) the<br />
importance of centres which allow deep sharing with ecumenical partners; (g)<br />
the importance of centres which can nurture apt and excellent scholarship and<br />
research, in partnership with the Higher Education sector; (h) the importance<br />
of centres which can appropriately house connexional archives and other<br />
historic resources; (i) the need for a shared and common governance framework<br />
688 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
for all centres; (j) the need for a range of spaces for formation, learning and<br />
development across the Connexion; (k) the importance of learning from current<br />
strengths and good practice; (l) the importance of and demand for the work of<br />
Cliff College, especially in the field of mission and evangelism, and especially in<br />
the field of lay formation.<br />
114.6 The Committee will therefore oversee work to investigate: (m) ways of enabling<br />
Learning Churches and Circuits to develop as beacons of excellence in<br />
formation, learning and development; (n) the feasibility and configuration of<br />
two connexional centres which (i) are communities of faith with expertise<br />
in formation, learning, training, theological education, scholarship and<br />
organisational development; (ii) have at their heart the formation of disciples,<br />
ministries and communities; (iii) are interconnected with Learning Churches<br />
and Circuits; and (iv) share a common governance framework and staff team;<br />
(o) the feasibility and configuration of other appropriate and effective spaces<br />
for formation, learning and development across the Connexion, also overseen<br />
within a common framework; (p) the feasibility of enabling much greater use<br />
of virtual learning environments as virtual spaces for formation, learning and<br />
development; (q) ways of capturing and learning from current strengths and<br />
good practice; (r) the ways in which Cliff College can be best resourced and<br />
developed in order to continue its work and take its place as one of the two<br />
connexional centres.<br />
Change and transition<br />
114.7 The consultation submissions have helped the Committee: (a) to discern the<br />
importance of a flexible yet stable overall framework, which is both responsive<br />
to the needs of the Church as well as being capable of nurturing deep and<br />
transforming experiences and communities; (b) to understand the pressures<br />
and insecurities which a number of colleagues and institutions are facing at<br />
this time; (c) to appreciate that the work of The Fruitful Field should not add<br />
any more insecurity than is strictly necessary to these existing pressures; (d)<br />
to discern that far-reaching changes, which will have a significant impact on<br />
current arrangements and partnerships, are nevertheless necessary; (e) to<br />
discern and appreciate the need for careful investigation of the implications of<br />
the changes which the Committee will propose in this area.<br />
114.8 The Committee will therefore oversee detailed work to investigate the<br />
financial and infrastructural implications of the changes implied above, so<br />
that transitional arrangements and timelines may be designed and clearly<br />
communicated.<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 689
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
Part 2: Our Recommendations<br />
Section G: A Discipleship and Ministries<br />
Learning Network<br />
Recommendation: The establishment of<br />
the Discipleship and Ministries Learning<br />
Network.<br />
115 The Ministries Committee has<br />
sought to “be ardent in spirit” over<br />
recent months. We have sought to<br />
engage prayerfully and thoroughly<br />
with significant quantities of data and<br />
analysis drawn from a wide range of<br />
sources. We have sought to do justice<br />
to the information and the reflections<br />
which were shared with us during the<br />
consultation period and beyond. We<br />
have sought to keep before God in<br />
prayer all those who are likely to be<br />
affected by our recommendations.<br />
Above all we have sought the Spirit’s<br />
guidance in our discerning and our<br />
conferring.<br />
116 The outcome of our reflections<br />
and deliberations is a primary and<br />
over-arching recommendation: the<br />
establishment of the Discipleship<br />
and Ministries Learning Network. The<br />
Network is a gathering together of<br />
pathways, opportunities, programmes<br />
and resources; it is a connecting<br />
together of expert resources: staff,<br />
spaces, centres, funds and assets;<br />
it is a means of coordinating the<br />
development and delivery of a<br />
range of pathways, opportunities,<br />
programmes and resources; it is a<br />
sharing of energy, enthusiasm and<br />
Purposes<br />
expertise across the Connexion to<br />
better serve the <strong>Methodist</strong> people.<br />
117 We recommend that the purposes<br />
of the Discipleship and Ministries<br />
Learning Network should be as<br />
follows:<br />
Discipleship development<br />
118 The first core purpose of the<br />
Network is to support discipleship<br />
development across the Connexion:<br />
supporting Circuits and Local<br />
Churches to nurture and equip the<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> people to be Christ-like<br />
disciples in an often un-Christ-like<br />
but never Christ-less world. “Do not<br />
be conformed to this world, but be<br />
transformed by the renewing of your<br />
minds, so that you may discern what<br />
is the will of God – what is good and<br />
acceptable and perfect.” 14<br />
119 As a submission from a grouping<br />
of Superintendents made during<br />
the consultation period noted, “it is<br />
important that the whole people of<br />
God are offered learning pathways.<br />
It is right to end any suggestion that<br />
only ministers matter. Equipping<br />
people to engage in ministry both in<br />
church but, even more importantly, in<br />
their everyday life and work is vital.”<br />
This will involve, as a regional forum’s<br />
submission noted, a “re-focussing [of]<br />
resources on the spiritual formation<br />
of lay people as disciples and<br />
14<br />
Romans 12:2<br />
690 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
evangelists, thus making concrete<br />
the <strong>Methodist</strong> commitment to the<br />
ministry of the whole people of God.”<br />
Ministry development<br />
120 The second core purpose of the<br />
Network is to support ministry<br />
development, in all its forms, across<br />
the Connexion: forming and equipping<br />
lay and ordained <strong>Methodist</strong>s who<br />
share in the ministry of God within<br />
the life of the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church to<br />
be effective leaders, servants and<br />
partners in God’s mission. “For as in<br />
one body we have many members,<br />
and not all the members have the<br />
same function, so we, who are many,<br />
are one body in Christ, and individually<br />
we are members one of another.<br />
We have gifts that differ according<br />
to the grace given to us: prophecy,<br />
in proportion to faith; ministry, in<br />
ministering; the teacher, in teaching;<br />
the exhorter, in exhortation; the giver,<br />
in generosity; the leader, in diligence;<br />
the compassionate, in cheerfulness.” 15<br />
121 Submissions received during the<br />
consultation period noted the need<br />
to support the development of those<br />
exercising a wide range of ministries<br />
and roles within, and reaching beyond,<br />
the life of the Church. These ministries<br />
and roles include those of deacons,<br />
presbyters, those preparing for<br />
ordained ministry, and those holding<br />
office as Superintendents and District<br />
Chairs. As a tutor’s submission noted,<br />
“if initial theological education of<br />
student ministers does its job properly,<br />
it will equip [ordained ministers] as<br />
a theological resource for the whole<br />
people of God: they become those<br />
who can, as part of their role, enable<br />
the formation of disciples of Jesus<br />
Christ.”<br />
122 However, submissions received during<br />
the consultation period also noted<br />
other ministries and roles which<br />
must, with equal care and dedication,<br />
be supported by the Network. Among<br />
the ministries and roles identified<br />
were those of Local Preachers;<br />
Worship Leaders; Circuit and Church<br />
Stewards; children, youth and family<br />
workers; chaplains, evangelists<br />
and outreach workers; lay pastoral<br />
ministers and leaders; small group<br />
leaders; class leaders and pastoral<br />
visitors; administrators; Circuit and<br />
District Treasurers; safeguarding<br />
officers; and those who are members<br />
of Circuit and District leadership<br />
teams. The consultation submissions<br />
also emphasised the importance<br />
of support for those who undertake<br />
these ministries and roles as<br />
volunteers, as well as those who are<br />
salaried or supported by stipends.<br />
Church and community development<br />
123 The third core purpose of the<br />
Network is to support church and<br />
community development across the<br />
Connexion: challenging and equipping<br />
Circuits and Local Churches as they<br />
change and grow as mission-focused<br />
15<br />
Romans 12:4-8<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 691
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
Christian communities of faith, hope<br />
and love. “Do not lag in zeal, be ardent<br />
in spirit, serve the Lord.” 16<br />
124 As a submission made by a District<br />
officer noted, it is important to<br />
support Circuits and Local Churches<br />
as they “reflect on the nature of<br />
their current discipleship, on their<br />
engagement with mission in their<br />
localities, and on how the Circuits<br />
and Local Churches need to make<br />
changes to the way in which they<br />
have operated in recent decades, in<br />
order to face up to the challenges<br />
of being Methodism in the current<br />
century.” Support offered here will,<br />
as a District officer’s submission<br />
noted, need to “recognise the impact<br />
of recent and on-going changes in<br />
ministry within Circuits. The Church<br />
will need ordained and lay people<br />
who are trained in approaches to<br />
collaborative ministry (in all its<br />
forms) in the new types of Circuit<br />
and Circuit missional aims and<br />
structures which are emerging in very<br />
different ways across the Connexion.<br />
This includes very different sizes of<br />
Circuits in different places, for good<br />
missional reasons. The pattern of<br />
the Church across the Circuits is now<br />
far less homogeneous and far more<br />
complex, with the level of complexity<br />
and difference developing rapidly.”<br />
The focus must be on the missionfocused<br />
context of Circuits and Local<br />
Churches, and on supporting apt and<br />
effective witness and presence in<br />
changing circumstances. As a District<br />
officer’s submission noted, “to be a<br />
discipleship movement shaped for<br />
mission that will be here in 20 to 30<br />
years time, the Church, and therefore<br />
its training and development, needs<br />
to be culturally and contextually<br />
relevant to the emerging cultures.”<br />
Scholarship, research and innovation<br />
125 The final core purpose of the Network<br />
is to nurture apt and excellent<br />
scholarship, research and innovation<br />
within the Network to inform, equip<br />
and challenge the Connexion:<br />
supporting academic studies and<br />
research projects, intentionally<br />
enabling and encouraging innovative<br />
and creative thinking across the<br />
Network, and ensuring that insights<br />
and outcomes are shared across and<br />
beyond the Network and the Church.<br />
126 As a submission from a tutor made<br />
during the consultation period noted,<br />
“the jury is out when it comes to<br />
the long term survival of theology<br />
as an academic discipline within the<br />
university. Nevertheless, the Church<br />
should be committed to the highest<br />
form of intellectual inquiry, and this<br />
would undoubtedly remain within<br />
the vocation of some people, places<br />
and pathways, but much more firmly<br />
rooted in the Church.” The <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Church has a strong tradition of work<br />
in this area. A Circuit’s submission<br />
noted that British Methodism has<br />
“punched above its weight” in several<br />
theological disciplines, producing,<br />
16<br />
Romans 12:11<br />
692 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
Values<br />
for example, “...biblical scholars<br />
of international stature such as<br />
Arthur Peake, Norman Snaith, Morna<br />
Hooker or James Dunn. Historically,<br />
the discipleship ethos of British<br />
Methodism has encouraged our<br />
people, ordained and lay (and three of<br />
the above names were not ordained),<br />
to excel in academic and other<br />
study.” Nurturing apt and excellent<br />
scholarship, research and innovation<br />
as a core purpose of the Network<br />
will ensure that these activities<br />
can be supported with renewed<br />
vigour, while also being aligned<br />
with the mission-focused needs of<br />
the Circuits and Local Churches<br />
and the developmental priorities<br />
of contemporary Methodism. By<br />
supporting scholarship, research<br />
and innovation “intentionally and as<br />
part of our missional strategy,” so<br />
might we, in the words of one Circuit’s<br />
submission, “obey the command to<br />
love the Lord our God with all our<br />
mind, as well as with all our heart and<br />
soul and strength.”<br />
127 The Discipleship and Ministries<br />
Learning Network will take the lead<br />
in designing, offering and overseeing<br />
a range of pathways, opportunities,<br />
programmes and resources. We<br />
recommend that these pathways,<br />
opportunities, programmes and<br />
resources should share and<br />
demonstrate the following values:<br />
127.1 They will be accessible, contextual,<br />
responsive, well-communicated,<br />
coherent, comprehensive and<br />
excellent. As a submission from a<br />
Local Preachers’ Meeting noted, it is<br />
important to “recognise and facilitate<br />
a variety of models and styles of<br />
teaching and learning, recognising<br />
that people learn differently.” As<br />
a tutor’s submission noted, “each<br />
element of a pathway [should] contain<br />
a sufficient range of alternative<br />
learning materials to ensure that<br />
different learning styles were taken<br />
into account. For example, the current<br />
Faith & Worship course tends to<br />
assume that all learners complete<br />
similar tasks and exercises. There is<br />
much potential for developing more<br />
creative and varied resources which<br />
give alternative ways for exploring<br />
each element of a topic, enabling<br />
people to engage with the material<br />
in a variety of ways, and helping<br />
people to relate their learning to their<br />
particular circumstances, contexts<br />
and needs.” As a District meeting’s<br />
submission noted, we “need to make<br />
it attractive for people to learn how<br />
to be better stewards, treasurers,<br />
secretaries, etc.”<br />
127.2 They will be developed through<br />
interactive relationships and in<br />
dialogue with local communities<br />
– their diverse and continually<br />
developing contexts, needs and<br />
aspirations. It will be vitally important,<br />
as a submission from a Local<br />
Preachers’ Meeting made during the<br />
consultation period noted, to “listen<br />
to the requests of the churches.”<br />
As a tutor’s submission noted, “if<br />
the whole people of God (in all of<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 693
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
our colourful diversity, dispersed<br />
existence and contextualised<br />
expressions) are to be equipped then<br />
there is arguably no way that this<br />
can be done through a model which<br />
is centralised and homogenised in<br />
its location and expression... To be<br />
truly connexional surely means to<br />
be diversely spread yet purposefully<br />
joined; loosely but vitally connected.”<br />
As a submission from a District<br />
officers’ meeting noted, there will be<br />
a need “to consider the differing local<br />
contexts for mission and ministry and<br />
the impact they should have on the<br />
nature and content of courses and<br />
learning experiences.”<br />
127.3 They will be developed so that they<br />
can be offered through a range of<br />
methods and in diverse contexts,<br />
including within and across Circuits<br />
and Local Churches. This includes<br />
the development of material which<br />
could be offered within a small<br />
group setting, in the context of a<br />
Local Preachers’ Meeting, as a<br />
seasonal study course, as part of<br />
a sermon series, as a day event<br />
organised across a Circuit, District or<br />
region, or through a virtual learning<br />
environment.<br />
127.4 They will emphasise and enable<br />
continuing (as well as initial)<br />
formation for a wide range of<br />
ministries. This includes an emphasis<br />
on the continuing development of<br />
ordained ministers (including those<br />
preparing to undertake the role of<br />
Superintendent), and the continuing<br />
development of those exercising<br />
other ministries and roles within<br />
and beyond the life of the Church<br />
(including Local Preachers and<br />
Worship Leaders).<br />
127.5 They will be developed alongside<br />
and in partnership with ecumenical<br />
partners wherever possible. As<br />
a District officer notes in their<br />
submission made during the<br />
consultation period, “our development<br />
as disciples of Christ has to be<br />
based on a broad awareness of the<br />
Church as a whole, and not just how<br />
we as <strong>Methodist</strong>s understand that<br />
calling.” We also hear with humility<br />
and thankfulness a submission from<br />
a partner organisation, which noted<br />
that “the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church has great<br />
riches to bring to the ‘Kingdom table’,<br />
riches which don’t obviously come<br />
from elsewhere.”<br />
Goals<br />
128 We recommend that some of the<br />
early goals of the Discipleship and<br />
Ministries Learning Network should<br />
be the following:<br />
128.1 Supporting the development of<br />
Learning Circuits and Local Churches<br />
as beacons of excellence. Learning<br />
Circuits and Local Churches<br />
are loving, participative, rooted,<br />
pioneering and contextual church<br />
communities, which are able to<br />
focus their energy and resources<br />
on sustaining an environment which<br />
enables formation, learning and<br />
development. As a submission made<br />
during the consultation period noted,<br />
694 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
“the Church’s resources for formation<br />
should be set within the context of<br />
the whole Church growing in faithful<br />
understanding of God. Just as Jesus<br />
prepared the Twelve for their ministry<br />
by keeping them in close fellowship<br />
with him, so too discipleship today<br />
is typically learnt in a community<br />
environment by people committed to<br />
his fellowship and hence to fellowship<br />
with each other. The essential<br />
principle is that communities of faith,<br />
devotion and shared learning are the<br />
normal context for formation. The<br />
Church, as a community of learning<br />
and understanding, must share with<br />
the academy; as a community of<br />
service it must be deeply engaged<br />
with the life and needs of society;<br />
and as a community of mission it<br />
must know and understand the world<br />
in which it has to reveal the world to<br />
come.” Work in this area will need to<br />
draw on current strengths and good<br />
practice across the Connexion, as<br />
well as identifying necessary cultural<br />
and organisational changes. 17<br />
128.2 Designing and implementing new<br />
pathways, opportunities, programmes<br />
and resources for Local Preachers<br />
and Worship Leaders – see<br />
paragraphs 132-147 below.<br />
128.3 Supporting full-time, residential<br />
pathways and part-time pathways for<br />
those preparing for ordained ministry,<br />
alongside the development of<br />
practice-based formational pathways<br />
for a number of those preparing for<br />
ordained ministry. As a submission<br />
made by a learning institution during<br />
the consultation period noted, “we<br />
believe that the ordained ministers<br />
of the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church as it is<br />
currently constituted are its key<br />
strategic leaders, its core teachers<br />
of sacred memory, and its essential<br />
space-makers for holy imagination.<br />
We believe that to station ministers<br />
in local communities entrusts those<br />
individuals with a great deal of power<br />
and with the authority to act in the<br />
name of the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church and of<br />
God in Christ. We believe that to fail<br />
to train adequately such ministers not<br />
only potentially stunts the mission<br />
of the Church but puts at risk those<br />
whom the Church seeks to serve<br />
in the world.” Alongside this strong<br />
commitment to the importance of<br />
robust pathways for those preparing<br />
for ordained ministry is the need<br />
to ensure that such pathways are<br />
accessible and enable a diverse<br />
range of people to hear and act on<br />
God’s call. As noted in paragraphs<br />
17<br />
The 2009 <strong>Conference</strong>, in Notice of Motion 228 (entitled “Centres of Excellence”), noted that “alongside<br />
the welcome support within the Connexion to develop fresh expressions of church and areas for pioneer<br />
ministry, the <strong>Conference</strong> is concerned also to promote the excellent work being undertaken in Methodism’s<br />
traditional strengths, for example, preaching, social action and discipleship. Such work serves to showcase<br />
Methodism to the wider world, provides hope and encouragement to other <strong>Methodist</strong>s, and opens new<br />
opportunities for engagement and mission. The <strong>Conference</strong> wishes to honour and support such excellence<br />
and is therefore concerned that Circuit structures and the stationing system promote and do not undermine<br />
this work.” Supporting the development of Learning Circuits and Local Churches as beacons of excellence<br />
forms part of the commitment expressed in the Notice of Motion.<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 695
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
100-102 above, and as implied in<br />
the discussion of Learning Circuits<br />
and Local Churches in paragraph<br />
128.1, there is also much to be<br />
gained from the development of<br />
practice-based formational pathways<br />
for a number of those preparing for<br />
ordained ministry. Within this model,<br />
sometimes called “apprenticeshipstyle<br />
formation”, the primary (though<br />
not the sole) context of formation,<br />
learning and development is the<br />
context in which ministry is being<br />
exercised and in which disciples are<br />
being formed. There is a crucial role<br />
for centres and expert staff from<br />
outside the immediate context, as<br />
well as for Learning Circuits and<br />
Local Churches, in supporting and<br />
enabling practice-based formation.<br />
Work in this area will need to draw<br />
on learning and good practice from<br />
ecumenical partners, as well as<br />
identifying necessary internal cultural<br />
and organisational changes.<br />
Further core recommendations<br />
129 In order to enable the Network to fulfil<br />
these purposes and achieve these<br />
goals, the Committee makes four<br />
further core recommendations. To<br />
each of these core recommendations<br />
we have dedicated a section of<br />
our report. Within each section,<br />
we outline the changes and<br />
developments which will be required<br />
to enable the respective core<br />
recommendation to be adopted,<br />
embraced and embedded within the<br />
life of the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church.<br />
130 Our core recommendations are:<br />
l<br />
l<br />
l<br />
l<br />
The establishment of a<br />
Discipleship and Ministries<br />
Learning Network staff team,<br />
located across the Connexion<br />
and serving the whole Church –<br />
see section H<br />
The identification of appropriate<br />
gathering spaces for formation,<br />
learning and development<br />
across the Connexion, and the<br />
development of a virtual space<br />
for formation, learning and<br />
development – see section I<br />
The establishment of two<br />
connexional centres, one based<br />
at Cliff College and the other<br />
based at the Queen’s Foundation<br />
– see section J<br />
The establishment of a single<br />
governance structure for the<br />
Network – see section K.<br />
131 The remainder of this section offers<br />
reflections on one of the early goals<br />
identified above for the Network, and<br />
on one of the Network’s important<br />
values.<br />
An early goal: The design and<br />
implementation of new pathways,<br />
opportunities, programmes and resources<br />
for Local Preachers and Worship Leaders<br />
132 The current provision for those<br />
preparing to be Local Preachers<br />
and Worship Leaders is outlined<br />
above in paragraphs 52-53, and the<br />
challenges posed by this current<br />
provision are outlined in paragraphs<br />
103-111. It is evident from these<br />
696 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
challenges that a comprehensive<br />
redevelopment of pathways for those<br />
preparing to be Local Preachers and<br />
Worship Leaders is required, as well<br />
as the development of pathways<br />
for the continuing development of<br />
existing Local Preachers and Worship<br />
Leaders. Such a redevelopment<br />
has been commissioned by the<br />
Ministries Committee. This subsection<br />
reflects on the key elements<br />
of such a redevelopment, and places<br />
the redevelopment within the context<br />
of the Discipleship and Ministries<br />
Learning Network – its purposes,<br />
its values and its recommended<br />
infrastructure.<br />
133 Core to the redevelopment is a<br />
flexible, modular pattern of formation<br />
and training for those on note or<br />
on trial or preparing to be Worship<br />
Leaders, which can be adapted and<br />
developed in response to particular<br />
contexts, needs and aspirations,<br />
and which can be accessed through<br />
a range of methods. The following<br />
paragraphs outline its key elements.<br />
134 One key element of the<br />
redevelopment will be a new set of<br />
learning outcomes with a greater<br />
emphasis on the skills required<br />
for preaching and leading worship.<br />
Current Faith & Worship learning<br />
outcomes are in large part an outline<br />
of the current course content,<br />
and offer little room for growth,<br />
development and change. They also<br />
shy away from offering an energising<br />
description of the foundational<br />
formational aspects of being a Local<br />
Preacher. New learning outcomes will<br />
be attentive to individuals’ personal<br />
discipleship and their knowledge of<br />
the story of the faith, to their skills as<br />
preachers and/or leaders of worship,<br />
and to their attitude as individuals<br />
who help others to grow as disciples<br />
and to share in God’s mission.<br />
135 Another key element will be the<br />
development of new course content<br />
within a modular framework. Core<br />
and extension modules, with some<br />
level of flexibility and choice, will<br />
enable learners to specialise in areas<br />
of particular need or interest, and<br />
will allow those with prior learning<br />
and experience to study areas of<br />
existing knowledge or expertise in<br />
greater depth. New material will<br />
need to address those important<br />
contemporary and missional areas<br />
which are currently absent. As new<br />
areas of theology and practice<br />
become important for the Church, it<br />
will be possible, due to the modular<br />
framework, to add new modules to<br />
the framework as extension modules.<br />
It should also be possible to revise<br />
existing modules individually and<br />
without major upheaval. New material<br />
will also need to emphasise reflective<br />
skills, equipping individuals to adapt<br />
as preachers and leaders of worship<br />
in changing contexts. The educational<br />
approach and the way in which<br />
information is presented also needs<br />
to be addressed. Modules should be<br />
designed in a way which is permissive<br />
and enabling, not prescriptive, so that<br />
tutors are supported by high quality<br />
resources, but not ’de-skilled‘, and<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 697
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
so that material can be adapted and<br />
developed within local contexts.<br />
136 Modular material will also be shaped<br />
for flexible delivery, so that modules<br />
can be used, for example, in local<br />
small groups, at District or regional<br />
study days, as weekend blocks<br />
delivered within centres, or at Local<br />
Preachers’ Meetings. As well as being<br />
available in printed form, it will be a<br />
goal to make all modular material<br />
available within the Network’s virtual<br />
learning environment (see paragraphs<br />
194-196 below), both as material<br />
which supports module delivery<br />
in groups or one-to-one sessions,<br />
and as material which is directly<br />
accessible to individual learners. As<br />
part of creating the virtual learning<br />
environment, the potential support<br />
offered through virtual networks<br />
(as currently seen at work in the<br />
“Faith & Worship (UK <strong>Methodist</strong>s)”<br />
Facebook group) will be explored<br />
and developed. Flexibility of delivery<br />
will enable learners to access the<br />
mode of study that best fits with their<br />
practical and educational needs. If<br />
personal circumstances change (for<br />
example, a new job makes it difficult<br />
to attend study days) learners will not<br />
be locked in to a particular mode of<br />
study.<br />
137 Developing this emphasis on the<br />
accessibility of modules further,<br />
the majority of modules will be of<br />
wider interest, and shaped so that<br />
they are suitable for the continuing<br />
development of existing Local<br />
Preachers and Worship Leaders,<br />
relevant for a range of other<br />
ministries and roles. They will also<br />
be shaped so that they can be<br />
used as resources for discipleship<br />
development. Within such a<br />
framework, it will also be possible<br />
to explore a formal bringing together<br />
of some of the core aspects of<br />
Local Preacher and Worship Leader<br />
formation and training, so that<br />
common elements can be studied<br />
together.<br />
138 A redevelopment which emphasises<br />
accessibility in these ways has the<br />
potential to encourage a culture<br />
of learning in Circuits and Local<br />
Churches, including among those who<br />
are not intending to become Local<br />
Preachers and Worship Leaders.<br />
Participation by increased numbers<br />
of people has the potential to make<br />
viable study groups both locally and<br />
at District or regional level, increasing<br />
the options for everyone. Mixed<br />
study groups (including, for example,<br />
preachers, Worship Leaders, small<br />
group leaders, children and youth<br />
leaders, and those participating to<br />
deepen their discipleship) encourage<br />
a sharing of different perspectives, as<br />
well as collaborative working.<br />
139 Another key element will be the<br />
development of a new form of<br />
assessment. Contemporary education<br />
practice increasingly acknowledges<br />
that it is important for forms of<br />
assessment to be appropriate to the<br />
sort of knowledge, skills and attitudes<br />
being acquired, and to recognise<br />
the way in which the learning will be<br />
698 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
used in practice. Written submissions<br />
are relatively easy to administrate<br />
and assess, but the ability to write<br />
should not be equated too closely<br />
with the ability to think theologically,<br />
preach and lead worship. A new<br />
form of assessment will focus on a<br />
portfolio model, making substantial<br />
use of preaching and worship<br />
leading materials, service reports<br />
and reflections, and will rely less on<br />
essay-style questions. This will enable<br />
assessment to focus more closely<br />
on preaching and worship leading<br />
skills, reflection and understanding,<br />
rather than writing skills. By being<br />
attentive to individuals’ personal<br />
discipleship and their knowledge of<br />
the story of the faith, to their skills<br />
as preachers or leaders of worship,<br />
and to their attitude as individuals<br />
who help others to grow as disciples<br />
and to share in God’s mission, this<br />
new form of assessment will also be<br />
both more holistic and more flexible<br />
than Faith & Worship, for example,<br />
allows. It will not be too closely tied<br />
to specific modules, thereby making<br />
it possible to incorporate a range of<br />
study routes and to take account of<br />
prior experience and learning, valuing<br />
the skills and understanding which<br />
learners already have. It will also<br />
clearly recognise that preparation<br />
for becoming a Local Preacher or a<br />
Worship Leader requires formation<br />
as well as study. Supporting Circuits<br />
as they exercise their responsibility in<br />
overseeing those who are preparing<br />
to become Local Preachers and<br />
Worship Leaders will need to include<br />
guidance on their role in deciding<br />
whether a person is suitable, ready<br />
and formed. Portfolio assessment<br />
can become very unwieldy and<br />
burdensome to both learners and<br />
assessors if attempts to ensure<br />
parity of assessment lead to rigidly<br />
defined expectations. Care will need<br />
to be taken to find the right balance.<br />
140 Another key element is the<br />
rebalancing of initial formation and<br />
training and continuing development.<br />
As noted in paragraphs 105 and 109<br />
above, the present heavy emphasis<br />
on initial formation and training can<br />
result in feelings of alienation among<br />
learners, and can be a disincentive<br />
for following a call to preach. It can<br />
also implicitly lead to a diminished<br />
emphasis on continuing development.<br />
An emphasis on accessible and<br />
shared initial formation and training<br />
needs to be accompanied by a<br />
complementary emphasis on, and the<br />
enabling of, continuing development.<br />
Reducing the demands of initial<br />
formation and training and increasing<br />
the expectation for continuing<br />
development need not be a lowering<br />
of standards when seen within the<br />
context of a Network which explicitly<br />
values and resources continuing<br />
(as well as initial) formation for a<br />
wide range of ministries, and the<br />
development of the whole of a<br />
person’s ministry.<br />
141 A final key element is the web of roles<br />
which will be required to support<br />
these redeveloped pathways. Within<br />
the Circuit or the Local Church, a<br />
Preaching or Worship Leading Mentor<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 699
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
will help individuals to explore and<br />
develop their practical skills as<br />
a preacher or Worship Leader. A<br />
Pathway Mentor will help individuals<br />
to plan their learning and choose the<br />
most appropriate modes of study,<br />
while holding the ’big picture‘ of the<br />
learner’s progress and guiding them<br />
in the production of their portfolio.<br />
A Pathway Mentor may also act as<br />
module tutor for some modules in a<br />
variety of contexts. Across Circuits,<br />
Districts and regions, volunteer tutors<br />
will support the delivery of modules,<br />
relying heavily on the Network’s<br />
published materials or adapting them<br />
significantly to meet local contexts<br />
and needs, or, in most cases,<br />
necessarily opting for a combination<br />
of both processes. Some modules<br />
may also be ’self-led‘ in small groups<br />
using the Network’s materials.<br />
142 There is an important role here<br />
for the Discipleship and Ministries<br />
Learning Network. As well as having<br />
a significant role in the design and<br />
development of new materials, and<br />
in delivering modules across Districts<br />
and regions, the Network’s expert<br />
staff will have a crucial coordinating<br />
role across Circuits and Districts.<br />
In part this will be organisational,<br />
working with District Local Preachers’<br />
Secretaries to coordinate the<br />
availability of opportunities and<br />
resources, and being an accessible<br />
point of contact for mentors, tutors<br />
and Circuit officers. In part it will<br />
be an encouraging and enabling<br />
role, actively supporting the<br />
development of new provision and<br />
contextually-appropriate opportunities<br />
for formation and development<br />
across the region, and supporting<br />
individuals and groups to access<br />
the best of available opportunities<br />
and resources. In part it will also<br />
be inspirational, working alongside<br />
District Local Preachers’ Secretaries<br />
to advocate the importance of<br />
initial formation and training as<br />
well as continuing development,<br />
the importance of engagement<br />
with contemporary and missional<br />
areas, and the importance of the<br />
contribution which a range of wellsupported<br />
ministries can make to<br />
the growth of a mission-focused<br />
Circuit. A flexible, modular pattern<br />
of initial formation and training for<br />
those on note or on trial or preparing<br />
to be Worship Leaders, alongside<br />
a renewed emphasis on continuing<br />
development, is necessarily a<br />
complex redevelopment, and the<br />
resulting system risks being knotty<br />
and fragmented. There is therefore<br />
a key role for the Network’s expert<br />
staff in holding the ’big picture‘ within<br />
the region, and in being the ’face‘<br />
of a new and accessible framework,<br />
guiding learners and those who<br />
give so much of their own time to<br />
support the learning and growth of<br />
others. There is a clear link here to<br />
the regional post proposed below, in<br />
paragraph 164.1 – a connexionally<br />
funded post within each region with<br />
a clear mandate to support, enable<br />
and develop the ministries of Local<br />
Preachers and Worship Leaders.<br />
143 What might the redevelopment<br />
700 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
proposed above, carefully coordinated<br />
and supported, look like for some<br />
individuals on note and on trial?<br />
Paragraphs 143.1-143.3 below offer<br />
three scenarios.<br />
143.1 Ama is able to commit to a number<br />
of Saturday study days, and is wellmotivated<br />
to work independently<br />
between sessions. She attends an<br />
introductory study day (perhaps with<br />
her Pathway Mentor), coordinated<br />
by the Discipleship and Ministries<br />
Learning Network’s regional staff<br />
team, and designed to help her<br />
explore a sense of call to preach. It<br />
also introduces available pathways,<br />
study methods, and reflective practice.<br />
Further modules are delivered via<br />
quarterly study days over two years,<br />
again coordinated by the regional staff<br />
team. In between, Ama keeps in touch<br />
with others via an online discussion<br />
forum, and is supported locally by her<br />
Pathway Mentor and Preaching Mentor<br />
as she prepares her portfolio for<br />
assessment.<br />
143.2 Wes decides that weekday evening<br />
sessions will work best for him.<br />
He feels daunted by the prospect<br />
of study as he left school at 16,<br />
and wants the support of regular<br />
sessions. He works through the<br />
introductory module on a one-toone<br />
basis with his Pathway Mentor.<br />
Members of his housegroup decide<br />
that they want to be involved with and<br />
support his formation and training,<br />
so they commit to study with him<br />
in some of their meetings over the<br />
course of a year. They are interested<br />
in the modules that explore the<br />
Bible and biblical interpretation,<br />
the Christian story, and aspects<br />
of spirituality and discipleship.<br />
Wes’s Circuit works together with a<br />
neighbouring Circuit, with support<br />
from the Discipleship and Ministries<br />
Learning Network’s regional staff<br />
team, to offer modules on preaching<br />
(offered as a ’refresher‘ for existing<br />
preachers as well) and practical<br />
skills for worship (offered for Worship<br />
Leaders and Local Preachers,<br />
as well as some exploring these<br />
ministries). Wes is also able to attend<br />
a continuing development study day<br />
in another nearby Circuit, which looks<br />
at issues of Christian ethics and faith<br />
in the workplace. All these various<br />
elements feed into Wes’s preparation<br />
of his portfolio.<br />
143.3 Liz already has a theology degree<br />
which has given her a good grounding<br />
in biblical interpretation and Church<br />
history. She attends an introductory<br />
session run in her Circuit as an<br />
exploration day, and then meets<br />
with the Pathway Mentor to discuss<br />
her formation and training. They<br />
look over the module materials that<br />
cover “Bible and interpretation”<br />
and “The Christian story” (these<br />
are illustrative module titles), and<br />
decide that Liz does not need to<br />
study these, but that her portfolio<br />
will be able to demonstrate her prior<br />
learning. However, Liz decides that<br />
she would like to take two extension<br />
modules that would deepen her<br />
understanding of prophecy and<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> origins. The Discipleship<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 701
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
and Ministries Learning Network’s<br />
regional staff team is able to link<br />
Liz up with a couple of experienced<br />
Local Preachers who want to study<br />
these modules as part of their<br />
continuing development, as well<br />
as a member from a neighbouring<br />
Circuit who is exploring a call to the<br />
diaconate. With her Preaching Mentor,<br />
Liz works through modules covering<br />
“Preaching”, and “Practical skills for<br />
worship”. Liz opts to attend a study<br />
weekend at Cliff College to explore<br />
the “Discipleship and spirituality” and<br />
“People and context” modules. In the<br />
preparation of her portfolio, Liz is able<br />
to draw on both her prior theological<br />
study and her more recent learning to<br />
show her ability to connect learning<br />
and practice.<br />
144 During 2012/2013, the Committee<br />
will continue to oversee the work<br />
which it has commissioned to<br />
redevelop the pathways for those<br />
preparing to be Local Preachers<br />
and Worship Leaders and for the<br />
continuing development of Local<br />
Preachers and Worship Leaders.<br />
145 The Committee will seek to work<br />
collaboratively with the Faith and<br />
Order Committee to develop learning<br />
outcomes for Local Preachers<br />
and Worship Leaders, ensuring<br />
that these learning outcomes are<br />
firmly rooted in an understanding<br />
of the roles of Local Preacher and<br />
Worship Leader. Work has already<br />
commenced to look in detail at new<br />
forms of assessment and to pilot a<br />
portfolio model of assessment. In<br />
the development of course content<br />
(particularly for extension modules)<br />
there is the potential to incorporate<br />
and build upon the wide range of<br />
learning resources already in use<br />
across the Connexion. Work on<br />
the development of new forms of<br />
assessment as well as new course<br />
content is already happening in<br />
collaboration with those responsible<br />
for the alternative courses to Faith<br />
& Worship being used in the Bristol<br />
District, the Darlington and Newcastle<br />
upon Tyne Districts (in conjunction<br />
with the Lindisfarne Regional Training<br />
Partnership), the London District,<br />
the Lincoln & Grimsby District, Cliff<br />
College, the South North West<br />
Training Partnership (SNWTP) and<br />
the York Institute for Community<br />
Theology. The Committee is grateful<br />
to representatives from these<br />
Districts and institutions, as well<br />
as to many others with expertise in<br />
these areas, who have shared their<br />
reflections with the Committee.<br />
146 Although there are clear pressures<br />
to redevelop Local Preacher and<br />
Worship Leader pathways with some<br />
urgency, care needs to be taken that<br />
the transition from Faith & Worship<br />
in particular is well managed, with<br />
realistic timescales, and with Circuits<br />
and Districts kept well informed<br />
about the progress of the work.<br />
Some learners studying the current<br />
form of Faith & Worship will continue<br />
to need support for some years to<br />
come. Others may wish to make the<br />
transition to the new model, and<br />
thought will be given to enabling this.<br />
702 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
147 The design and implementation<br />
of new pathways, opportunities,<br />
programmes and resources for Local<br />
Preachers and Worship Leaders is<br />
clearly identified as a key early goal<br />
for the Discipleship and Ministries<br />
Learning Network. Even as work<br />
to establish the infrastructural<br />
components of the Network is<br />
undertaken, the Committee is<br />
confident that work on pathways<br />
for Local Preachers and Worship<br />
Leaders can be developed to take<br />
their important place within the wider<br />
work of the Network, with significant<br />
progress being made by the end of<br />
2012/2013. 18<br />
An important value: Developing pathways<br />
alongside and in partnership with<br />
ecumenical partners wherever possible<br />
148 In its preparatory work during<br />
the current connexional year, the<br />
Committee has sought to work<br />
closely with ecumenical partners in<br />
a number of different contexts. One<br />
such context, which is likely to have<br />
a significant impact on the life of the<br />
Network, deserves closer attention at<br />
this stage.<br />
149 Alongside the work undertaken by<br />
the Committee during the current<br />
connexional year, the Church of<br />
England has embarked on a project<br />
to develop a new system of approval<br />
for Anglican pathways into ordained<br />
ministry and Reader ministry. A core<br />
component of this new system is to<br />
be “a suite of HE [Higher Education]<br />
Awards with a single validating HE<br />
partnership which would provide<br />
the main highway of training and<br />
formation for IME 1-3 [the first three<br />
years of initial ministerial education<br />
– ie pre-ordination training], which<br />
would also provide dioceses with<br />
an option for IME 4-7 [the period of<br />
curacy – ie post-ordination training]<br />
and for Reader [the lay office of<br />
Reader] training; and would also<br />
make provision for independent<br />
students pursuing a variety of<br />
vocations in discipleship and<br />
ministry.” 19 In essence, under this<br />
new system, all Anglican theological<br />
colleges (with the exception of a<br />
small number of courses within some<br />
colleges) will share one validating<br />
university, which will validate the suite<br />
of awards which will form the basis of<br />
the pre-ordination pathways offered at<br />
each of the colleges.<br />
150 The motivations of the Church of<br />
England in this context can be<br />
seen to complement the purposes<br />
and values of the Discipleship and<br />
Ministries Learning Network. For<br />
example, the working party chaired<br />
by the Bishop of Sheffield which has<br />
18 This sub-section, along with paragraphs 52-53 and 103-111, constitutes the report which the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
directed be made in the context of the Ministries Committee’s work on The Fruitful Field in the <strong>Conference</strong>’s<br />
reply to Memorials M34 (2009), M5 (2010) and M23 (2010). The sub-section also constitutes the report<br />
which the <strong>Conference</strong> directed be made in Resolution 13/2 (2009).<br />
19 Paper issued by the Ministry Division of the Archbishops’ Council of the Church of England, “Formation for<br />
Ministry and a Framework for Higher Education Validation: Phase 2 Report”, p.2<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 703
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
oversight of this work has written of<br />
the “common standard of formation”<br />
which it hopes will flow from a single<br />
suite of awards:<br />
The discernment of the House of<br />
Bishops, the training institutions<br />
and the General Synod at the<br />
present time seems to indicate a<br />
deep desire to emphasise unity<br />
and to bring into clearer focus<br />
the common elements of our<br />
training. This is in part a natural<br />
development after a generation<br />
of emphasising local and diverse<br />
patterns of training. It is in<br />
part a response to the rapidly<br />
changing context for mission<br />
and the need for the Church of<br />
England as a whole to be able<br />
to respond to those changes<br />
with confidence and creativity.<br />
It is in part also simply good<br />
stewardship to be able to make<br />
the best use of limited resources<br />
and to encourage collaboration in<br />
teaching and learning. 20<br />
151 The working party has also written of<br />
the potential for the single suite of<br />
awards to play a part in the learning<br />
and formation of the whole people of<br />
God:<br />
The possibility of a common<br />
suite of awards for different<br />
forms of training and formation<br />
opens up the real possibility of<br />
pathways to Diploma, Degree<br />
and Masters level with a focus<br />
on lay discipleship rather than<br />
just a focus on recognised lay or<br />
ordained ministry, and of shared<br />
teaching and learning in this<br />
across a number of institutions.<br />
Several of our present<br />
institutions have indicated that<br />
they believe the degrees we<br />
offer will become increasingly<br />
attractive to independent<br />
students in the coming years<br />
because of the funding changes<br />
across Higher Education<br />
generally. 21<br />
152 The working party has been clear<br />
about the level of excellence which<br />
will be sought from the university<br />
partner:<br />
This suite of awards would<br />
not in any sense be a lowest<br />
common denominator or lower<br />
value set of awards than those<br />
currently available in any part<br />
of the sector. We are looking<br />
for a robust partnership with<br />
a strong HE provider such that<br />
these awards become the Gold<br />
Standard for lay and ordained<br />
learning and formation for many<br />
years to come. 22<br />
153 The working party has also been<br />
clear about its wish to proceed “in<br />
as ecumenical a way as possible,<br />
20<br />
“Formation for Ministry: Phase 2 Report”, 16<br />
21<br />
“Formation for Ministry: Phase 2 Report”, 34<br />
22<br />
“Formation for Ministry: Phase 2 Report”, 8<br />
704 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
balancing the need to give clarity<br />
and direction to formation and<br />
training in the Church of England<br />
with the need to create and preserve<br />
space for growing ecumenical<br />
participation in the new awards at<br />
both national and local level, as<br />
seems most appropriate to our<br />
partners.” 23 As well as inviting the<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Church’s involvement,<br />
the Church of England is also<br />
working with the United Reformed<br />
Church and colleges aligned with<br />
the Baptist Union of Great Britain.<br />
The Committee is grateful to the<br />
Church of England for its willingness<br />
to work in this ecumenical manner,<br />
and the Committee has sought to<br />
accompany and feed into the Church<br />
of England’s processes at every<br />
stage. Over recent months, this has<br />
become a more formal partnership,<br />
with full <strong>Methodist</strong> representation on<br />
the working party which is developing<br />
the detail of the suite of awards and<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> staff support incorporated<br />
into the processes for identifying a<br />
university partner. It is expected that<br />
the university partner will be identified<br />
in late May or early June 2012.<br />
154 The Committee is committed to<br />
the development of pathways,<br />
opportunities, programmes and<br />
resources alongside and in<br />
partnership with ecumenical partners<br />
wherever possible, and sees this<br />
as a central value of the Network<br />
(see paragraph 127.5 above). The<br />
Committee consequently anticipates<br />
that the university partner identified<br />
through the processes discussed<br />
above will be a university which<br />
could also, within an ecumenically<br />
negotiated validating partnership<br />
with the university, serve a significant<br />
portion of the validating needs of the<br />
Network. It would, in many ways, be<br />
a backward step if <strong>Methodist</strong> student<br />
ministers and Anglican ordinands<br />
were not to be able to follow<br />
pathways within the same suite of<br />
awards. There are also many positive,<br />
developmental aspects to <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
participation. Not least among these<br />
is that participation within the same<br />
Higher Education partnership as the<br />
Church of England (and, potentially,<br />
the United Reformed Church and the<br />
Baptist Union of Great Britain) will<br />
make ecumenical collaboration in<br />
the development of future pathways<br />
and resources much easier – both<br />
for ordained ministry, and also for<br />
a wider range of ministries and for<br />
discipleship development more<br />
generally. The Committee is therefore<br />
very pleased that it seems likely, at<br />
the time of writing, that it will be able<br />
to recommend that the Network enter<br />
into the partnership which emerges<br />
from the current processes. The<br />
Priorities of the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church<br />
commit us to working “in partnership<br />
with others wherever possible,” and<br />
the Network’s participation within<br />
an ecumenical Higher Education<br />
partnership is a good instance<br />
of strong and mutually-beneficial<br />
partnership working.<br />
23<br />
“Formation for Ministry: Phase 2 Report”, 45<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 705
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
155 Such an ecumenical Higher<br />
Education partnership does, however,<br />
have repercussions for other parts<br />
of the Network’s structures, policies<br />
and procedures. In some ways it will<br />
necessarily limit the autonomy of the<br />
Network within the Higher Education<br />
partnership, as the partnership<br />
between the Network and the<br />
university will be mediated by an<br />
ecumenical management body. It is<br />
likely that careful planning during the<br />
early stages of the partnership will<br />
mitigate any disadvantages here.<br />
156 However, the mediated nature<br />
of the relationship between the<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Church, the Network<br />
and its centres on the one hand<br />
and the university partner on the<br />
other does have another significant<br />
planning ramification for the<br />
Network’s structures. The ecumenical<br />
Higher Education partnership will,<br />
necessarily, be one which is capable<br />
of supporting a partnership between<br />
the university and several institutions,<br />
colleges and centres no matter<br />
where the latter are located. In the<br />
past, church institutions and their<br />
university partners have tended to be<br />
geographically proximate. Due to the<br />
geographic distribution of Anglican<br />
theological colleges, the university<br />
partner in this case will need to<br />
be able to support programmes<br />
delivered within institutions which<br />
are far away from the university’s own<br />
base. The nature of the ecumenical<br />
Higher Education partnership, and<br />
the ways in which its supporting<br />
mechanisms are structured, will<br />
consequently need to be configured<br />
to enable well-resourced relationships<br />
to be sustained across significant<br />
distances. This therefore has the<br />
potential to make available to the<br />
Network and its centres a “strong<br />
HE provider” whose awards will be<br />
recognised as “the Gold Standard<br />
for lay and ordained learning and<br />
formation,” regardless of the location<br />
of those centres. This permits the<br />
Network to focus more closely on the<br />
quality of its learning environments<br />
without those considerations needing<br />
to be constrained by some issues of<br />
geographical location. This is a factor<br />
discussed again in paragraphs 196,<br />
200.5 and 240.5 below.<br />
Section H: A Team of Expert Staff<br />
Recommendation: The establishment of a<br />
Discipleship and Ministries Learning Network<br />
staff team, located across the Connexion.<br />
One staff team<br />
157 In order to support the work of<br />
the Discipleship and Ministries<br />
Learning Network, we recommend<br />
the establishment of a single team of<br />
expert staff. This team’s goals will be<br />
the same as the goals of the Network<br />
as a whole:<br />
l<br />
l<br />
discipleship development:<br />
supporting Circuits and Local<br />
Churches to nurture and equip<br />
the <strong>Methodist</strong> people to be<br />
Christ-like disciples in the world<br />
ministry development, in all its<br />
forms: forming and equipping<br />
706 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
l<br />
lay and ordained <strong>Methodist</strong>s<br />
who share in the ministry of God<br />
within the life of the <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Church to be effective leaders,<br />
servants and partners in God’s<br />
mission<br />
church and community<br />
development: challenging and<br />
equipping Circuits and Local<br />
Churches as they change<br />
and grow as mission-focused<br />
Christian communities of faith,<br />
hope and love.<br />
158 As with the Network as a whole, the<br />
team will:<br />
l<br />
l<br />
l<br />
focus on serving and supporting<br />
Circuits, Local Churches and<br />
Districts, working with all those<br />
who lead and serve Circuits,<br />
Local Churches and Districts<br />
work through interactive<br />
relationships and in dialogue<br />
with local communities –<br />
their diverse and continually<br />
developing contexts, needs and<br />
aspirations<br />
provide a coherent,<br />
comprehensive and excellent<br />
service through embodying a<br />
breadth of knowledge and skills,<br />
through working to enhance the<br />
quality of its work, and through<br />
being well-coordinated.<br />
159 The establishment of one staff<br />
team was prefigured both in the<br />
consultation document and in the<br />
Committee’s interim response. The<br />
Committee was particularly pleased<br />
to note the warm reception given<br />
to the concept by those already<br />
working for the Church within<br />
institutions and existing expert staff<br />
posts. A submission made by a<br />
tutor during the consultation period<br />
noted that “the vision of a single<br />
connexional network of skilled and<br />
knowledgeable staff is exciting and<br />
energising, enabling the sharing<br />
of skills, resources, expertise and<br />
stimulating creativity and debate.<br />
There is the potential for more<br />
engagement with the diversity of the<br />
Church; for avoiding duplication of<br />
work; for enabling creative thinking<br />
through releasing resources and<br />
linking different people; and for using<br />
and encouraging a greater variety of<br />
people’s skills, gifts and expertise.”<br />
A regional forum’s submission<br />
similarly noted that “integration of all<br />
the people involved in training and<br />
development would be desirable and<br />
strengthen the Church.” A learning<br />
institution’s submission noted<br />
that “the concept of a connexional<br />
network is welcomed... [It] can be<br />
a means of bringing together the<br />
wide range of professional expertise,<br />
knowledge and theological awareness<br />
from a range of bodies and<br />
institutions from across the regions<br />
that will enable cross-fertilisation in a<br />
way which has always been intended,<br />
but not always implemented.” Another<br />
institution noted that “we support the<br />
vision of a single network of skilled<br />
and knowledgeable staff. We see<br />
the current disconnection between<br />
regional/ District officers and learning<br />
institutions as profoundly unhelpful.<br />
The experience of forming ‘networks’<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 707
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
at regional level over the last four<br />
years demonstrates that this is<br />
far from easy and just how quickly<br />
territorial mentalities emerge.”<br />
160 The Committee also notes<br />
the challenges of successfully<br />
establishing such a team. A<br />
submission made by a District<br />
officer during the consultation<br />
period noted “that this approach is<br />
very different to that adopted when<br />
District Development Enablers were<br />
introduced. From that experience<br />
I concur wholeheartedly with the<br />
value of coordination, however I<br />
observe that as an organisation we<br />
will need to learn many new skills<br />
if we are to become accomplished<br />
as a Connexion in working to a level<br />
of excellence in this coordinated<br />
way. We can learn much from the<br />
strengths of the regional District<br />
Development Enabler networks and<br />
from the benefits which District<br />
Development Enablers as a national<br />
group have [recently] enjoyed.”<br />
161 The posts within the team will be<br />
grouped:<br />
l<br />
l<br />
l<br />
in regional teams across<br />
the Connexion, to which we<br />
recommend allocating 70% of<br />
the team’s posts<br />
within centres (see section J<br />
below), where we recommend<br />
locating 20% of the team’s posts<br />
within a coordinating team, to<br />
which we recommend allocating<br />
10% of the team’s posts.<br />
This represents a strong and<br />
welcome bias towards dispersed,<br />
regional working. This capacity<br />
is described in more detail in<br />
paragraphs 163-179 below.<br />
162 This team of expert staff is the<br />
Network’s key resource. Valuing,<br />
developing and investing in such an<br />
expert staff team is a significant and<br />
worthwhile commitment of resources.<br />
In this respect, the Committee agrees<br />
with a consultation submission from<br />
a regional forum, which affirmed the<br />
importance of “funding well-resourced<br />
people rather than under-resourced<br />
institutions.”<br />
Regional teams<br />
163 We recommend the establishment<br />
of teams of regionally-deployed staff<br />
within the single team of expert staff.<br />
Again, this was prefigured both in the<br />
consultation document and in the<br />
Committee’s interim response. The<br />
Committee was particularly pleased<br />
in this instance to note the warm<br />
reception given to the concept by<br />
those who have experience of working<br />
closely with regionally-deployed expert<br />
staff at the moment. A submission<br />
made by a District committee during<br />
the consultation period noted that<br />
regionally deployed staff posts are<br />
“vital because they are located within<br />
reach of each church and Circuit and<br />
vital because they can form a body<br />
which can ensure the sharing of best<br />
connexional practice.” A submission<br />
from a District Chair noted the<br />
importance of “effective networking<br />
708 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
more locally in ‘regional’ areas,<br />
and the capacity to deliver learning<br />
programmes well. This points to the<br />
need for investment to be made in<br />
regionally deployed personnel, rather<br />
than buildings. A common factor in<br />
the current training regions that feel<br />
they are functioning less effectively<br />
is the lack of capacity to cover the<br />
geographical area equally well.” A<br />
District leadership team wrote of the<br />
importance of “access to a multidisciplinary<br />
team of skilled people<br />
who will work in churches and Circuits<br />
in partnership with the District Chairs<br />
and other officers. Methodism has<br />
always faced the dangers of such<br />
people and resources being too thinly<br />
spread and isolated; the quality of<br />
the resources available to the Church<br />
will be greatly increased if they are<br />
genuinely part of a collaborative<br />
team, but this requires considerable<br />
ingenuity to achieve.”<br />
164 We recommend that regional teams<br />
should normally be made up of five<br />
full-time posts. It will be important<br />
for these five postholders to work<br />
closely together, acting as a team<br />
and providing a coherent service<br />
to the region. A submission made<br />
by a District officer during the<br />
consultation period noted that “the<br />
plan for an integrated approach<br />
within teams across larger areas<br />
than current Districts is... to be<br />
welcomed, provided that this retains<br />
the recognition that there are differing<br />
skills which are needed in these<br />
teams. We will need collaborative,<br />
interdisciplinary teams in the regions,<br />
recognising and playing to different<br />
strengths, expertise and gifts,<br />
matched to the varying needs of both<br />
the wider Church and the specific<br />
localities.” However, it is also possible<br />
to affirm five core areas of expertise<br />
within the regional teams, and we<br />
consequently recommend configuring<br />
the five regional posts as follows:<br />
164.1 A post focusing on the development<br />
of lay ministries and roles: helping<br />
to train, form and equip those who<br />
exercise lay ministries and roles<br />
within the lives of Circuits and Local<br />
Churches, with a particular focus in<br />
the first instance on the initial and<br />
continuing development of Local<br />
Preachers and Worship Leaders;<br />
working carefully to support and<br />
collaborate with volunteers and officeholders<br />
(such as Circuit and District<br />
Local Preachers’ Secretaries).<br />
164.2 A post focusing on the development<br />
of ordained ministries and roles:<br />
helping to train, form and equip<br />
those who are preparing for diaconal<br />
and presbyteral ministry (as student<br />
ministers and probationers),<br />
supporting the continuing<br />
development of those who serve in<br />
Circuit appointments, including as<br />
Superintendents, and accompanying<br />
those candidating for ordained<br />
ministry; working carefully to support<br />
and collaborate with volunteers<br />
and office-holders (such as District<br />
Candidates’ Secretaries).<br />
164.3 A post focusing on the development<br />
of the gathered ministry of the church<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 709
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
community: equipping and challenging<br />
Circuits and Local Churches to<br />
use and align their energies and<br />
resources for discipleship, mission,<br />
worship, learning and caring, including<br />
supporting and accompanying Circuits<br />
and Local Churches as they make<br />
deliberate and planned changes to<br />
enable growth and in response to the<br />
changing context of mission.<br />
164.4 A post focusing on the development of<br />
the dispersed ministry of the church<br />
community: equipping and challenging<br />
Circuits and Local Churches to<br />
use and align their energies and<br />
resources for discipleship, mission,<br />
service and evangelism, including<br />
supporting and accompanying Circuits<br />
and Local Churches as they develop<br />
fresh expressions of church, fresh<br />
ways of being church, chaplaincy<br />
projects and initiatives, evangelism<br />
and Christian witness projects, and<br />
social justice, social action and<br />
community development projects.<br />
164.5 A post focusing on the development of<br />
the diversity of the church community:<br />
equipping and challenging Circuits<br />
and Local Churches to make<br />
deliberate and planned changes to<br />
welcome and embrace a wide range<br />
of ages (including children, young<br />
people, young families, the ’missing<br />
generations‘ and the elderly) and a<br />
wide range of diverse backgrounds<br />
and cultures (including the widening<br />
range of ethnic, linguistic and cultural<br />
expressions of British Methodism).<br />
165 We recognise that the balance<br />
of expert knowledge, skills and<br />
experience within the five core<br />
areas will not be identical across<br />
the regional teams. For example,<br />
within some regional teams, the post<br />
focusing on the development of the<br />
dispersed ministry of the church<br />
community may be undertaken by<br />
somebody with a deep expertise in<br />
chaplaincy development and social<br />
outreach, whereas in another region<br />
it may be undertaken by somebody<br />
with a deep expertise in developing<br />
fresh expressions of church. The<br />
challenge here is the same challenge<br />
which will face the whole staff team:<br />
ensuring that knowledge, skills and<br />
experience can be effectively shared,<br />
and prioritising strong and effective<br />
dialogue and communication.<br />
166 In addition to the five core areas<br />
of expertise described above, we<br />
recommend that each post within<br />
the regional teams should include<br />
capacity for some of the following<br />
activities, to which staff should be<br />
able to dedicate up to 25% of their<br />
time:<br />
166.1 Discipleship development: contributing<br />
to the Network’s goal of designing,<br />
delivering and evaluating pathways,<br />
opportunities, programmes and<br />
resources which focus on discipleship<br />
development – supporting Circuits<br />
and Local Churches to nurture and<br />
equip the <strong>Methodist</strong> people to be<br />
Christ-like disciples in the world, and,<br />
in particular, building on the work of<br />
the Extending Discipleship, Exploring<br />
Vocation (EDEV) initiative<br />
710 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
166.2 Scholarship, research and innovation:<br />
engaging in academic study projects,<br />
research projects or innovative and<br />
creative thinking, thus ensuring that<br />
all posts have protected space within<br />
them for creative thinking and for<br />
nurturing new thoughts and insights<br />
166.3 Working in partnership across<br />
the Church: nurturing links with<br />
volunteers, office-holders within<br />
Circuits and Districts, District Policy<br />
Committees and District Chairs;<br />
engaging with the development of<br />
connexional policies and strategies in<br />
relevant areas of expertise<br />
166.4 Working in partnership beyond the<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Church: nurturing links<br />
with ecumenical partners and other<br />
partner organisations<br />
166.5 Quality assurance and enhancement:<br />
working to enhance the quality<br />
and effectiveness of pathways,<br />
opportunities, programmes and<br />
resources through enhancing their<br />
design and their delivery.<br />
167 We recommend that, within each<br />
regional team, one postholder<br />
should be identified as the regional<br />
team’s coordinator, assuming<br />
responsibilities (a) for enabling a<br />
collaborative and supportive way of<br />
working within the regional team, (b)<br />
for the performance, efficiency and<br />
effectiveness of the regional team,<br />
(c) for the regional team’s overall<br />
contribution towards the goals of the<br />
Network, and (d) for being a primary<br />
point of contact with the Network’s<br />
coordinating team (see paragraph<br />
178.3 below). This coordinating role<br />
draws on good practice currently seen<br />
in the Learning and Development<br />
Network of the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church<br />
in Scotland and the Wales Training<br />
Network, where benefits have been<br />
identified to having a manager or<br />
director who coordinates the work of<br />
the other members of staff who work<br />
across the nations.<br />
168 We recommend that the regional<br />
teams work across regions which<br />
are bigger than Districts but smaller<br />
than the existing Regional Training<br />
Networks in England (see paragraph<br />
68 above). A recommendation about<br />
the number of regional teams, and<br />
consequently about the size of the<br />
regions which the team should serve,<br />
is necessarily strongly dependent<br />
upon the financial resources which<br />
can be dedicated to supporting<br />
regional posts. It has long been<br />
evident to the Committee that it<br />
would not be possible to support 31<br />
teams, one serving each District.<br />
However, it has also been evident<br />
to the Committee that some of the<br />
Regional Training Networks in England<br />
have struggled, for reasons both of<br />
geography and workload, to support<br />
posts at the regional level which are<br />
capable of providing a service across<br />
the region. Efficient and realistic<br />
teams could therefore be envisaged<br />
working across regions which are<br />
bigger than Districts but smaller<br />
than the existing Regional Training<br />
Networks in England.<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 711
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
169 Given the desire to bias the allocation<br />
of resources towards the support of<br />
expert staff, the Committee is able<br />
to recommend the establishment of<br />
the equivalent of ten regional teams<br />
made up of five full-time posts each.<br />
The Committee recognises the likelihood<br />
that it will not be proportionate<br />
to maintain a regional staff team of<br />
five full-time posts within every region,<br />
should some of the regions cover<br />
smaller areas or a lower number of<br />
members than others. The Committee<br />
is particularly conscious of the<br />
need to provide appropriate provision<br />
for Scotland and Wales and for<br />
the Island Districts, and of the need<br />
to explore the best type of regional<br />
configuration to support activities in<br />
these Districts and Synods. In the<br />
case of the Scotland and Shetland<br />
Districts and the Cymru and Wales<br />
Synods, for example, it is realistic<br />
to ask smaller national teams to<br />
serve each respective nation, while<br />
acknowledging that such teams would<br />
need sufficient capacity to support<br />
the distinctive cultural, linguistic and<br />
geographical needs of the <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
people in those nations (and that,<br />
within Wales, this will need to include<br />
Welsh-language provision). However,<br />
even within smaller teams, it is anticipated<br />
that responsibility for each of<br />
the five core areas described above<br />
will be allocated to individuals within<br />
the team. The Committee therefore<br />
wishes to recommend the establishment<br />
of a regionally-deployed staff<br />
cohort of fifty posts, which are likely<br />
to be coordinated within approximately<br />
ten to thirteen regional teams.<br />
170 Further work during 2012/2013 is<br />
needed to establish the boundaries<br />
of the regions to be served by the<br />
teams. The Committee has been<br />
conscious during its deliberations<br />
about regionally-deployed staff posts<br />
of the work being undertaken by<br />
the <strong>Methodist</strong> Council’s “larger than<br />
Circuit” working party. As noted in<br />
the <strong>Methodist</strong> Council’s report to<br />
the <strong>Conference</strong>, the working party<br />
was established by the Council to<br />
oversee the processes by which<br />
the Regrouping for Mission initiative<br />
can be developed at the level of the<br />
Districts. The working party’s paper to<br />
the <strong>Methodist</strong> Council built on work<br />
already being undertaken across<br />
the Connexion, and discussed the<br />
history and constitutional position of<br />
Districts and District Chairs, as well<br />
as highlighting a number of recent<br />
developments which have had an<br />
effect on the responsibilities and<br />
functions of both Districts and District<br />
Chairs. The paper also outlined the<br />
processes which the working party<br />
will now adopt to enable proposals to<br />
be brought to the 2013 <strong>Conference</strong>.<br />
171 The Committee has welcomed<br />
the opportunity to feed into the<br />
deliberations of the working party,<br />
and is grateful that the working<br />
party has identified the work of The<br />
Fruitful Field as being an important<br />
part of its considerations as it<br />
prepares its proposals for the 2013<br />
<strong>Conference</strong>. The Committee’s hope<br />
is that the working party’s proposals<br />
to the 2013 <strong>Conference</strong> will assist<br />
the establishment of the regions<br />
712 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
across which it is realistic to deploy<br />
the regional teams which are<br />
recommended here. The Committee<br />
acknowledges that this aligned<br />
development may not be possible,<br />
and that further work will be required<br />
on the Committee’s part during<br />
2012/2013 if it is unlikely that the<br />
working party will be able to offer<br />
a complete picture to the 2013<br />
<strong>Conference</strong>. However, we reiterate our<br />
hope that strategic and collaborative<br />
working will deliver mutually-beneficial<br />
outcomes by the time of the 2013<br />
<strong>Conference</strong>, and we therefore further<br />
recommend that the concept and<br />
nature of the regional teams be<br />
an important consideration for the<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Council’s “larger than<br />
Circuit” working party.<br />
Posts based in centres<br />
172 We recommend the establishment<br />
of staff teams within centres. The<br />
centre-based staff teams will form<br />
part of the single team of expert<br />
staff, and, as with the whole of the<br />
staff team, will focus on serving<br />
and supporting Circuits and Local<br />
Churches. The context within which<br />
they will do so is developed further<br />
in section J below, where the role<br />
of centres is discussed. These<br />
paragraphs emphasise that the<br />
centre staff will:<br />
l<br />
l<br />
work within the context of a<br />
community of resident and<br />
visiting students, learners and<br />
guests<br />
have a particular responsibility<br />
l<br />
l<br />
for developing and maintaining<br />
centres as communities which<br />
can connect with partners across<br />
the World Church<br />
have a particular responsibility<br />
for developing and maintaining<br />
centres as communities of deep<br />
sharing with ecumenical partners<br />
have a particular responsibility<br />
for developing and maintaining<br />
centres as communities of apt<br />
and excellent scholarship and<br />
research, working in partnership<br />
with the Higher Education sector.<br />
173 We therefore recommend that each<br />
post within the centres should have<br />
as its primary focus:<br />
173.1 either ministry development, in all<br />
its forms: forming and equipping<br />
lay and ordained <strong>Methodist</strong>s who<br />
share in the ministry of God within<br />
the life of the Church to be effective<br />
leaders, servants and partners in<br />
God’s mission; helping to train,<br />
form and equip those who exercise<br />
lay ministries and roles within the<br />
lives of Circuits and Local Churches,<br />
with a particular focus in the first<br />
instance on the initial and continuing<br />
development of Local Preachers<br />
and Worship Leaders; helping to<br />
train, form and equip those who are<br />
preparing for diaconal and presbyteral<br />
ministry (as student ministers<br />
and probationers), supporting the<br />
continuing development of those<br />
who serve in Circuit appointments,<br />
including Superintendents, and<br />
accompanying those candidating for<br />
ordained ministry<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 713
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
173.2 or church and community<br />
development: challenging and<br />
equipping Circuits and Local<br />
Churches as they change and<br />
grow as mission-focused Christian<br />
communities of faith, hope and<br />
love; supporting and accompanying<br />
those who lead and serve Circuits<br />
and Local Churches as they make<br />
deliberate and planned changes to<br />
enable growth and in response to<br />
the changing context of mission;<br />
supporting and accompanying those<br />
who lead and serve Circuits and<br />
Local Churches as they develop fresh<br />
expressions of church, fresh ways<br />
of being church, chaplaincy projects<br />
and initiatives, evangelism and<br />
Christian witness projects, and social<br />
justice, social action and community<br />
development projects; equipping and<br />
challenging those who lead and serve<br />
Circuits and Local Churches to make<br />
deliberate and planned changes to<br />
welcome and embrace a wide range<br />
of ages (including children, young<br />
people, young families, the ’missing<br />
generations‘ and the elderly) and a<br />
wide range of diverse backgrounds<br />
and cultures (including the widening<br />
range of ethnic, linguistic and cultural<br />
expressions of British Methodism).<br />
174 In addition to the primary focus<br />
described above, we recommend that<br />
each post within the regional teams<br />
should include capacity for some of<br />
the following activities, to which staff<br />
should be able to dedicate between<br />
25% and 50% of their time:<br />
174.1 Discipleship development:<br />
contributing to the Network’s goal of<br />
designing and delivering pathways,<br />
opportunities, programmes and<br />
resources which focus on discipleship<br />
development – including delivering<br />
within the centres a range of<br />
pathways and programmes which<br />
nurture and equip a wide range of<br />
participants to be Christ-like disciples<br />
in the world<br />
174.2 Scholarship, research and innovation:<br />
leading academic study projects,<br />
research projects and innovative and<br />
creative thinking<br />
174.3 Working in partnership within<br />
the Church: nurturing links, in<br />
collaboration with colleagues across<br />
the team, with those who lead<br />
and serve Circuits, Districts and<br />
connexional committees<br />
174.4 Working in partnership beyond<br />
the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church in Britain:<br />
nurturing links with ecumenical<br />
partners, Partner Churches across<br />
the World Church and other partner<br />
organisations<br />
174.5 Quality assurance and enhancement:<br />
working to enhance the quality<br />
and effectiveness of pathways,<br />
opportunities, programmes and<br />
resources through enhancing their<br />
design and their delivery.<br />
175 We recommend that 16 such posts<br />
should be provided within the centres.<br />
Combined with two coordinating<br />
posts for the directors (principals)<br />
of the two centres (see paragraphs<br />
714 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
178.1-178.2 below), this maintains a<br />
level of staffing with the centre-based<br />
staff teams which is broadly similar<br />
to the staffing level recommended<br />
by the 2007 <strong>Conference</strong> primarily to<br />
oversee the education and formation<br />
of student ministers. Clearly the<br />
responsibilities of the centre-based<br />
staff teams within the Network are<br />
far from limited to the education<br />
and formation of student ministers;<br />
equally capacity has been built<br />
into the regional teams to support<br />
the education and formation of<br />
student ministers. Consequently<br />
the Committee is confident that the<br />
provision of 16 posts across the<br />
centre-based staff teams is both a<br />
prudent and sufficient investment of<br />
resources.<br />
176 Both Cliff College and the Queen’s<br />
Foundation already support a number<br />
of staff posts which are not funded by<br />
the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church. This reflects<br />
the fact that both centres already<br />
serve significant constituencies<br />
outside and beyond the life of the<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Church – self-supporting<br />
students in the case of Cliff College<br />
and, in the case of the Queen’s<br />
Foundation, a mixture of Anglican<br />
ordinands and self-supporting<br />
students. While the Committee<br />
expects that posts sustained through<br />
fee income and other partnerships<br />
within the centres will be seen as<br />
posts within the Discipleship and<br />
Ministries Learning Network of<br />
the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church, it is also<br />
recognised that posts sustained in<br />
this way to serve needs which are<br />
outside the goals of the Network<br />
will be additional posts within the<br />
centre-based staff teams to the 16<br />
posts identified here. The Committee<br />
expects that bonds of colleagueship<br />
and the exchange of ideas and<br />
expertise among the Network’s<br />
staff – whatever their location and<br />
whatever the source of the funding<br />
which supports their particular post<br />
– will be a welcome, energising and<br />
connexional mark of the Network.<br />
177 Both of the centres identified<br />
below have and will continue to<br />
require bursarial staff, working to<br />
support administrative, domestic,<br />
premises-based and other bursarial<br />
functions. For the avoidance of doubt,<br />
these are not included within the<br />
posts discussed here, which are<br />
practitioner-educationalist posts. An<br />
allowance for bursarial staff is made<br />
within the financial arrangements<br />
proposed for the centres.<br />
The coordinating team<br />
178 We recommend the establishment of<br />
a coordinating team within the single<br />
team of expert staff. The coordinating<br />
team will be made up of eight posts:<br />
178.1 A director (principal) of Cliff College:<br />
with responsibility for overseeing the<br />
community of faith at Cliff College,<br />
for the performance, efficiency and<br />
effectiveness of the centre and<br />
its staff team, and for the centre’s<br />
contribution towards the goals of the<br />
Network; with responsibility also for<br />
the aspects of the life of the centre<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 715
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
which serve significant constituencies<br />
outside and beyond the life of the<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Church.<br />
178.2 A director (principal) of the Queen’s<br />
Foundation: with responsibility for<br />
overseeing the community of faith<br />
at the Queen’s Foundation, for<br />
the performance, efficiency and<br />
effectiveness of the centre and<br />
its staff team, and for the centre’s<br />
contribution towards the goals of the<br />
Network; with responsibility also for<br />
the aspects of the life of the centre<br />
which serve significant constituencies<br />
outside and beyond the life of the<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Church.<br />
178.3 A director of the regional teams: with<br />
responsibility for directly overseeing<br />
the coordinators of the regional<br />
teams (see paragraph 167 above),<br />
for the performance, efficiency and<br />
effectiveness of the regional teams,<br />
and for their contribution towards the<br />
goals of the Network.<br />
178.4 A director of discipleship development:<br />
with responsibility for coordinating the<br />
pathways, opportunities, programmes<br />
and resources offered by the<br />
Network in the field of discipleship<br />
development (see paragraphs 166.1<br />
and 174.1 above); with responsibility<br />
also for advising connexional<br />
committees about policies and<br />
strategies in this field.<br />
178.5 A director of ministry development:<br />
with responsibility for coordinating the<br />
pathways, opportunities, programmes<br />
and resources offered by the Network<br />
in the field of ministry development,<br />
in all its forms (see paragraphs<br />
164.1-164.2 and 173.1 above);<br />
with responsibility also for advising<br />
connexional committees about<br />
policies and strategies in this field.<br />
178.6 A director of church and community<br />
development: with responsibility<br />
for coordinating the pathways,<br />
opportunities, programmes and<br />
resources offered by the Network in<br />
the field of church and community<br />
development (see paragraphs<br />
164.1-164.3 and 173.2 above);<br />
with responsibility also for advising<br />
connexional committees about<br />
policies and strategies in these fields.<br />
178.7 A director of scholarship, research<br />
and innovation: with responsibility for<br />
coordinating academic study projects,<br />
research projects and innovative and<br />
creative thinking across the Network<br />
(see, for example, paragraphs<br />
166.2 and 174.2); with primary<br />
responsibility for the Network’s<br />
Higher Education sector links; with<br />
responsibility also for making the<br />
insights and outcomes of research<br />
and development known across and<br />
beyond the Network and accessible<br />
to the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church more broadly<br />
as the <strong>Conference</strong> develops policies<br />
and strategies about all aspects of its<br />
nature and mission.<br />
178.8 A director of the Discipleship<br />
and Ministries Learning Network:<br />
with overall responsibility for<br />
the performance, efficiency and<br />
effectiveness of the Network, and<br />
716 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
for enabling and developing the<br />
values, purposes, goals and direction<br />
of the Network; with responsibility<br />
also for liaising with the governance<br />
structure of the Network, the<br />
Ministries Committee and other<br />
senior colleagues in the Connexional<br />
Team; with overall responsibility for<br />
coordinating the work of the other<br />
seven directors, and for leading a<br />
collaborative coordinating staff team.<br />
179 The coordinating staff team brings<br />
together those who have coordinating<br />
responsibilities both in terms of<br />
pathways, opportunities, programmes<br />
and resources, and in terms of staff<br />
and centre management, coordination<br />
and development. The purpose<br />
and goals of the Network are such<br />
that the Committee believes that a<br />
coordinating team of this size and<br />
nature is required. Furthermore, the<br />
Committee believes that collaboration<br />
within the coordinating team is<br />
essential. Such collaboration is<br />
vital if the necessary synergy is to<br />
be achieved across the Network;<br />
it also models a collaborative way<br />
of working which needs to be a<br />
mark of the staff team as a whole.<br />
Vital to the success and efficiency<br />
of the Network is the ability of the<br />
staff team to work cohesively as a<br />
single team and to work jointly with<br />
a number of volunteers and those<br />
who lead and serve Districts, Circuits,<br />
Local Churches and connexional<br />
committees.<br />
The work of the Discipleship & Ministries<br />
Cluster of the Connexional Team<br />
180 As the Committee developed the<br />
concept of one staff team, serving the<br />
whole Connexion and based regionally<br />
and in centres, the Committee was<br />
also able to reflect on the relationship<br />
between this proposed staff team<br />
and the Connexional Team.<br />
181 The relationship between the<br />
outcomes of The Fruitful Field and<br />
the work of the Connexional Team<br />
had been raised during some<br />
consultation submissions, in direct<br />
and indirect ways, including in<br />
feedback from the deliberations of<br />
the <strong>Methodist</strong> Council. Most directly,<br />
some consultation submissions<br />
advocated that certain functions<br />
of the Connexional Team should<br />
be included within the remit of the<br />
project as they were very closely<br />
related to work undertaken within<br />
institutions or by staff posts<br />
which were within the remit of the<br />
project. More indirectly, several<br />
consultation submissions raised<br />
concerns about the Connexional<br />
Team and connexionalism in the<br />
context of centralisation. A District’s<br />
submission noted the importance<br />
of “accessibility – [it is] important<br />
to ensure a real understanding<br />
of regional need so that we don’t<br />
fall into the centralisation trap.” A<br />
Circuit leadership team’s submission<br />
noted that “an integrated network<br />
for delivery of training should be an<br />
advantage so long as it does not lead<br />
to centralisation which precludes<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 717
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
people from accessing local and<br />
affordable resources.” Reflections<br />
such as these were relevant factors<br />
when the Committee discussed the<br />
need for the pathways, opportunities,<br />
programmes and resources offered<br />
by the Network to be developed<br />
through interactive relationships and<br />
in dialogue with local communities<br />
– their diverse and continually<br />
developing contexts, needs and<br />
aspirations. They were also relevant<br />
to the Committee’s deliberations<br />
about the concept and nature of<br />
spaces and centres, as outlined in<br />
sections I and J below. However, they<br />
have been particularly important<br />
in the Committee’s consideration<br />
of the relationship between the<br />
proposed staff team and certain<br />
functions currently located within the<br />
Connexional Team, in particular the<br />
work located within the Discipleship &<br />
Ministries Cluster of the Connexional<br />
Team.<br />
182 The Discipleship & Ministries Cluster<br />
of the Connexional Team operates in<br />
four key areas: chaplaincy; children<br />
and youth; evangelism, spirituality<br />
and discipleship; and ministries,<br />
learning and development. There is<br />
a strong alignment between these<br />
functions and purposes of the<br />
Network, to the extent that, in the<br />
Committee’s judgement, it is not<br />
feasible to envisage these functions<br />
being supported and delivered by<br />
the Discipleship & Ministries Cluster<br />
in a manner which is detached from<br />
the Network. Of particular relevance<br />
to this judgement was the strong<br />
regional model of working for the<br />
proposed staff team. The Committee<br />
judged that this strong regional way<br />
of working offered the opportunity<br />
to bring certain functions currently<br />
located within one location closer<br />
to Circuits and Districts. This has<br />
the potential to aid collaboration<br />
and responsiveness, and to address<br />
concerns about centralisation,<br />
distance and duplication of work.<br />
183 We are therefore able to recommend<br />
that the majority of the work currently<br />
undertaken within the Discipleship &<br />
Ministries Cluster of the Connexional<br />
Team be incorporated within the<br />
Network.<br />
184 As further work is undertaken during<br />
2012/2013, it will be important to<br />
ensure that this integration of the<br />
work of this Cluster of the Team<br />
within the Network is careful and<br />
considered. It is already possible to<br />
see some areas where the synergies<br />
between what we have proposed<br />
above and the existing work of the<br />
Cluster are strong and robust. In<br />
other areas, further work will need to<br />
be undertaken to ensure that those<br />
aspects of the Cluster’s work which<br />
have a distinctive and cherished<br />
place for the <strong>Methodist</strong> people – such<br />
as the Children & Youth Team’s work<br />
and the activities which it supports,<br />
such as the Youth Assembly and the<br />
work of the Youth President – can<br />
be robustly supported within the<br />
Network.<br />
185 It will also be important, as<br />
718 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
further work is undertaken during<br />
2012/2013, to ensure that the<br />
Network’s structures, policies and<br />
procedures embed a close working<br />
relationship between the whole of<br />
the Network’s staff team and the<br />
remainder of the Connexional Team.<br />
It is already possible to see some<br />
areas where procedural links will<br />
necessarily be strong and robust –<br />
for example the areas of financial<br />
management and Human Resource<br />
support. In other areas, further work<br />
will be needed in order to ensure<br />
that the Network and the remainder<br />
of the Connexional Team operate as<br />
a holistic group serving the whole<br />
of the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church. Beyond all<br />
structures, policies and procedures,<br />
the Network and the remainder of<br />
the Connexional Team will best serve<br />
the Connexion when strong bonds of<br />
colleagueship exist between expert<br />
staff employed and deployed by the<br />
Church, regardless of their location or<br />
the immediate context of their work.<br />
Allowing such bonds of colleagueship<br />
to be nurtured and strengthened will<br />
be an important early task for those<br />
who will lead the Network and the<br />
remainder of the Connexional Team.<br />
Implementation<br />
186 The Committee’s recommendations<br />
in this section outline the shape of<br />
a team of expert staff. Establishing<br />
and moulding such a team is a<br />
complex task. Careful processes will<br />
need to be put in place as existing<br />
activities are incorporated within<br />
the Discipleship and Ministries<br />
Learning Network. These processes<br />
will be developed and scrutinised<br />
by the <strong>Methodist</strong> Council and the<br />
Development and Personnel Sub-<br />
Committee of the Strategy and<br />
Resources Committee as soon as<br />
possible. As noted in paragraphs<br />
170-171 above, timelines will also<br />
need to take account of the work of<br />
the <strong>Methodist</strong> Council’s “larger than<br />
Circuit” working party. During this<br />
period, and as further developments<br />
take place from the spring of 2013<br />
onwards, it will be important to<br />
communicate clearly and effectively<br />
with a number of colleagues who<br />
will face insecurity and significant<br />
pressures, and to continue to value<br />
and support their important ministry<br />
within the life of the <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Church. It will also be important to<br />
ensure that current strengths and<br />
good practice across the Connexion<br />
are protected, developed and<br />
retained.<br />
Section I: Spaces<br />
Recommendation: The identification of<br />
appropriate gathering spaces for formation,<br />
learning and development across the<br />
Connexion, and the development of a<br />
virtual space for formation, learning and<br />
development.<br />
Gathering spaces for formation, learning<br />
and development<br />
187 We recommend the identification of<br />
a number of gathering and learning<br />
spaces across the Connexion<br />
which will support the work of the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 719
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
Network, and of the regional teams in<br />
particular. As is outlined in section J<br />
below, the Committee has concluded<br />
that a significant reduction in the<br />
number of institutions, colleges and<br />
centres sponsored by the <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Church is required. However, there<br />
is a distinction to be made between<br />
a move away from the sponsorship<br />
of a number of institutions across<br />
the Connexion towards a model<br />
which includes two centres, and<br />
seeing those two centres as the only<br />
gathering and learning spaces offered<br />
by the Network. The task is to identify<br />
and, where necessary, create the right<br />
sort of ’spaces’ across the Connexion<br />
where a range of learners and<br />
participants can gather for formation,<br />
learning and development. The<br />
Committee’s recommendation is that<br />
it is unnecessary for those gathering<br />
and learning spaces to be set up as<br />
fully-fledged institutions, colleges or<br />
centres.<br />
188 The need for such gathering<br />
and learning spaces across the<br />
Connexion was identified by several<br />
submissions made during the<br />
consultation period. A submission<br />
from a District officer noted that<br />
“I see the sense in concentrating<br />
resources and of one [centre] through<br />
which the training is coordinated<br />
and held coherently and cohesively.<br />
However, Methodism traditionally is<br />
a multi-facetted movement which<br />
may still require more intimate<br />
settings through which this diversity<br />
can continue to be taken forward,<br />
nurtured and thrive... Sweeping away<br />
all existing institutions may appear<br />
the most cost effective solution today<br />
but might we regret this in a few<br />
years time when we struggle to find<br />
suitable places to gather?” Another<br />
District officer’s submission noted<br />
that “it is understood that regional<br />
networks are key to [the] success<br />
of this model – I am just hoping that<br />
these ‘networks’ will include learning<br />
centres (like satellites, linked to the<br />
hub but spread around the regions)<br />
so that local people who are unable<br />
to travel to a centralised hub (or<br />
unable to stay away from home due<br />
to home/work commitments) can still<br />
access these broad pathways that will<br />
be open to them. They need to share<br />
with others training in person – and<br />
not just by remote ‘e-learning’ type<br />
solutions.” Another District officer’s<br />
submission notes that “if we are to<br />
offer hospitality and be welcoming<br />
then we may need more than one<br />
hub and need to retain appropriate<br />
places where folks can be gathered<br />
be they from within the Connexion,<br />
the wider Christian communities or<br />
the even broader secular society.<br />
Also, if we are to become more<br />
proactive, strategic and holistic this<br />
cries out for discipleship that is not<br />
fixed to one place, one institution,<br />
one ivory tower, one temple (even<br />
one virtual hub) but is a fluid form<br />
of discipleship which is not called to<br />
gather but rather sent out to witness<br />
to the Good News of our Lord Jesus<br />
Christ.” A tutor’s submission notes<br />
that “the excellent environment<br />
for learning and formation that is<br />
envisaged for the hub could also<br />
720 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
be creatively envisaged in different<br />
places across the Connexion,<br />
particularly if the majority of<br />
learning does not happen at the<br />
single hub location... Experience of<br />
blended learning... has highlighted<br />
the limitations of solely relying on<br />
tutorials via Skype and occasional<br />
weekend residential courses for<br />
those training for ministry.” A partner<br />
organisation’s submission noted that<br />
“we affirm the need for ‘quiet restful<br />
places’ where space and time can be<br />
offered for theological reflection and<br />
where events can take place which<br />
encourage and enrich the discipleship<br />
life of the <strong>Methodist</strong> people.”<br />
189 The establishment of such “quiet,<br />
restful places” where learners and<br />
participants can gather is not an alien<br />
concept for the <strong>Methodist</strong> people.<br />
Local Churches are themselves,<br />
by their very nature and purpose,<br />
gathering spaces for formation,<br />
learning and development. Many<br />
Circuits and Local Churches<br />
are investing in adaptations to<br />
existing premises, or in building<br />
new premises, which are better<br />
configured as environments for study<br />
and sharing. Within some Districts,<br />
larger churches, central halls or other<br />
notable buildings within the life of<br />
the District are already developing<br />
as gathering spaces for formation,<br />
learning and development serving<br />
a wide area. Development plans<br />
being explored by the trustees of<br />
the New Room, Bristol include the<br />
potential for developments on the<br />
site to create intentionally appropriate<br />
space for study and sharing, with the<br />
necessary ancillary facilities to make<br />
the experience of gathering for study<br />
and sharing both comfortable and<br />
attractive.<br />
190 It is therefore already possible to see<br />
ways in which a recommendation by<br />
the Committee to identify appropriate<br />
gathering spaces for formation,<br />
learning and development can<br />
draw on existing experience and<br />
developments, and on a willingness<br />
across the Connexion to use our<br />
premises more strategically as a key<br />
resource for mission and growth.<br />
191 Drawing on the developments already<br />
explored by some Districts, it is<br />
possible to imagine learning and<br />
gathering spaces being developed<br />
alongside District administration<br />
hubs, so that the gathering space can<br />
be used for a multitude of purposes<br />
within the life of the District or region.<br />
Drawing on the experience of the<br />
explorations being undertaken by the<br />
trustees of the New Room, it is also<br />
possible to imagine the development<br />
of gathering spaces in the historic<br />
bases of Bristol and London, for<br />
instance, which draw on the rich<br />
opportunities to establish links<br />
between the learning space and the<br />
history of Methodism, emphasising<br />
the spiritual and relational aspects<br />
of gathering spaces as well as their<br />
more functional purposes.<br />
192 As those who act as managing<br />
trustees for a range of premises<br />
across the Connexion realise, spaces<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 721
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
for gathering and learning need<br />
to be safe, sustaining, welcoming<br />
– spaces with personality within<br />
which people find room to reflect<br />
and to be inspired. Size, form,<br />
location, accessibility, technological<br />
facilities, acoustics and furniture<br />
are all appropriate and necessary<br />
considerations.<br />
193 The Committee believes there is<br />
much to be gained from taking a<br />
systematic and informed approach<br />
to developments in this area, and<br />
is confident that it will be possible<br />
to identify a number of apt and<br />
excellent spaces for gathering and<br />
learning across the Connexion. This<br />
necessarily involves a redirection<br />
of attention away from sponsoring<br />
a number of institutions, colleges<br />
and centres across the Connexion<br />
towards the development of spaces,<br />
on the understanding that such<br />
spaces will be able to provide the<br />
flexible and appropriately-configured<br />
resource which will complement the<br />
regional teams and which may also<br />
be able to provide a base for other<br />
types of <strong>Methodist</strong> activity in Districts<br />
and regions. There is also strong<br />
potential for future developments<br />
to tie into the discussions of the<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Council’s “larger than<br />
Circuit” working party, as it considers<br />
how best to resource other activities<br />
and responsibilities within the lives<br />
of Districts and regions. These<br />
considerations provide the context for<br />
the implementation of this component<br />
of the core recommendation.<br />
Virtual spaces<br />
194 A number of institutions, colleges<br />
and centres already make use of<br />
virtual learning environments. Such<br />
environments enable a range of<br />
learning resources (including articles,<br />
extracts from books, digital copies<br />
of archival material, recordings of<br />
lectures, programme handbooks,<br />
forms and supporting materials) to be<br />
more easily accessible. An increasing<br />
range of software packages and<br />
improved hardware also enable<br />
interaction (through discussion<br />
boards and real time seminars), thus<br />
allowing virtual learning environments<br />
to be spaces of collaborative<br />
learning as well as a means of<br />
distributing information. Rarely if<br />
ever is engagement through a virtual<br />
learning environment the sole means<br />
of delivering programmes, with<br />
institutions, colleges and centres<br />
opting for a blend of virtual and faceto-face<br />
interaction.<br />
195 The Committee therefore<br />
recommends that the Network should<br />
develop a robust, accessible and<br />
excellent virtual space. This will<br />
enable the Network to complement<br />
other types of formation, learning<br />
and development with apt online<br />
resources and interaction. This will<br />
also enable pathways, opportunities,<br />
programmes and resources to be<br />
more accessible, including to those<br />
who, for reasons of distance or other<br />
commitments, find it difficult to gather<br />
together with other learners on a<br />
regular basis or at particular times.<br />
722 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
Care will need to be taken to ensure<br />
that the development of a virtual<br />
space does not disadvantage those<br />
in parts of the Connexion whose<br />
civic infrastructure does not support<br />
broadband internet access and those<br />
who do not have ready access to, or<br />
familiarity with, electronic devices.<br />
Care will also need to be taken to see<br />
that the virtual space sits alongside<br />
other spaces and experiences,<br />
and that the value of face-to-face<br />
interaction with fellow learners and<br />
expert staff is not undermined.<br />
However, the Committee wishes to<br />
see the Network enabled to engage<br />
in cutting edge developments in<br />
this field, not least because of the<br />
potential for engaging more effectively<br />
with children and young people.<br />
Developing a coherent virtual space<br />
through the Network will also avoid<br />
the duplication of development costs<br />
and support costs which will occur if<br />
individual institutions, colleges and<br />
centres invest in the establishment<br />
and maintenance of separate<br />
systems. Above all, a virtual space<br />
will provide an important means of<br />
sharing information widely, between<br />
expert staff, across the Connexion<br />
and, indeed, beyond. The Committee<br />
noted a submission made by an<br />
institutional representative during the<br />
consultation period which reflected on<br />
John Wesley’s educational vision. It<br />
noted that “much of [Wesley’s] work<br />
in that field was directed to producing<br />
educational materials that could be<br />
used nationally (his Christian Library,<br />
his sermons, Charles’s hymns, etc). I<br />
am therefore sure that today he would<br />
be fully utilising online learning.”<br />
196 The Committee recommends that<br />
implementation of this component of<br />
the core recommendation should, if<br />
possible, take place in collaboration<br />
with a university partner. Working<br />
in partnership in this way is likely<br />
to make a large pool of expertise<br />
and good practice available to<br />
the Network in a rapidly changing<br />
discipline. It is also recommended<br />
that consultations continue with the<br />
United <strong>Methodist</strong> Church (UMC),<br />
whose E-Academy programme, based<br />
in Switzerland but serving large parts<br />
of the Central <strong>Conference</strong>s of the<br />
UMC, provides a base for further<br />
collaboration and mutually-beneficial<br />
development.<br />
Section J: Centres<br />
Recommendation: The establishment of<br />
two connexional centres, one based at Cliff<br />
College and the other based at the Queen’s<br />
Foundation.<br />
197 In order to support the work of the<br />
Discipleship and Ministries Learning<br />
Network, we recommend that the<br />
Network should sustain and invest<br />
in two centres only, and that these<br />
centres should be based at and<br />
develop from the present activities<br />
of Cliff College and the Queen’s<br />
Foundation.<br />
The role of centres<br />
198 As outlined above in section D, the<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Church has, in its recent<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 723
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
history, sponsored a number of<br />
institutions, colleges and centres<br />
to provide a range of services<br />
and opportunities in the fields<br />
of formation, learning, training,<br />
theological education, scholarship,<br />
research and development. However,<br />
the rationale for sponsorship of such<br />
a high number of institutions and<br />
communities has not always been<br />
clearly articulated, nor has a clear<br />
account always been given of that<br />
which the Church hopes to achieve<br />
through its sponsorship of particular<br />
institutions, colleges and centres and<br />
of institutions, colleges and centres<br />
in general.<br />
199 To aid its reflections on the<br />
contribution of institutions, colleges<br />
and centres to the Discipleship and<br />
Ministries Learning Network, the<br />
Committee sought to identify the<br />
unique role which centres can play<br />
within the life of the Church and the<br />
Network. In doing so, the Committee<br />
sought to be realistic about its prior<br />
decision to focus its resources on<br />
an expert staff team in the first<br />
instance, but also realistic about<br />
those things which, within the wider<br />
educational context, can only be<br />
achieved through a centre and its<br />
associated infrastructure. In all of this<br />
the Committee drew heavily on its<br />
understanding of the life and witness<br />
of those institutions, colleges and<br />
centres currently sponsored by the<br />
Church and on the submissions made<br />
during the consultation period.<br />
200 The Committee concluded that a<br />
centre should be able to make the<br />
following unique contributions to the<br />
life of the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church and the<br />
Discipleship and Ministries Learning<br />
Network:<br />
200.1 A centre should be a community of<br />
faith which nurtures and supports<br />
a deep expertise in formation,<br />
learning, training, theological<br />
education, scholarship, research<br />
and development. Such a centre will<br />
benefit from the synergy between<br />
different activities and from the<br />
interaction between different learners;<br />
it will engender a prayerful community<br />
which allows students, learners,<br />
guests and staff to affirm, share and<br />
engage with diverse insights, cultures<br />
and convictions.<br />
200.2 A centre should provide a home and<br />
a gathering place for a community<br />
of students and learners (resident<br />
and visiting, full-time and part-time),<br />
guests and staff (teaching and<br />
research staff; administrative staff;<br />
domestic and maintenance staff;<br />
and visiting colleagues from across<br />
the Network); and should be able to<br />
provide residential hospitality for short<br />
and longer periods of time. Such a<br />
centre will be able to offer a base<br />
to support the broad and dispersed<br />
activities of the Network. Such a<br />
centre will also be able to support a<br />
broad range of pathways, including<br />
those which will rely on periods of<br />
residence. As a learning institution<br />
noted in its submission made during<br />
the consultation period, such a centre<br />
will also be able to sustain “the<br />
724 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
fundamental rhythms of prayer and<br />
study and common life which remain<br />
central to our understanding and<br />
practice of Christian formation.”<br />
200.3 A centre (through its structures,<br />
resources and partnerships) should be<br />
able to connect with partners across<br />
the World Church. A connexional<br />
committee, in its submission made<br />
during the consultation period,<br />
challenged the Connexion “to raise<br />
its eyes beyond the traditional and<br />
historic boundaries of learning<br />
provision and to incorporate a<br />
broader world-view. We also challenge<br />
the Connexion to engender a culture<br />
of learning which is outward-facing,<br />
world-engaged and global in its<br />
understanding of participation in<br />
God’s mission. We challenge the<br />
Connexion to develop an expression<br />
of discipleship which expands<br />
horizons and embraces the wideranging<br />
perspectives of our World<br />
Church partners.” As a submission<br />
from a learning institution noted,<br />
“we need an institution in the UK<br />
that helps the world wide family of<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong>s to be shaped together<br />
for mission, to learn with and from<br />
each other, to be a partner with other<br />
institutions [across the World Church]<br />
to build their capacity and to receive<br />
their wisdom and insights.”<br />
200.4 A centre (through its structures,<br />
resources and partnerships) should<br />
be able to allow deep sharing with<br />
ecumenical partners. As a tutor<br />
noted in their submission made<br />
during the consultation period, “there<br />
is a richness to be derived from<br />
training in community with partner<br />
denominations and this requires<br />
students to sit together and learn<br />
together.” Directing us towards a wide<br />
understanding of the role of centres<br />
in the context of ecumenical working,<br />
a postholder in a partner organisation<br />
noted that “my observation is<br />
that [newer denominations and]<br />
churches in particular, look to the<br />
historic churches as possessors of<br />
theological and educational resources<br />
which they do not have, and are<br />
eager to develop relationships so<br />
that those resources can be shared...<br />
In other words part of the synergy<br />
is what the historic churches have<br />
and can bring to the table.” As a<br />
partner organisation noted, “in a<br />
post-denominational future we... see<br />
the increasing need for institutions<br />
in good standing across the wider<br />
Church, offering training with a rich<br />
ecumenical mix, whilst at the same<br />
time offering <strong>Methodist</strong> charisms as a<br />
gift to the Church universal.”<br />
200.5 A centre (through its structures,<br />
resources and partnerships)<br />
should be able to nurture apt<br />
and excellent scholarship and<br />
research, in partnership with the<br />
Higher Education sector. As a tutor<br />
noted in their submission made<br />
during the consultation period,<br />
“the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church needs a<br />
university validated institution<br />
where some of the core areas of<br />
Methodism can be academically<br />
researched and studied. This is to<br />
provide accessible scholarship to<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 725
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
further enrich the people of God<br />
and enable the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church in<br />
Britain to continue to make a wider<br />
contribution within Christianity and<br />
the world.” As a submission from<br />
a Higher Education practitioner<br />
noted, it will be important to engage<br />
with “the kind of models used by<br />
the leading universities of today<br />
– the importance of research-led<br />
teaching, international relationships,<br />
diversity of delivery, etc. These<br />
should be major parts of a strategy<br />
for the long term development of<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> training.” The possibility<br />
of an ecumenical Higher Education<br />
partnership, and its implications in<br />
terms of shared resources across<br />
the denominations and regardless of<br />
geographical proximity, is a significant<br />
developmental feature here (see<br />
paragraphs 148-156 above).<br />
The number of centres<br />
201 The Committee’s judgement was that<br />
only a very limited number of such<br />
centres can and should be supported<br />
by the Church. A consultation<br />
submission from a postholder in a<br />
partner organisation provided a wider<br />
context for some of the Committee’s<br />
considerations in this area:<br />
Methodism faces a similar<br />
problem to most of the historic<br />
denominations in England. It<br />
is burdened by a history of<br />
inadequately maintained college<br />
buildings which do not meet<br />
the demands of either modern<br />
education practice or indeed<br />
legislation. Those buildings<br />
were designed to provide for the<br />
needs of communities of full-time<br />
ordinands and those who taught<br />
them. As the number of fulltime<br />
ordinands has diminished<br />
over the last 30 years, the<br />
educational and training needs<br />
of the Church have diversified.<br />
Theological education is one of<br />
the most emotionally charged<br />
parts of church life because<br />
denominational identity is<br />
partly expressed through its<br />
institutions, and because these<br />
institutions form people at<br />
critical moments in their spiritual<br />
lives. This will not be a pain free<br />
business for those charged with<br />
a review.<br />
202 Taking a broader view, beyond<br />
institutions focused on student<br />
ministers, several consultation<br />
submissions from within Methodism<br />
similarly argued for a significant and<br />
necessary consolidation. A learning<br />
institution’s submission noted the<br />
need for a “radical consolidation of<br />
the number of institutions in which<br />
the Connexion has investment<br />
of capital assets, personnel<br />
and expertise.” Another learning<br />
institution’s submission noted that<br />
“we acknowledge that the multiplicity<br />
of institutions has contributed to<br />
fragmented, uncoordinated provision<br />
and sometimes to competitive<br />
attitudes between institutions. We<br />
confess that training institutions have<br />
often not been willing or able to work<br />
together effectively. We recognise that<br />
726 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
the current provision does not make<br />
efficient use of resources and is not<br />
sustainable. We agree that radical<br />
change is needed.” A researcher<br />
and lecturer’s submission noted that<br />
“it has always been clear, from the<br />
early conversations [in 2005] that<br />
change was needed. The replication<br />
and multiplication of resources for<br />
theological training provided a rich<br />
field of opportunities for training.<br />
However, the greenhouse growth of<br />
those resources has been shown<br />
to reflect some poor stewardship<br />
of our resources. The vine was not<br />
pruned as it grew and now the fruit is<br />
shown to be wanting.” The Committee<br />
concurred with this widely shared<br />
judgement that sponsorship of a<br />
range of institutions, colleges and<br />
centres was leading to replication,<br />
fragmented provision, missed<br />
opportunities for cross-fertilisation<br />
across and between activities, and an<br />
inefficient use of resources.<br />
203 The Committee’s deliberations about<br />
other aspects of the Discipleship<br />
and Ministries Learning Network also<br />
argue for a limited number of centres.<br />
A focus on equipping and supporting<br />
regional teams dictates a necessarily<br />
limited focus on centres. Given a<br />
limited focus, and a consequently<br />
limited pool of resources, there is a<br />
significant risk that the dispersal of<br />
already limited resources across a<br />
number of centres would restrict their<br />
effectiveness and diminish their longterm<br />
sustainability.<br />
204 Furthermore, the Committee’s<br />
description of the marks of centres<br />
(see paragraph 200 above) clearly<br />
indicated to the Committee that<br />
centres structured along these lines<br />
were complex institutions. A focused<br />
commitment to the responsible use<br />
of energy and resources is required<br />
to establish sustainable centres<br />
which can deliver this broad range of<br />
activities to the highest standards.<br />
Coordination of these activities<br />
across a number of centres would be<br />
extremely complex, and it would be<br />
extremely likely that provision would<br />
again become fragmented.<br />
Reducing the number of centres<br />
205 The recommendation to establish a<br />
Discipleship and Ministries Learning<br />
Network, containing within it a strictly<br />
limited number of centres configured<br />
to make contributions along the lines<br />
outlined in paragraph 200 above,<br />
allowed the Committee to make, in<br />
turn, some initial recommendations<br />
about the <strong>Conference</strong>’s sponsorship<br />
of a number of institutions, colleges<br />
and centres.<br />
ERMC, SEITE, STETS and SWMTC<br />
206 The Committee recommends that<br />
the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church should, in an<br />
organised and structured manner,<br />
withdraw its sponsorship from the<br />
Eastern Region Ministry Course<br />
(ERMC), the South-East Institute<br />
for Theological Education (SEITE),<br />
the Southern Theological Education<br />
and Training Scheme (STETS) and<br />
the South-West Ministry Training<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 727
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
Course (SWMTC). The Committee<br />
is confident that, within the wider<br />
Network, including through the posts<br />
within the regional teams focusing<br />
on the development of ordained<br />
ministries and roles, capacity will<br />
be available to support the types of<br />
pathways which are currently being<br />
offered through these institutions<br />
– specifically, pathways for student<br />
ministers studying on a part-time<br />
basis alongside other work or family<br />
commitments. The Committee would<br />
not wish this recommendation to<br />
be seen as an adverse judgement<br />
about the quality of the formational<br />
pathways offered within these<br />
institutions at present. However,<br />
the incorporation of the pathways<br />
currently offered through these<br />
institutions within the Network (a)<br />
will establish more robust <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
formational communities than those<br />
currently experienced by some of<br />
the student ministers on these<br />
pathways; (b) will bring a reduction in<br />
the number of independent partners<br />
involved in a number of connexional<br />
processes (eg candidating, the<br />
allocation of student ministers,<br />
student minister and probationer<br />
oversight), thus making those<br />
processes more streamlined and<br />
efficient; (c) will enable resources<br />
which are currently dedicated towards<br />
the maintenance of capacity within<br />
these institutions as their governing<br />
bodies direct to be used more flexibly<br />
within the Network; (d) will make<br />
it easier to share and distribute<br />
some of the resources which are<br />
current exclusively developed and<br />
made available for student ministers<br />
more widely. The Committee hopes<br />
that bonds of colleagueship and<br />
collaboration can be developed<br />
between regional teams and these<br />
institutions, and, in doing so, echoes<br />
the hopes for such links mentioned<br />
in the submissions made by some of<br />
the institutions concerned during the<br />
consultation period. The Committee<br />
has assessed the risks and costs for<br />
the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church of withdrawal<br />
from the institutions concerned,<br />
and consideration has been given<br />
to the impact of withdrawal on<br />
the institutions themselves. In<br />
both cases, the Committee is<br />
confident that its recommendation<br />
is sound and reasonable. The<br />
Committee records its thanks to<br />
ERMC, SEITE, STETS and SWMTC<br />
for their ready partnership with the<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Church, and will wish to<br />
express its gratitude through other<br />
representations over coming months.<br />
Hartley Victoria College, Manchester,<br />
the York Institute for Community<br />
Theology and the Urban Theology<br />
Unit, Sheffield<br />
207 The Committee also recommends<br />
that the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church should, in<br />
an organised and structured manner,<br />
move to end its activities at Hartley<br />
Victoria College, Manchester, the York<br />
Institute for Community Theology and<br />
the Urban Theology Unit, Sheffield,<br />
and move to incorporate their<br />
activities within the Discipleship and<br />
Ministries Learning Network. The<br />
rationale for doing so is similar to<br />
728 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
that offered in paragraph 206 above<br />
– namely that the pathways offered<br />
by these institutions could, with<br />
confidence, be offered through the<br />
Network in a manner which is more<br />
efficient and robust. Given that both<br />
Hartley Victoria College and the York<br />
Institute for Community Theology are<br />
institutions which operate under the<br />
auspices of the <strong>Methodist</strong> Council,<br />
the Church owes a particular duty<br />
of care towards these institutions,<br />
and in particular towards the staff<br />
stationed and appointed to them.<br />
Careful processes will need to be<br />
put in place as their activities are<br />
incorporated within the Discipleship<br />
and Ministries Learning Network.<br />
Additionally, there are many creative<br />
resources developed within these<br />
institutions which the Committee<br />
would wish to secure and retain;<br />
the York Institute for Community<br />
Theology, for example, provides<br />
a number of programmes in the<br />
fields of leadership and consultancy<br />
which could very beneficially be<br />
incorporated within the Network;<br />
similarly, Hartley Victoria College<br />
has developed an expertise in the<br />
planning and development of blended<br />
formational pathways for student<br />
ministers which, again, should be<br />
incorporated within the Network.<br />
Again, the Committee has, to the<br />
best of its capacity, assessed the<br />
risks and costs for the <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Church of ending its activities within<br />
these institutions in this way, and<br />
consideration has also been given to<br />
the impact of withdrawal on partners<br />
and other stakeholders. In both<br />
cases, the Committee is confident<br />
that its recommendation is sound<br />
and reasonable. The Committee<br />
records its thanks to the Luther<br />
King House Educational Trust, UTU<br />
and York St John University for<br />
their ready partnership with the<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Church, and will wish to<br />
express its gratitude through other<br />
representations over coming months.<br />
The <strong>Methodist</strong> Church in Scotland<br />
Learning and Development Network<br />
and the Wales Training Network<br />
208 The Committee recommends that<br />
student ministers are no longer<br />
allocated to the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church in<br />
Scotland Learning and Development<br />
Network and the Wales Training<br />
Network. Provision was made for<br />
the allocation of student ministers<br />
to the Scottish and Welsh networks<br />
by the <strong>Conference</strong> in 2007. The<br />
rationale for moving to end this<br />
arrangement is similar to that offered<br />
in paragraph 206 above – namely<br />
that the pathways offered by these<br />
institutions can, with confidence,<br />
be offered through the Network<br />
without the need for the networks to<br />
continue to act as virtual institutions.<br />
The Committee acknowledges with<br />
gratitude the partnership which has<br />
existed with the Church in Wales<br />
through St Michael’s College, Llandaff<br />
over recent years, and again hopes<br />
that bonds of colleagueship and<br />
collaboration can be maintained<br />
between regional staff members and<br />
the College’s tutors and leaders.<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 729
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
The <strong>Methodist</strong> Diaconal Order Centre<br />
209 The Committee recommends that<br />
the broad formational activities<br />
which currently have their base at<br />
the <strong>Methodist</strong> Diaconal Order Centre<br />
should be incorporated within the<br />
Network. The Committee is grateful<br />
to the <strong>Methodist</strong> Diaconal Order for<br />
organising a consultation meeting at<br />
the Centre during the consultation<br />
period, during which those gathered<br />
from within the Order were able to<br />
reflect on the role and purpose of the<br />
Centre and to envisage some of the<br />
characteristics which the Network,<br />
especially through its centres, would<br />
need to nurture and develop in<br />
order to enable those aspects of the<br />
Centre’s life which are currently highly<br />
valued to be incorporated within<br />
the Network. The Committee was<br />
confident that this could be done,<br />
and welcomes the enthusiasm and<br />
collaborative spirit shown by those<br />
who gathered at the consultation<br />
meeting.<br />
The Southlands <strong>Methodist</strong> Trust<br />
210 The Committee recommends that the<br />
activities of the Southlands <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Trust are incorporated within the<br />
Network. The most significant<br />
component of the Trust’s activities is<br />
its role in supporting the development<br />
of Christian (specifically <strong>Methodist</strong>)<br />
understanding and appreciation<br />
of contemporary issues of local,<br />
national and global significance for the<br />
Church and society, and in facilitating<br />
the public dissemination of such<br />
developments, all in partnership with<br />
the Higher Education sector. The<br />
Trust currently achieves these aims<br />
through awarding grants for fixed-term<br />
projects, working in close partnership<br />
with the University of Roehampton.<br />
The Committee is confident that<br />
the most significant activities of the<br />
Trust can be achieved through the<br />
Network in a coordinated manner.<br />
The Committee has, to the best of its<br />
capacity, assessed the impact of such<br />
an incorporation on the Trust and its<br />
existing partners, and the Committee<br />
is confident that its recommendation<br />
is sound and reasonable.<br />
SOCMS<br />
211 The Committee recommends that<br />
the activities of the Selly Oak Centre<br />
for Mission Studies are incorporated<br />
within the Network. SOCMS currently<br />
prepares Mission Partners for service<br />
overseas and acts as a British<br />
base at which leaders from Partner<br />
Churches undertake a Masters<br />
course in mission and leadership<br />
studies. Several parties have noted<br />
the benefits which have already<br />
been gained by incorporating the<br />
work of SOCMS within the Queen’s<br />
Foundation, thereby permitting crossfertilisation<br />
between the overseas<br />
mission-focused work of SOCMS<br />
and the Foundation’s ministerial<br />
development activities. It is now<br />
appropriate to take this a step further<br />
by enabling the Network to undertake<br />
the activities currently undertaken<br />
by SOCMS as a core element of<br />
its activities, without the need to<br />
730 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
maintain a separate institutional<br />
infrastructure.<br />
CODEC<br />
212 The Committee recommends that<br />
the objectives which the <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Church currently achieves through its<br />
sponsorship of CODEC (the Centre for<br />
Biblical Literacy and Communication)<br />
are achieved within and through the<br />
Network. The Church’s sponsorship of<br />
CODEC is a welcome manifestation of<br />
the Church’s commitment to support<br />
scholarship, research and innovation.<br />
As noted in paragraphs 125-126,<br />
166.2, 174.2 and 178.7 above and<br />
264 below, capacity will be created<br />
and sustained within and through<br />
the Network to undertake academic<br />
study projects, research projects,<br />
and innovative and creative thinking.<br />
The Church’s sponsorship of CODEC<br />
is also a welcome manifestation<br />
of the Church’s commitment to<br />
support the development of the<br />
means for apt and effective witness<br />
and presence in our contemporary<br />
society, using contemporary means.<br />
As noted in paragraphs 124, 164.4,<br />
173.2 and 178.6 above, capacity<br />
will be created and sustained within<br />
and through the Network to focus<br />
innovatively on such needs. Again,<br />
coordinating such activities within<br />
the Network will permit welcome<br />
cross-fertilisation between these and<br />
other activities. The Committee has<br />
given consideration to the impact<br />
of such a change on CODEC and St<br />
John’s College, and the Ministries<br />
Committee is confident that its<br />
recommendation is sound and<br />
reasonable. Further discussions<br />
about the implementation of this<br />
recommendation will be able to<br />
be taken forward by the <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Council’s representatives on CODEC’s<br />
Management Committee; however,<br />
the Committee wishes here to record<br />
its thanks to St John’s College for its<br />
ready partnership in this context.<br />
MIC<br />
213 The Committee recommends that<br />
the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church should, in an<br />
organised and structured manner,<br />
move to designate <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
International Centre as an institution<br />
which generates an income to<br />
support the wider activities of the<br />
Network.<br />
214 The charitable activity currently<br />
undertaken at MIC – the provision<br />
of student and educational<br />
accommodation – has its roots<br />
in the 1950s, when a committee<br />
was maintained by the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
(the Committee for the Care of<br />
Overseas Students) in order to<br />
oversee the provision of affordable<br />
and secure accommodation for<br />
students, and especially students<br />
from overseas or from non-urban<br />
backgrounds, studying in London<br />
and other major conurbations. Over<br />
the years countless students have<br />
acknowledged their gratitude for the<br />
support they have received in the<br />
Christian environments supported<br />
by the Committee and the Church.<br />
However, over recent decades, the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 731
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
nature of the student accommodation<br />
market and the profile of overseas<br />
students have changed significantly.<br />
Several commercial providers<br />
now provide high-quality student<br />
accommodation, and several<br />
universities have developed their own<br />
student accommodation services in<br />
order to enhance the quality of the<br />
student experience. The <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Church’s own experiences both<br />
at the University of Roehampton<br />
(through Southlands College) and at<br />
Oxford Brookes University (through<br />
Westminster College) testify to<br />
the advances in the provision of<br />
appropriate student accommodation,<br />
either by universities themselves<br />
or by third party providers and<br />
on commercial terms. Similarly,<br />
the profile of overseas students<br />
has changed. The Management<br />
Committee of MIC reviewed its<br />
activities in this sphere in 2010 and<br />
reported to the <strong>Methodist</strong> Council:<br />
The world of student needs and<br />
accommodation has changed<br />
beyond recognition in the last<br />
ten to fifteen years. Today, the<br />
foreign student is part of a vast<br />
student market, highly sought<br />
after and very well provided for<br />
by universities and the private<br />
sector and at levels of comfort<br />
and with a range of facilities<br />
beyond that which MIC could<br />
provide. The students at MIC are<br />
from wealthy families and / or<br />
supported by growing economies<br />
in Asia and even parts of Africa.<br />
Therefore the [Management<br />
Committee has] had to face the<br />
fact that the original reasons<br />
for MIC providing student<br />
accommodation support have<br />
now all but disappeared. Such<br />
issues have been at the heart of<br />
the search of the [management<br />
Committee] to discern the Will of<br />
God for this place over the last<br />
few years. 24<br />
Furthermore, the provision of student<br />
accommodation as a separate<br />
activity and on separate sites to the<br />
Church’s own activities which regularly<br />
require residential and conference<br />
accommodation (namely those<br />
learning institutions undertaking<br />
ministerial formation and delivering<br />
other courses) does not allow for a<br />
cross-fertilisation of activities and a<br />
considered use of residential space<br />
on a cross-institutional basis.<br />
215 Consequently it is advisable<br />
to discontinue the provision of<br />
subsidised student accommodation<br />
at MIC, and to continue to develop<br />
the site’s existing successful<br />
activities as a social enterprise hotel.<br />
This will enable MIC to become an<br />
institution which generates an income<br />
to support the wider activities of the<br />
Network, including supporting the<br />
valuable role of the centres within<br />
the Network as places which are<br />
able to provide residential hospitality<br />
24<br />
MC/10/53, “Spirituality of Hospitality: A 21st Century Interpretation of Hilda Porter’s vision”<br />
732 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
for short and longer periods of time,<br />
and as places which are able to<br />
connect with partners across the<br />
World Church and members from<br />
Partner Churches who are part of<br />
the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church in Britain<br />
for longer or shorter periods of<br />
time (see paragraphs 200.1-200.3<br />
above). The Committee has, to the<br />
best of its capacity, made an initial<br />
assessment of the impact of such a<br />
change on MIC. Further discussions<br />
about the implementation of this<br />
recommendation should be taken<br />
forward with the Management<br />
Committee and the directors of<br />
MIC Ltd, the trading company which<br />
is already in place to manage the<br />
commercial activity undertaken on the<br />
site. The Committee is confident that<br />
its recommendation is sound and<br />
reasonable.<br />
The Guy Chester Centre<br />
216 The Committee recommends that<br />
the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church should, in an<br />
organised and structured manner,<br />
move to incorporate the spirituality<br />
and training activities undertaken at<br />
the Guy Chester Centre within the<br />
wider Network, while designating<br />
the Centre as an institution which<br />
generates an income to support the<br />
wider activities of the Network.<br />
217 The Centre’s spirituality and training<br />
activities include the provision of<br />
quiet days, retreats and a range of<br />
short courses and day courses in<br />
a number of spiritual, pastoral and<br />
organisational fields. The Committee<br />
is confident that such activities can<br />
be incorporated within the Network.<br />
The rationale for doing so is similar<br />
to that offered in paragraph 206<br />
above – namely that the pathways<br />
offered by the Centre could, through<br />
their incorporation, be offered through<br />
the Network in a manner which is<br />
more efficient and robust, allowing<br />
them to be shared more widely and<br />
removing the need for a separate<br />
infrastructural framework to support<br />
their delivery. There are many creative<br />
resources which have been developed<br />
and delivered within the Centre which<br />
the Committee would wish to secure<br />
and retain in their present form, and<br />
careful processes will need to be<br />
put in place as these activities are<br />
incorporated within the Discipleship<br />
and Ministries Learning Network.<br />
218 The Centre’s other activities<br />
(which account for 90-95% of the<br />
Centre’s overall activity) focus on<br />
the provision of accommodation<br />
for students and a smaller number<br />
of career-starters. The tranquil<br />
gardens and grounds of the North<br />
Bank Estate, which currently houses<br />
the Guy Chester Centre, are also<br />
maintained by its trustees for the<br />
benefit of the students, as well as<br />
a number of other users, including<br />
the membership of Muswell Hill<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Church and the residents<br />
of two MHA homes which are<br />
adjacent to the site. The rationale for<br />
reassessing the provision of student<br />
accommodation at the Centre is<br />
similar to that offered in paragraphs<br />
214 above when discussing the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 733
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
provision of a similar service at MIC.<br />
As is the case within MIC, there is<br />
undoubted value for the students and<br />
career-starters who benefit from the<br />
current provision offered by the Guy<br />
Chester Centre. The accommodation<br />
offered there provides a safe and<br />
supportive place to live, and can<br />
allow access to advice and life-skills<br />
input within a <strong>Methodist</strong> environment.<br />
However, the use of the Centre’s<br />
site as a base for these activities<br />
constitutes a significant connexional<br />
investment in a relatively small<br />
number of individuals. The purposes<br />
and values of the Discipleship and<br />
Ministries Learning Network envisage<br />
the use of resources to support<br />
widely accessible opportunities<br />
across the Connexion. This includes<br />
a strong emphasis on supporting<br />
the ways in which Circuits and Local<br />
Churches can welcome and embrace<br />
young people and young families from<br />
a wide range of diverse backgrounds<br />
and cultures (see paragraph 164.5<br />
above). It also includes, through the<br />
intentional establishment of gathering<br />
and learning spaces, a strong<br />
emphasis on supporting a number<br />
of safe, sustaining, welcoming,<br />
gathering and learning spaces across<br />
the Connexion (see paragraphs<br />
187-193 above). The Network also<br />
envisages its two centres established<br />
as communities of faith which can<br />
provide a home and a hospitable<br />
gathering place for a community of<br />
students, learners and guests (see<br />
paragraphs 200.1-200.3 above).<br />
As such, these centres provide the<br />
primary context for the Network’s<br />
investment in and subsidised support<br />
for centres as communities of faith<br />
and hospitality.<br />
219 Consequently it is advisable to<br />
reassess the provision of subsidised<br />
student accommodation at the Guy<br />
Chester Centre, and to reconfigure<br />
the site’s activities so that it becomes<br />
an income-generating institution for<br />
the wider Network. It is possible that<br />
such a reconfiguration may lead to<br />
significant changes at the Centre.<br />
These require further investigation<br />
depending upon the nature of the<br />
income-generating use made of<br />
the site, and, in the first instance,<br />
upon whether the existing model of<br />
providing student accommodation<br />
can be undertaken on a businessrelated<br />
basis. The Committee has,<br />
to the best of its capacity, made an<br />
initial assessment of the impact<br />
of such a change on the Guy<br />
Chester Centre. Further discussions<br />
about the implementation of this<br />
recommendation should be taken<br />
forward with the managing trustees<br />
of the Centre and, as necessary, with<br />
the managing trustees of Muswell Hill<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Church and the trustees<br />
of MHA. The Committee is confident<br />
that its recommendation is sound<br />
and reasonable.<br />
The identification of Cliff College<br />
220 The vision contained within the<br />
consultation document proposed<br />
the establishment of a single centre<br />
on one site, and the Committee<br />
remains sympathetic to the focused<br />
734 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
and sustainable use of resources<br />
which such proposal ensures (see<br />
paragraphs 113.16-113.25 above).<br />
However, the Committee also<br />
noted carefully the concerns raised<br />
about the consolidation into one<br />
centre outlined in the consultation<br />
document. A large number of these<br />
concerns focused on the risk of<br />
confusing connexionalism with<br />
centralisation, as discussed in<br />
paragraph 181 above. A connexional<br />
committee’s submission noted<br />
that “the centralisation proposed<br />
(one single hub) is excessive. The<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Church is a Connexion and,<br />
as such, requires a focus on regional,<br />
District and Circuit level that a single<br />
stand-alone hub would not be able<br />
to provide... Wesley never envisaged<br />
creating just one educational base<br />
– rather he adopted both a regional<br />
approach (with libraries in Bristol,<br />
Newcastle and London) and a<br />
local approach (with the education<br />
delivered within societies).” While<br />
the Committee believes that the<br />
deployment of regional teams, the<br />
careful dispersal of work currently<br />
undertaken within the Connexional<br />
Team and the creative use of spaces<br />
will alleviate some of these concerns,<br />
the Committee judged that these<br />
concerns about the use of only one<br />
centre should be taken very seriously.<br />
221 The Committee also noted the<br />
importance of, and the demand for,<br />
the work of Cliff College. This strong<br />
affirmation of the work of Cliff College<br />
was evident in the consultation<br />
submissions, which demonstrated a<br />
unique and advanced appreciation<br />
within the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church of the<br />
work of Cliff College – appreciation<br />
found in consultation submissions<br />
from individuals, Circuits, Districts<br />
and other groupings. This affirmation<br />
is also evident in the steady but<br />
significant growth in self-funding<br />
student numbers at Cliff College<br />
over several years. It is also seen in<br />
the stable, self-sustaining business<br />
model, largely funded by fees from<br />
self-supporting students, which Cliff<br />
College has been able to develop.<br />
222 The Committee’s analysis of Cliff<br />
College also identified a number<br />
of other aspects of Cliff College’s<br />
life as a community of faith which<br />
the Committee felt nurtured and<br />
supported forms of formation,<br />
learning, training, theological<br />
education, scholarship, research and<br />
development which are currently of<br />
great benefit to the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church,<br />
and which would be of great benefit<br />
to the Discipleship and Ministries<br />
Learning Network. In particular, the<br />
Committee noted Cliff College’s<br />
historic commitment to lay formation<br />
and its mature understanding of the<br />
importance of equipping the whole<br />
people of God for discipleship and<br />
mission. The Committee also noted<br />
Cliff College’s historic and ongoing<br />
commitment both to reflection on the<br />
practice of mission and evangelism<br />
in a changing culture, and to enabling<br />
people to pioneer new forms of<br />
church appropriate for the future.<br />
The Committee also noted that<br />
Cliff College sustains a range of<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 735
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
ecumenical and other partnerships,<br />
including new and non-traditional<br />
ecumenical partnerships. In terms<br />
of the Committee’s description of<br />
the role of centres within the life of<br />
the Network (see paragraph 200<br />
above), the Committee noted that<br />
these aspects of Cliff College’s life<br />
and witness demonstrated that<br />
the College was fulfilling important<br />
aspects of such a role.<br />
223 Furthermore, the Committee noted<br />
that Cliff has long experience of<br />
adaptation and change in which a<br />
pattern of entrepreneurial innovation<br />
has enabled the College to respond<br />
rapidly and effectively to the needs<br />
of a changing Church. Indeed, the<br />
College’s consultation submission<br />
demonstrated a readiness to work<br />
creatively and innovatively to better<br />
serve the Church in the context<br />
of the vision put forward by the<br />
Ministries Committee. Further still,<br />
the Committee noted that Cliff<br />
College has not always been central<br />
to the Connexion’s activities in the<br />
fields of formation, learning, training,<br />
theological education, scholarship,<br />
research and development, and that<br />
this had been a loss to the Connexion<br />
as well as to the College.<br />
224 The Committee therefore saw<br />
few risks and many benefits to<br />
the identification of Cliff College<br />
as a centre within the proposed<br />
Discipleship and Ministries Learning<br />
Network, thus allowing Cliff College<br />
to develop as a fully-fledged centre<br />
within the Network, while also<br />
allowing the Connexion to benefit<br />
from Cliff’s ongoing engagement<br />
in a range of partnerships and<br />
programmes which have a life and<br />
a strong impact beyond Methodism.<br />
The Committee noted during its<br />
deliberations about Cliff College<br />
that the College did not have a<br />
history of forming and educating<br />
student ministers. It also noted<br />
that it would not be possible to<br />
expect the College, given its historic<br />
emphases and current expertise, to<br />
represent the breadth and diversity<br />
of <strong>Methodist</strong> theology. Consequently,<br />
the identification of Cliff College as a<br />
centre was only possible if more than<br />
one centre was to be recommended<br />
to the <strong>Conference</strong>.<br />
225 While considering these reflections<br />
early in 2012, the Committee was<br />
also conscious that Cliff College was,<br />
in some ways, uniquely vulnerable<br />
to a sustained period of insecurity<br />
about its future. The Committee<br />
has always recognised that The<br />
Fruitful Field project would usher in<br />
a period of insecurity for a number<br />
of postholders and institutions,<br />
but has also wanted to keep such<br />
insecurity to a strict minimum (see<br />
paragraph 14.7 above). Because of<br />
Cliff College’s reliance on self-funding<br />
student fee income and the limited<br />
degree of connexional grant support<br />
offered to the College compared to<br />
other institutions, Cliff College was<br />
particularly vulnerable to a potential<br />
drop in student recruitment caused<br />
by student insecurity about the<br />
College’s future in the light of The<br />
736 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
Fruitful Field’s work. This risk was<br />
identified by the Committee’s own<br />
assessment of the impact of its work<br />
on the institutions within the remit<br />
of the project, and the Committee<br />
felt its responsibility to limit such a<br />
risk, should that be possible without<br />
damaging the integrity of the wider<br />
project.<br />
226 In the light of these reflections,<br />
both about the desirable degree<br />
of consolidation and about the<br />
appropriateness of Cliff College as<br />
a centre, the Committee determined<br />
that its interim response to the<br />
consultation document would<br />
indicate its intention to explore the<br />
feasibility of two centres as opposed<br />
to one centre only, and would also<br />
identify Cliff College as one of the<br />
centres which the Committee would<br />
recommend to the <strong>Conference</strong> (see<br />
the extract from the interim response<br />
in paragraphs 114.5-114.6 above).<br />
Focusing on identifying a second centre<br />
227 The Committee, in its considerations<br />
of a location for a second centre,<br />
took as its starting point the marks<br />
of a centre identified in paragraph<br />
200 above. To these, three other<br />
marks were added by the Committee<br />
in order to reflect the Committee’s<br />
stewardship both of existing good<br />
practice and of past and future<br />
financial investment, and these<br />
appear in paragraphs 228.6-228.8<br />
below.<br />
228 The Committee therefore established<br />
the following marks of the<br />
contribution which two centres should<br />
be able to provide to the Church and<br />
to the wider Network:<br />
228.1 The centres should be communities<br />
of faith which nurture and support<br />
a deep expertise in formation,<br />
learning, training, theological<br />
education, scholarship, research and<br />
development.<br />
228.2 The centres should be able to<br />
provide a home and a gathering<br />
place for communities of students<br />
and learners (resident and visiting),<br />
guests and staff (teaching and<br />
research staff; administrative staff;<br />
domestic and maintenance staff;<br />
and visiting colleagues from across<br />
the Network); and should be able<br />
to provide residential hospitality for<br />
short and longer periods of time.<br />
228.3 The centres (through their structures,<br />
resources and partnerships) should<br />
be able to connect with partners<br />
across the World Church.<br />
228.4 The centres (through their structures,<br />
resources and partnerships) should<br />
be able to allow deep sharing with<br />
ecumenical partners.<br />
228.5 The centres (through their structures,<br />
resources and partnerships) should<br />
be able to nurture apt and excellent<br />
scholarship and research, in<br />
partnership with the Higher Education<br />
sector.<br />
228.6 The centres should be able to draw<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 737
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
on the strengths and good practice<br />
of existing institutions in appropriate<br />
ways.<br />
228.7 The centres should be able to offer<br />
realistic accessibility from across the<br />
Connexion.<br />
228.8 The centres, as premises and<br />
assets as well as communities of<br />
faith, should demonstrate good<br />
stewardship of the <strong>Methodist</strong> people’s<br />
past and continuing investment of<br />
resources.<br />
229 The Committee proceeded to make<br />
assessments of the contribution<br />
which several combinations of<br />
institutions and locations would be<br />
able to make, based on the marks<br />
of the contribution which two centres<br />
should be able to provide to the<br />
Church and to the wider Network.<br />
230 To aid its consideration of institutions<br />
and locations, information about<br />
existing institutions and locations –<br />
drawn from research, analysis and<br />
the submissions made by institutions<br />
themselves during the consultation<br />
period – was ordered in the following<br />
categories:<br />
l<br />
l<br />
l<br />
Existing and (institution-specific<br />
or location-specific) potential<br />
connections with World Church<br />
partners<br />
Existing and (institution-specific<br />
or location-specific) potential<br />
connections with ecumenical<br />
partners<br />
Existing and (institution-specific<br />
l<br />
l<br />
l<br />
l<br />
l<br />
l<br />
l<br />
l<br />
or location-specific) potential<br />
connections with research<br />
universities and institutes<br />
The governance arrangements of<br />
the institution<br />
The status of the institution’s<br />
occupation of its premises/the<br />
institution-specific or locationspecific<br />
potential for new<br />
premises<br />
The maintenance outlook for the<br />
institution’s premises<br />
The financial outlook of the<br />
institution<br />
Any other factors pertaining to<br />
the institution’s assets<br />
Any other institution-specific or<br />
location-specific development<br />
opportunities<br />
Any other risk factors pertaining<br />
to the institution or location<br />
An assessment of the impact of<br />
withdrawal on the institution and<br />
its partners<br />
231 The process of assessment and<br />
discernment took place in two rounds.<br />
The first round included the following<br />
institutions and locations, drawn from<br />
the institutions currently sponsored by<br />
the Church, from suggestions made<br />
in consultation submissions, and<br />
from further research and analysis. In<br />
response to suggestions made to the<br />
Committee during some institutional<br />
consultation submissions and in<br />
further reflections gathered from<br />
institutional leaders in the wake of<br />
the publication of the Committee’s<br />
interim response to the consultation,<br />
configurations involving three centres<br />
were also included at this stage.<br />
738 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
l<br />
l<br />
l<br />
l<br />
l<br />
l<br />
l<br />
l<br />
l<br />
The existing site of Wesley<br />
College, Bristol; and Cliff College<br />
A location in Manchester; and<br />
Cliff College<br />
A location in London; and Cliff<br />
College<br />
The Queen’s Foundation,<br />
Birmingham; and Cliff College<br />
Wesley House, Cambridge<br />
(as currently configured, as a<br />
centre within other premises in<br />
Cambridge, and operating on<br />
two sites (in Cambridge and<br />
London)); and Cliff College<br />
The Wesley Study Centre,<br />
Durham (as currently configured,<br />
as a centre within other premises<br />
in Durham, and operating on two<br />
sites (in Durham and London));<br />
and Cliff College<br />
The Queen’s Foundation,<br />
Birmingham; Wesley House,<br />
Cambridge (as currently<br />
configured and as a centre within<br />
other premises in Cambridge);<br />
and Cliff College<br />
The Queen’s Foundation,<br />
Birmingham; the Wesley Study<br />
Centre, Durham (as currently<br />
configured and as a centre within<br />
other premises in Durham); and<br />
Cliff College<br />
Wesley House, Cambridge (as<br />
currently configured and as a<br />
centre within other premises in<br />
Cambridge); the Wesley Study<br />
Centre, Durham (as currently<br />
configured and as a centre within<br />
other premises in Durham); and<br />
Cliff College<br />
232 For the second round, the first three<br />
configurations were removed, as<br />
deliberations during the first round<br />
had identified them as being the<br />
weakest configurations. In the case<br />
of the existing site of Wesley College,<br />
Bristol, the committee noted that the<br />
decision of the 2007 <strong>Conference</strong> to<br />
withdraw full-time student ministers<br />
from the College, and the decision<br />
of the 2010 <strong>Conference</strong> to close the<br />
College, had necessarily meant that<br />
relationships with local ecumenical<br />
partners and with local Higher<br />
Education sector partners had<br />
diminished, and that the College<br />
was no longer a centre of good<br />
practice in ministerial formation and<br />
development. Significant capital<br />
expenditure would be required to<br />
renovate the premises for use as a<br />
centre. Furthermore, in accordance<br />
with the mandate of the 2011<br />
<strong>Conference</strong>, the market for the site<br />
is being promisingly tested, and the<br />
Committee concluded that there<br />
was insufficient evidence to suggest<br />
that the <strong>Conference</strong> should alter its<br />
view of the site as an investment<br />
asset. In the case of locations<br />
in Manchester and London, the<br />
accessibility of both locations was<br />
noted. However, the developmental<br />
work and the very significant capital<br />
expenditure which would be likely to<br />
be required to establish a centre in<br />
either location was also noted by the<br />
Committee, as was the possible loss<br />
to the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church of the use<br />
of the premises and assets currently<br />
available at both Birmingham and<br />
Cambridge should a new centre<br />
be established in new premises in<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 739
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
Manchester or London.<br />
233 Configurations during the second<br />
round consequently focused on two<br />
or three centres, one of which was<br />
Cliff College and the other of which<br />
was one or more of the Queen’s<br />
Foundation, Birmingham, Wesley<br />
House, Cambridge and the Wesley<br />
Study Centre, Durham.<br />
234 An assessment of configurations<br />
involving the Queen’s Foundation,<br />
Birmingham noted, among other<br />
strengths: (a) the contribution which<br />
would be made by a continuing<br />
association with the expertise in<br />
cross-cultural and international<br />
engagement at the Queen’s<br />
Foundation, flowing from the<br />
Foundation’s association with the<br />
Selly Oak Centre for Mission Studies,<br />
the United College of the Ascension<br />
and Kingsmead College; (b) the<br />
contribution which would be made<br />
by a continuing association with the<br />
ecumenical venture at the Queen’s<br />
Foundation, which was established<br />
as an ecumenical educational<br />
enterprise jointly and organically<br />
by the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church and a<br />
theological college of the Church<br />
of England in the early 1970s; (c)<br />
the accessibility of Birmingham as<br />
a large city in the West Midlands<br />
served by good transport links;<br />
(d) the moderate to significant<br />
investment made by the <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Church over several decades at the<br />
Queen’s Foundation and in its trust;<br />
(e) the minimal to moderate levels<br />
of capital expenditure required to<br />
adapt the Foundation for use as a<br />
centre. However, an assessment of<br />
configurations involving the Queen’s<br />
Foundation also noted, among other<br />
weaknesses: (a) the weakness of<br />
existing links between the Queen’s<br />
Foundation and a research university<br />
and the absence of a local research<br />
university which is likely to be willing<br />
to develop projects or partnerships at<br />
the level of scholarship and research<br />
activity; (b) the leasehold possession<br />
of the premises in Birmingham (the<br />
premises are held on a 99-year term<br />
from 1963 to 2062 at an annual rent<br />
of £75.00).<br />
235 An assessment of configurations<br />
involving Wesley House, Cambridge<br />
noted, among other strengths: (a)<br />
the contribution which would be<br />
made by a continuing association<br />
with the Cambridge Theological<br />
Federation, bringing links with ten<br />
other institutions which represent<br />
the Anglican, Orthodox, Reformed<br />
and Roman Catholic traditions, and<br />
which would enable bilateral and<br />
broad engagement with ecumenical<br />
partners; (b) the potential for the<br />
development of stronger links<br />
with the University of Cambridge,<br />
particularly at the level of scholarship<br />
and research activity; (c) the very<br />
significant investment made by<br />
Wesley House’s founders and by<br />
the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church over several<br />
decades at Wesley House and in its<br />
trust. However, an assessment of<br />
configurations involving Wesley House<br />
also noted, among other weaknesses:<br />
(a) the significant capital expenditure<br />
740 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
which would be required to renovate<br />
the premises at Wesley House, or<br />
the dislocation, developmental work<br />
and associated capital expenditure<br />
which would be required to establish<br />
new premises in Cambridge; (b) the<br />
weakness of existing links between<br />
Wesley House and the University<br />
of Cambridge, as demonstrated by<br />
the low number of Wesley House<br />
students studying for University of<br />
Cambridge awards and by the lack of<br />
developed projects or partnerships<br />
with the university at the level of<br />
scholarship and research activity.<br />
236 An assessment of configurations<br />
involving the Wesley Study Centre,<br />
Durham noted, among other<br />
strengths, the contribution which<br />
would be made by a continuing<br />
association with Durham University,<br />
its theology faculty and St John’s<br />
College, all of which have taken a<br />
proactive interest in establishing<br />
robust and long-lasting links with<br />
the Wesley Study Centre and the<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Church. However, an<br />
assessment of configurations<br />
involving the Wesley Study Centre<br />
also noted, among other weaknesses:<br />
(a) the developmental work and the<br />
very significant capital expenditure<br />
which would be likely to be required<br />
to establish a centre within a<br />
context where the Wesley Study<br />
Centre currently occupies limited<br />
space within St John’s College; (b)<br />
the difficulties which some across<br />
the south of the Connexion would<br />
experience in travelling to Durham,<br />
especially given the location of Cliff<br />
College in Calver, Derbyshire; (c)<br />
the loss to the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church<br />
of the use of the premises and<br />
assets currently available at both<br />
Birmingham and Cambridge in favour<br />
of establishing new premises in<br />
Durham, and the associated risk of<br />
not being able to redirect assets from<br />
the other two locations to Durham.<br />
237 An assessment of configurations<br />
involving three centres noted the<br />
improved accessibility in terms of<br />
transport links which naturally flows<br />
from having a third centre. However,<br />
such an assessment also noted<br />
two overriding weaknesses: (a) the<br />
very significant capital expenditure<br />
which would be required to renovate<br />
the premises, or the dislocation,<br />
developmental work and associated<br />
capital expenditure which would be<br />
required to establish new premises at<br />
two of the centres; (b) the increased<br />
risk of replication, fragmented<br />
provision, missed opportunities for<br />
cross-fertilisation across and between<br />
activities, and an inefficient use of<br />
resources, as discussed at greater<br />
length in paragraphs 201-204 above.<br />
238 The Committee was grateful to a<br />
tutor whose submission, made during<br />
the consultation period, noted that<br />
“the Ministries Committee has not<br />
shirked its responsibility to be radical<br />
and to challenge all of us working in<br />
the sector, and I welcome that after<br />
the frustrations of working within the<br />
framework of the previous review of<br />
training institutions.” However, when<br />
it came to make a final decision<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 741
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
about the location of a second centre,<br />
the Committee was particularly<br />
conscious of the grave responsibility<br />
placed on its shoulders, the more<br />
so if it was to seek the Connexion’s<br />
blessing to continue to be radical and<br />
challenging. The discernment which it<br />
was called to exercise in this instance<br />
was, in many ways, a culmination<br />
of nine months of engagement<br />
with a wide range of data, legal<br />
and property-related advice, cogent<br />
argument and detailed consultation<br />
submissions. This information had,<br />
in turn, been digested during private<br />
study, during discussions within small<br />
groups and during plenary sessions<br />
of the Committee.<br />
239 Two groups, comprising between them<br />
all the members of the Committee<br />
in attendance, undertook a final<br />
assessment of the configurations<br />
outlined in paragraphs 233-237<br />
above at the committee’s April<br />
2012 meeting. Both groups came,<br />
independently of one another, to<br />
the conclusion that the relative<br />
strengths and weaknesses of the<br />
configuration which includes the<br />
Queen’s Foundation and Cliff College<br />
were preferable to those of any of the<br />
other configurations which had been<br />
considered. Further interrogation of<br />
this conclusion took place during a<br />
lengthy plenary session.<br />
240 Having assessed and reflected on<br />
the marks of the contribution which<br />
two centres at Cliff College and the<br />
Queen’s Foundation should be able to<br />
provide to the Church and to the wider<br />
Network, the Committee highlighted<br />
the following considerations:<br />
240.1 The Committee was confident that<br />
centres at Cliff College and the<br />
Queen’s Foundation could serve as<br />
communities of faith which nurture<br />
and support a deep expertise<br />
in formation, learning, training,<br />
theological education, scholarship and<br />
organisational development. In terms<br />
of their particular contribution to the<br />
Network, the Committee highlights<br />
the following: (a) Cliff College’s<br />
experience of offering support to over<br />
230 dispersed students through a<br />
pattern of intensive modular training<br />
weeks delivered at the College<br />
combined with virtual or telephone<br />
individual tutorial support, and the<br />
College’s experience of supporting<br />
and delivering a number of modular,<br />
non-validated courses; (b) Cliff<br />
College’s expertise in nurturing a<br />
collegiate sense among a diverse<br />
cohort of students and friends –<br />
including residential students, parttime<br />
students, those who attend<br />
shorter courses, and those who<br />
attend the Cliff College Festival and<br />
other gatherings of supporters and<br />
alumni; (c) the Queen’s Foundation’s<br />
experience of operating as a<br />
“foundation” consisting of a number<br />
of centres (including the Centre for<br />
Ministerial Formation, the Graduate<br />
and Research Centre, the Selly Oak<br />
Centre for Mission Studies, and<br />
the Centre for Black Ministries and<br />
Leadership), where each centre<br />
has its particular focus and area of<br />
responsibility, but all centres work<br />
742 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
together, drawing on the strengths of<br />
a single staff team and the resources<br />
of a common campus and support<br />
team. The benefits include a synergy<br />
between different activities, which<br />
fosters mutual dependence within a<br />
single staff team and which enables<br />
interaction and interdependence<br />
among different learners; (d) Cliff<br />
College’s valued and peaceful<br />
location, complementing the Queen’s<br />
Foundation’s location within a global,<br />
diverse, multi-cultural and multi-faith<br />
city.<br />
240.2 The Committee was confident that<br />
centres at Cliff College and the<br />
Queen’s Foundation would be able<br />
to provide a home and a gathering<br />
place for communities of students<br />
and learners (resident and visiting,<br />
full-time and part-time), guests and<br />
staff (teaching and research staff;<br />
administrative staff; domestic and<br />
maintenance staff; and visiting<br />
colleagues from across the<br />
Network), including through providing<br />
residential hospitality for short and<br />
longer periods of time. In terms of<br />
their particular contribution to the<br />
Network, the Committee highlights<br />
the following: (a) Cliff College’s<br />
recent renovation of 34 en-suite<br />
rooms and three self-contained flats<br />
within its main building, its recent<br />
successful planning application to<br />
build a new 20-room en-suite facility,<br />
and its costed rolling programme<br />
for upgrading all of the facilities<br />
on the campus; (b) the space for<br />
further future development in the<br />
central area of the Cliff College<br />
campus; (c) although there is<br />
a need for improvement to the<br />
Queen’s Foundation’s residential<br />
accommodation and its ecological<br />
footprint, there is no need for<br />
major new building projects to<br />
improve the campus there, and a<br />
cash endowment exists within the<br />
Foundation’s funds which could meet<br />
a significant portion of the costs of<br />
renovations; (d) Cliff College and<br />
the Queen’s Foundation offer two<br />
campuses which can already be<br />
used without the need for major<br />
new building projects, which would<br />
absorb energy and result in a<br />
longer implementation period. In<br />
this context, the Committee noted<br />
the developmental work, the very<br />
significant capital expenditure and the<br />
consequent dislocation which would<br />
be likely to be required to provide a<br />
similar, sustainable gathering place<br />
either at Wesley House, Cambridge or<br />
at the Wesley Study Centre, Durham.<br />
240.3 The Committee was confident that<br />
centres at Cliff College and the<br />
Queen’s Foundation would be able<br />
(through their structures, resources<br />
and partnerships) to connect<br />
with partners across the World<br />
Church. In terms of their particular<br />
contribution to the Network, the<br />
Committee highlights the following:<br />
(a) Cliff College’s work through its<br />
International Training Centre. The<br />
Centre’s current programme in Nigeria<br />
is supporting 510 students over the<br />
6-year duration of the programme; (b)<br />
in addition to the work of the Selly<br />
Oak Centre for Mission Studies at the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 743
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
Queen’s Foundation, the Foundation’s<br />
long-term association with Tamil Nadu<br />
Theological Seminary in South India,<br />
and the Foundation’s recent work with<br />
the Ecumenical Theological Education<br />
programme of the World Council of<br />
Churches.<br />
240.4 The Committee was confident that<br />
centres at Cliff College and the<br />
Queen’s Foundation would be able<br />
(through their structures, resources<br />
and partnerships) to allow deep<br />
sharing with ecumenical partners. In<br />
terms of their particular contribution<br />
to the Network, the Committee<br />
highlights the following: (a) Cliff<br />
College’s diverse student body,<br />
including within it students from<br />
the <strong>Methodist</strong>, Anglican, Baptist,<br />
Congregationalist, Lutheran, Nazarene<br />
Pentecostal and Roman Catholic<br />
traditions, and from the Assemblies<br />
of God, the Salvation Army, and a<br />
number of community churches and<br />
independent free churches; (b) The<br />
Queen’s Foundation’s sustained<br />
ecumenical vision, leading to a depth<br />
and consistency of ecumenical life<br />
within the Foundation. The Committee<br />
noted the strong contribution which<br />
the location of a centre at Wesley<br />
House, Cambridge would have made<br />
in this context. This would have<br />
included a continuing association<br />
with the Cambridge Theological<br />
Federation, and consequently with<br />
colleagues within other Cambridgebased<br />
institutions which represent<br />
the Anglican, Orthodox, Reformed and<br />
Roman Catholic traditions. The loss<br />
of this contribution is a consequence<br />
of the Committee’s recommendation<br />
which must be acknowledged.<br />
However, the Committee was<br />
content that the contribution which<br />
will be made by the retention and<br />
development of rich ecumenical<br />
links at Cliff College and the Queen’s<br />
Foundation will be able to meet the<br />
Network’s needs in this context.<br />
240.5 The Committee was confident that<br />
centres at Cliff College and the<br />
Queen’s Foundation would be able<br />
(through their structures, resources<br />
and partnerships) to nurture apt<br />
and excellent scholarship and<br />
research, in partnership with the<br />
Higher Education sector. In terms of<br />
their particular contribution to the<br />
Network, the Committee highlights<br />
the following: (a) Cliff College’s<br />
successful validation partnership with<br />
the University of Manchester. The<br />
College’s most recent revalidation<br />
process resulted in unconditional<br />
validation by the University. The<br />
University’s academic standing is<br />
a positive factor in the College’s<br />
recruitment of postgraduate students,<br />
especially internationally; (b) the<br />
Queen’s Foundation’s Graduate and<br />
Research Centre, which supports<br />
30 doctoral research students and<br />
50 MA students; (c) the Queen’s<br />
Foundation’s participation in<br />
discussions to establish a new<br />
ecumenical Higher Education<br />
partnership (see paragraphs 148-<br />
156 above). The Committee noted<br />
the strong contribution which the<br />
location of a centre at the Wesley<br />
Study Centre, Durham would have<br />
744 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
made in this context. This would have<br />
included the potential for a strong<br />
partnership with Durham University,<br />
its theology faculty and St John’s<br />
College. The loss of this contribution<br />
is another consequence of the<br />
Committee’s recommendation which<br />
must be acknowledged. However,<br />
the Committee was content that<br />
the contribution which will be made<br />
by centres at Cliff College and the<br />
Queen’s Foundation will be able to<br />
meet the Network’s needs in this<br />
context. The proposed development<br />
of an ecumenical Higher Education<br />
partnership is a critical factor here<br />
(again, see paragraphs 148-156<br />
above), in that it has the possibility to<br />
enable the Network, and the Queen’s<br />
Foundation in particular, to work in<br />
close and efficient partnership with<br />
a Higher Education partner of the<br />
highest quality within the stable<br />
and mutually-beneficial environment<br />
established by the involvement of<br />
the Church of England, its theological<br />
colleges and the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church.<br />
The Committee also welcomed the<br />
possibility that, though the Church<br />
may regrettably have to move to end<br />
its activities at the Wesley Study<br />
Centre, it may be possible to retain<br />
a partnership with the University of<br />
Durham.<br />
240.6 The Committee was confident that<br />
centres at Cliff College and the<br />
Queen’s Foundation would be able<br />
to offer realistic accessibility from<br />
across the Connexion. In terms of<br />
their particular contribution to the<br />
Network, the Committee highlights<br />
the following: (a) Whereas there<br />
can be no doubt that Cliff College’s<br />
rural location poses accessibility<br />
issues, its location is geographically<br />
central and it is an hour’s travelling<br />
distance from Manchester and East<br />
Midlands airports; (b) Cliff College’s<br />
existing activities demonstrate that<br />
its location is not a disadvantage<br />
for a number of learners and friends<br />
who are prepared to travel to the<br />
College for high quality experiences.<br />
This includes over 280 students<br />
who currently travel to Cliff College<br />
from across the United Kingdom<br />
and Ireland, as well as from Europe<br />
and further afield, as well as 2,000<br />
people who regularly attend the Cliff<br />
College Festival; (c) the Queen’s<br />
Foundation’s urban location in the<br />
Midlands is served by strong road,<br />
rail and air transport links.<br />
240.7 The Committee was also confident<br />
that centres at Cliff College and the<br />
Queen’s Foundation, as premises and<br />
assets as well as communities of<br />
faith, demonstrate good stewardship<br />
of the <strong>Methodist</strong> people’s past<br />
and continuing investment of<br />
resources. In terms of their particular<br />
contribution to the Network, the<br />
Committee highlights the following:<br />
(a) Cliff College’s financially sound<br />
current operational model; (b) an<br />
appropriate identification of the<br />
authority of the <strong>Methodist</strong> Council<br />
and the <strong>Conference</strong> within Cliff<br />
College’s trusts; (c) the Queen’s<br />
Foundation’s readiness to explore<br />
revised governance and ownership<br />
arrangements (see paragraph 254<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 745
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
below). The Committee also notes the<br />
Foundation’s willingness to explore<br />
the possibility of a change of name<br />
so that the Foundation’s name can<br />
capture both what the Network values<br />
in one of its centres as well as what<br />
an ecumenical institution aspires to<br />
be. In this context, the Committee<br />
noted the very significant investment<br />
made by Wesley House’s founders<br />
and by the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church over<br />
several decades at Wesley House<br />
and in its Trusts. The Committee<br />
discussed the Trusts’ purposes at<br />
length, and the Committee hopes<br />
that it will be possible for the Trusts<br />
to continue to serve the <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Church and the Network’s activities,<br />
albeit in a different context.<br />
241 At the end of its final interrogation<br />
of the configurations, the Committee<br />
members present voted unanimously<br />
to recommend to the <strong>Conference</strong> the<br />
establishment of two connexional<br />
centres, one based at Cliff College<br />
and the other based at the Queen’s<br />
Foundation.<br />
242 This recommendation is accompanied<br />
by the recommendation that the<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Church should, in an<br />
organised and structured manner,<br />
move to end its activities at Wesley<br />
House, Cambridge and the Wesley<br />
Study Centre, Durham. Given that<br />
the Wesley Study Centre operates<br />
under the auspices of the <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Council, and given the close<br />
relationship between Wesley House<br />
and the <strong>Methodist</strong> <strong>Conference</strong>, the<br />
Church owes a particular duty of care<br />
towards these institutions, and in<br />
particular towards the staff stationed<br />
and appointed to them. Careful<br />
processes will need to be put in place<br />
as their activities are incorporated<br />
within the Discipleship and Ministries<br />
Learning Network. The Committee<br />
has assessed the risks and costs for<br />
the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church of withdrawal<br />
from the institutions concerned,<br />
and consideration has been given<br />
to the impact of withdrawal on<br />
partners and other stakeholders.<br />
In both cases, the Committee is<br />
confident that its recommendation<br />
is sound and reasonable. The<br />
Committee records its thanks to<br />
St John’s College, Durham and the<br />
Cambridge Theological Federation,<br />
and will wish to express its gratitude<br />
for their ready partnership with the<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Church through appropriate<br />
representations over coming months.<br />
Implementation<br />
243 Implementing the recommendations<br />
outlined above will be a complex<br />
task, not least because it will properly<br />
involve further discussions and<br />
negotiations with a number of parties,<br />
some of whom are independent of<br />
the <strong>Conference</strong> and other <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
governance bodies.<br />
244 Key priorities which will guide<br />
implementation include ensuring that<br />
those currently following pathways<br />
at institutions, centres and colleges<br />
(for example, and most notably,<br />
existing student ministers) can<br />
complete those pathways during a<br />
746 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
time of transition and change with<br />
confidence and security, and with full<br />
levels of support. Another key priority<br />
will be to ensure that partnerships<br />
and associations which will cease<br />
during the implementation of various<br />
recommendations can be brought to<br />
an end in an ordered and considerate<br />
manner. It is also a priority, as noted<br />
above in section H, to ensure that<br />
careful processes can be put in place<br />
for those who hold posts which may<br />
be affected by the implementation<br />
of the recommendations, including<br />
those who hold posts within<br />
institutions, centres and colleges.<br />
A final key priority will be to ensure<br />
that the two identified centres draw<br />
on the strengths and good practice<br />
of existing institutions, centres<br />
and colleges in appropriate ways.<br />
Processes have already begun to be<br />
put in place to enable this to happen.<br />
245 Recommendations regarding<br />
governance and oversight during<br />
the implementation period are<br />
included in paragraphs 255-258<br />
below. In the immediate wake of the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong>, as interim governance<br />
structures are put in place, it is<br />
recommended that the Committee,<br />
in consultation with the <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Council and acting where necessary<br />
through its officers and supported<br />
by the Connexional Team, should<br />
take the lead in discussions and<br />
negotiations with the relevant parties<br />
within each institution, centre and<br />
college to agree implementation<br />
plans within the boundaries of the<br />
recommendations outlined above.<br />
246 While acknowledging a proper desire<br />
to see this important component<br />
of the Network’s work established<br />
as swiftly as possible, the priorities<br />
outlined in paragraph 244 must take<br />
priority. The Committee therefore<br />
anticipates that 2012/2013 will be<br />
a year of intense preparation ahead<br />
of the implementation of significant<br />
changes during 2013/2014. This will<br />
necessarily have an impact on the<br />
meeting of the panel which allocates<br />
student ministers to learning<br />
institutions, and the Committee will<br />
seek to complete, before the end of<br />
the 2012 calendar year, a review of<br />
the protocols for the panel.<br />
247 As noted in paragraphs 87-89<br />
above, key funding packages come<br />
to an end in August 2013. Interim<br />
arrangements will need to be put<br />
in place for 2013/2014 in order to<br />
support the continued use of some<br />
institutions, centres and colleges,<br />
and it is probable that some measure<br />
of continuing interim provision<br />
will also be required for a limited<br />
number of institutions, centres and<br />
colleges during 2014/2015. An<br />
outline of envisaged transitional and<br />
implementation expenditure, as well<br />
as future processes regarding capital<br />
expenditure at the two centres, are<br />
included below in paragraphs 274<br />
and 271 respectively.<br />
248 The Committee is conscious that<br />
two particular areas associated with<br />
institutions not been addressed<br />
in this report. The first pertains to<br />
archives, special collections and<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 747
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
heritage-related aspects of the<br />
project’s remit. The second pertains<br />
to the Oxford Centre for Methodism<br />
and Church History. In the case of the<br />
former, important consultations with<br />
the <strong>Methodist</strong> Heritage Committee<br />
were still ongoing at the time of<br />
writing the report. In the case of the<br />
latter, the Centre was not placed<br />
within the remit of the project by the<br />
2011 <strong>Conference</strong>, but the trustees<br />
of the Westminster College Oxford<br />
Trust Ltd, who have governance<br />
responsibilities for the Centre, have<br />
themselves identified strong links to<br />
the work of the project. In both cases,<br />
the Committee recommends that it<br />
should continue its discussions with<br />
the relevant governance bodies in the<br />
light of the <strong>Conference</strong>’s decisions<br />
about the other recommendations in<br />
this report.<br />
Section K: Governance and Oversight<br />
Recommendation: The establishment of a<br />
single governance structure for the Network.<br />
249 We recommend the establishment<br />
of a single governance structure for<br />
the Network, with responsibility for<br />
directing the affairs of the Network<br />
on behalf of the <strong>Conference</strong> and the<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Council.<br />
250 Working closely with the coordinating<br />
team of the Network, the governance<br />
structure will be responsible, on<br />
behalf of the <strong>Conference</strong> and the<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Council, for:<br />
250.1 Exercising reflective, collaborative,<br />
ambitious and prophetic oversight<br />
of the Discipleship and Ministries<br />
Learning Network<br />
250.2 Overseeing the purposes, values,<br />
goals and direction of the Discipleship<br />
and Ministries Learning Network. The<br />
governance structure will exercise<br />
this responsibility by: (a) being clear<br />
about the purposes, values, goals and<br />
direction of the Network, and ensuring<br />
that the Network’s strategies and<br />
planned activities are in accord with its<br />
purposes, values, goals and direction;<br />
(b) regularly reviewing the purposes,<br />
values, goals and direction of the<br />
Network, in collaboration with the<br />
Ministries Committee, to ensure that<br />
they are up to date and relevant to the<br />
needs of Circuits, Local Churches and<br />
the wider <strong>Methodist</strong> Church<br />
250.3 Ensuring that the Discipleship and<br />
Ministries Learning Network is wellrun,<br />
efficient, effective and fit for<br />
purpose. The governance structure<br />
will exercise this responsibility by:<br />
(a) ensuring that the Network’s<br />
structures, policies and procedures<br />
allow the Network to meet its goals;<br />
(b) regularly reviewing the operational<br />
structure, policies and procedures<br />
of the Network; (c) recognising,<br />
promoting and valuing equality and<br />
diversity across the Network and in<br />
all aspects of its work; (d) considering<br />
which partnerships and collaborations<br />
with other bodies and organisations<br />
could improve the efficiency and the<br />
effectiveness of the Network; (e)<br />
assessing the impact of the Network<br />
on the environment, and considering<br />
748 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
the ways in which the Network can<br />
take an environmentally responsible<br />
and sustainable approach to its work<br />
250.4 Improving the performance, efficiency<br />
and effectiveness of the Discipleship<br />
and Ministries Learning Network,<br />
through evaluating its performance<br />
and the impact and outcomes of its<br />
work, and feeding the outcomes of<br />
evaluations into planning processes<br />
and discussions about the future<br />
direction of the Network. The<br />
governance structure will exercise<br />
this responsibility by: (a) considering<br />
how to identify, measure and learn<br />
from the Network’s achievements,<br />
including its positive and negative<br />
effects; (b) setting achievable targets<br />
and indicators against which success<br />
and improvement is measured and<br />
evaluated based on the Network’s<br />
purposes, the needs of Circuits and<br />
Local Churches and the resources<br />
available; (c) welcoming and acting<br />
upon positive and challenging<br />
feedback from Circuits and Local<br />
Churches and all who should benefit<br />
from the Network’s activities;<br />
(d) investigating and assessing<br />
innovative and imaginative ways<br />
of working towards meeting the<br />
Network’s purposes and goals; (e)<br />
identifying emerging trends within<br />
the wider educational context within<br />
which the Network operates and<br />
identifying opportunities to influence<br />
the wider context for the benefit of<br />
the mission of the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church;<br />
(f) being ready to share good practice<br />
with others.<br />
250.5 Exercising robust and prudent financial<br />
stewardship of the Discipleship and<br />
Ministries Learning Network and its<br />
resources. The governance structure<br />
will exercise this responsibility by:<br />
(a) controlling and employing the<br />
Network’s resources so that they are<br />
used to meet the Network’s purposes<br />
and goals; (b) integrating financial<br />
planning with wider connexional<br />
planning to ensure that funds are<br />
available when the Network needs<br />
them and are used in the most<br />
effective way to meet the Network’s<br />
purposes and goals; (c) ensuring<br />
financial sustainability as far as is<br />
possible through monitoring financial<br />
performance, assessing sources<br />
of income, diversifying sources of<br />
income as far as possible, developing<br />
coherent fundraising strategies and<br />
activities, and being aware of the<br />
financial risks involved with existing<br />
and new activities and ventures;<br />
(d) working collaboratively with the<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Council and the Strategy<br />
and Resources Committee on all<br />
financial and Human Resource<br />
matters, and assisting the Council<br />
with its responsibility to make<br />
budgetary recommendations to the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> under Standing Order<br />
212(2).<br />
250.6 Ensuring that the Discipleship<br />
and Ministries Learning Network<br />
is accountable to the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
and to all who benefit from the<br />
Network’s activities in a way that is<br />
transparent and understandable. The<br />
governance structure will exercise<br />
this responsibility by: (a) reporting<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 749
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
annually to the <strong>Conference</strong>, including<br />
within the report an assessment<br />
of the performance, efficiency and<br />
effectiveness of the Network in<br />
meeting its purposes and goals<br />
and an outline of its strategies and<br />
planned activities; (b) reporting<br />
annually to the <strong>Methodist</strong> Council,<br />
and working with the <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Council and the Strategy and<br />
Resources Committee on all financial<br />
and human resource matters; (c)<br />
working collaboratively with the<br />
Ministries Committee when reviewing<br />
the purposes, values, goals and<br />
direction of the Network and when<br />
developing the strategies and<br />
planned activities of the Network;<br />
(d) demonstrating how the Network’s<br />
processes and activities enable<br />
accessibility and responsiveness,<br />
and enable the Network’s activities<br />
and ventures to be developed<br />
through interactive relationships and<br />
in dialogue with local communities<br />
– their diverse and continually<br />
developing contexts, needs and<br />
aspirations; (e) overseeing a<br />
communications plan which ensures<br />
that accurate and timely information<br />
is given to everyone with an interest<br />
in the work of the Network.<br />
251 Most of these responsibilities are<br />
not new responsibilities within the<br />
life of the <strong>Conference</strong>, the <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Council and various institutions,<br />
colleges and centres. However, they<br />
are currently shared across a number<br />
of governing bodies and management<br />
committees, and are exercised<br />
without the guiding framework<br />
provided by clearly articulated and<br />
shared purposes, values and goals<br />
and a clear sense of direction.<br />
252 The Committee was assisted<br />
by reflections shared during the<br />
consultation period about the<br />
feasibility of moving from the existing<br />
fragmented pattern to a governance<br />
system which expresses greater<br />
connexionalism, collegiality and<br />
coherence. A submission made<br />
by a learning institution during<br />
the consultation period noted the<br />
possibility of establishing “a single<br />
council setting strategic direction,<br />
consolidated financial accounts...,<br />
shared resources and common<br />
procurement processes.” Another<br />
learning institution noted that<br />
“we see the logic and theological<br />
rationale of a connexional church<br />
structuring its resources, shaping its<br />
pathways and deploying its people<br />
in connexional ways... While we<br />
would wish that the dispersion of<br />
resources led naturally to strong and<br />
warm collaborative relationships our<br />
experience is that the Church and its<br />
institutions (not just colleges) quickly<br />
adopt territorial, competitive and<br />
separatist mentalities. We recognise<br />
that at its best a clearer connexional<br />
model could aid the development of<br />
a network of people and places that<br />
would work together; however, without<br />
sufficient attention to issues of power<br />
and authority the outcome at its worst<br />
could be a model of command and<br />
control, with the ‘centre’ dominating<br />
the ‘margins’.” The Committee is<br />
confident that the establishment of a<br />
750 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
single governance structure will help<br />
the Network to achieve the collegiality<br />
and coherence which is envisaged in<br />
the submissions quoted here. The<br />
Committee is also confident that<br />
several measures and emphases<br />
will ensure that such a governance<br />
structure and the Network as a<br />
whole will value collaboration and<br />
attentiveness to the diverse and<br />
contextual needs of the Connexion<br />
and guard against centralisation and<br />
hierarchy. In terms of the governance<br />
structure, these measures and<br />
emphases include: (a) working in<br />
collaboration with the Network’s<br />
collaborative coordinating team;<br />
(b) a commitment to identifying,<br />
measuring and learning from the<br />
Network’s achievements, including<br />
its positive and negative effects;<br />
and (c) a commitment to transparent<br />
and understandable accountability,<br />
including ensuring that the Network’s<br />
activities are founded on, and develop<br />
out of, interaction and collaborative<br />
relationships.<br />
253 The membership of the governance<br />
structure will need to include the mix<br />
of skills, knowledge and experience<br />
necessary for the efficient and<br />
effective administration of the<br />
Network.<br />
254 The manner in which the governance<br />
structure will be able to exercise<br />
its responsibilities at the Queen’s<br />
Foundation will require careful and<br />
sensitive consultations with the<br />
Governors of the Foundation and<br />
with colleagues from the Church of<br />
England. The Committee is committed<br />
to the principle that oversight of the<br />
Network’s activities at the Queen’s<br />
Foundation should be robust and<br />
consistent with the governance<br />
structure’s oversight of the Network’s<br />
activities elsewhere. The Committee<br />
is also committed to the principles<br />
(a) that the governance structure<br />
should be able to share robustly and<br />
consistently in the holistic oversight<br />
of the Queen’s Foundation, and (b)<br />
that the governance structure should<br />
be able to exercise clear stewardship<br />
of the Network’s resources newly<br />
deployed there, as well as of the<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Church’s past and present<br />
capital investment at the Queen’s<br />
Foundation. However, the Committee<br />
also wishes to honour and hold fast<br />
to the organic ecumenical nature<br />
of the Queen’s Foundation, where<br />
governance is currently exercised<br />
by an ecumenical governing body<br />
to which the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church<br />
and the Church of England can<br />
nominate governors. As noted above<br />
in paragraph 240.7, the governing<br />
body of the Queen’s Foundation has<br />
already indicated a willingness to<br />
review aspects of the Foundation’s<br />
current existence, including its<br />
governing arrangements, in order<br />
to enable the Foundation fully to<br />
participate within the Discipleship<br />
and Ministries Learning Network.<br />
Legal advice has already offered<br />
routes whereby both a commitment<br />
to a single governance structure for<br />
the Network and to the ecumenical<br />
oversight of the life of the Foundation<br />
could be held together without<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 751
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
causing undue complexity, unclear<br />
understandings of responsibility and<br />
accountability, or unproductive levels<br />
of bureaucracy.<br />
Implementation<br />
255 The Committee recommends a<br />
transitional as well as a long-term<br />
role for the new governance structure.<br />
The governance structure has<br />
the potential to be a mechanism<br />
which can oversee in some detail<br />
much of the wider transitional<br />
work which will be required to<br />
establish the Discipleship and<br />
Ministries Learning Network, to<br />
codify its structures, policies and<br />
procedures, to configure its financial<br />
resources, and to implement with<br />
care the recommendations made<br />
in section J. For this reason, the<br />
Committee recommends that the<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Council should oversee<br />
the establishment of the governance<br />
structure during 2012/2013<br />
and make a report to the 2013<br />
<strong>Conference</strong>.<br />
256 The Committee therefore further<br />
recommends that the governance<br />
structure should, at the earliest<br />
opportunity at which the <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Council judges it to be appropriate,<br />
become the governing body for<br />
the following centres, institutions<br />
and colleges: Cliff College, the Guy<br />
Chester Centre (the North Bank<br />
Estate), the <strong>Methodist</strong> Diaconal Order<br />
Centre, MIC and the Southlands<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Trust. The Committee also<br />
recommends that the governance<br />
structure should, if the <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Council judges it to be necessary or<br />
desirable, adopt the Council’s existing<br />
responsibilities for the following<br />
institutions, colleges and centres:<br />
Hartley Victoria College, the York<br />
Institute for Community Theology<br />
and the Wesley Study Centre. The<br />
Committee also recommends that<br />
the governance structure should, at<br />
the earliest opportunity, consult with<br />
the trustees of Wesley House about<br />
the future of the Trust, assisting the<br />
trustees with their responsibilities<br />
during a period of transition as<br />
necessary or appropriate.<br />
257 The Committee also recommends<br />
that, following further detailed<br />
negotiations with the governors<br />
of the Queen’s Foundation and<br />
relevant parties within the Church<br />
of England, an appropriate scheme<br />
for the governance structure to<br />
share robustly and consistently in<br />
the holistic oversight of the Queen’s<br />
Foundation should be prepared and<br />
implemented.<br />
258 The Committee will, at the earliest<br />
opportunity, consult with the chairs<br />
of the <strong>Methodist</strong> Training Forums of<br />
the Regional Training Networks (see<br />
paragraph 68 above) and will seek to<br />
present a joint paper from the chairs<br />
and the Committee for consideration<br />
by the <strong>Methodist</strong> Council’s “larger<br />
than Circuit” working party about the<br />
Forums’ role as spaces for regional<br />
conferring.<br />
752 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
Section L: Expenditure, Funding Streams,<br />
Funds and Assets<br />
Revenue expenditure<br />
259 The Committee recommends that<br />
the total costs of the Discipleship<br />
& Ministries Learning Network<br />
should be £6,033k per annum at<br />
2012/2013 prices. The division of<br />
this expenditure is illustrated in table<br />
D. This constitutes a reduction of<br />
£1,273k (17%) per annum compared<br />
to budgeted expenditure during<br />
2012/2013 in these fields.<br />
260 This recommended distribution of<br />
expenditure enables the Network<br />
to support maintenance payments<br />
to student ministers (bursaries,<br />
dependent child payments and<br />
travel expenses) at the same levels<br />
as those currently approved by the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong>. While the Committee<br />
expects the Network to explore and<br />
enable practice-based formation<br />
pathways for student ministers, the<br />
Committee does not expect such<br />
pathways to lead to a reduction in<br />
maintenance costs.<br />
261 This distribution of expenditure<br />
supports incremental administrative,<br />
domestic, catering, premisesrelated<br />
and other bursarial costs<br />
within Cliff College and the Queen’s<br />
Foundation. The budgeted allocation<br />
draws on analyses of the operational<br />
expenditure of existing institutions,<br />
colleges and centres, as well as on<br />
the ratio of practitioner staff costs to<br />
bursarial costs.<br />
262 This distribution of expenditure also<br />
enables the Network to maintain<br />
regional teams consisting of 50<br />
posts, centre-based staff teams<br />
consisting of 16 posts and a<br />
coordinating team consisting of<br />
8 posts (as outlined in section H<br />
above). The practitioner staff costs<br />
noted here include an allowance for<br />
costs associated with travel and the<br />
use of appropriate gathering spaces<br />
by regional teams (for gathering<br />
spaces, see section I above).<br />
263 This distribution of expenditure<br />
also supports programme-related<br />
expenditure of £204k, to support the<br />
accessible delivery of discipleship<br />
development pathways and ministry<br />
development pathways. This<br />
constitutes a significant reduction<br />
from current expenditure shown under<br />
this budget heading. This reduction is<br />
enabled by incorporating the aims of<br />
existing discrete programmes within<br />
the broader goals of the Network, and<br />
consequently meeting some of the<br />
associated costs through practitioner<br />
staff costs and non-staff costs at the<br />
centres.<br />
264 This distribution of expenditure also<br />
enables £200k to be dedicated<br />
to supporting the development<br />
and delivery of a number of Higher<br />
Education-related academic study<br />
projects, research projects and risktaking<br />
innovative projects across<br />
the Network. This constitutes a<br />
new development: the focused<br />
identification of funds explicitly to<br />
support scholarship, research and<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 753
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
innovation within the life of the<br />
Network and the Church.<br />
265 The Committee’s recommendation<br />
that the work currently undertaken<br />
within the Discipleship & Ministries<br />
Cluster of the Connexional Team<br />
be located within the Network, (see<br />
paragraphs 180-185 above) allows<br />
the Committee to recommend<br />
that expenditure which currently<br />
supports staff posts within the<br />
Connexional Team be redirected to<br />
support capacity within the Network.<br />
This effectively makes additional<br />
expenditure of £1,106k available to<br />
the Network to meet practitioner staff<br />
costs.<br />
266 The focused identification of funds<br />
explicitly to support scholarship,<br />
research and innovation and the<br />
inclusion within the Network of work<br />
and costs currently located within<br />
the Discipleship & Ministries Cluster<br />
of the Connexional Team have the<br />
effect of increasing the scope of<br />
the activities of the Network beyond<br />
those supported by the expenditure<br />
outlined in paragraphs 83-85<br />
above. Table E compares current<br />
and recommended expenditure<br />
Table D: Division of total recommended Network expenditure (2012/2013 prices)<br />
Current Recommended<br />
Tutors and officers costs<br />
£3,325k<br />
Connexional Team staff costs<br />
£1,106k<br />
Total practitioner staff costs £4,431k £3,948k<br />
Non-staff costs at centres, institutions and colleges £1,139k £651k<br />
Maintenance payments to student ministers £1,116k £1,030k<br />
Programme costs £620k £204k<br />
Scholarship, research and innovation project costs £0 £200k<br />
Total £7,306k £6,033k<br />
Table E: Division of recommended Network expenditure compared to areas of existing,<br />
non-Connexional Team expenditure<br />
Current Recommended<br />
Practitioner staff costs £3,325k £2,842k<br />
Non-staff costs at centres, institutions and colleges £1,139k £651k<br />
Maintenance payments to student ministers £1,116k £1,030k<br />
Programme costs £620k £204k<br />
Total £6,200k £4,727k<br />
754 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
under the budget headings outlined<br />
in paragraphs 83-85, to enable<br />
comparisons to be made with the<br />
costs outlined in the October 2011<br />
consultation document. This table<br />
illustrates that recommended costs<br />
constitute a reduction of £1,473k per<br />
annum, or 24%, when compared to<br />
current expenditure on existing, non-<br />
Connexional Team activities.<br />
Income, funds and assets<br />
267 As outlined in table F, the<br />
Committee recommends that 85%<br />
of the expenditure outlined in<br />
table D continues to be funded by<br />
contributions from the <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Church Fund, the Connexional Priority<br />
Fund and the World Mission Fund.<br />
Total contributions from these funds<br />
are recommended to be £5,106k, a<br />
reduction of £526k (9%) on current<br />
contribution from these funds in this<br />
area. Current contributions from the<br />
Training Assessment Fund (TAF) stand<br />
at £1,674k per annum, which will<br />
cease. The Church no longer solicits<br />
donations towards the TAF, and its<br />
balance is expected to be exhausted<br />
by the end of the 2012/2013<br />
connexional year. As illustrated in<br />
Table F: Division of recommended Network funding streams<br />
Current Recommended<br />
The <strong>Methodist</strong> Church Fund £4,144k £3,906k<br />
The Connexional Priority Fund £1,116k £1,000k<br />
The World Mission Fund (and, for current funding<br />
£372k £200k<br />
streams only, the Mission in Britain Fund)<br />
Total MCF, CPF, WMF, (MiBF) £5,632k £5,106k<br />
The Training Assessment Fund £1,674k £0<br />
Total MCF, CPF, WMF, TAF, (MiBF) £7,306k £5,106k<br />
Discipleship and Ministries Learning<br />
£0 £927k<br />
Network funds and assets<br />
Total £7,306k £6,033k<br />
Table G: Expenditure from connexional funds<br />
Current contribution from MCF, CPF, WMF, MiBF, TAF<br />
Saving from TAF<br />
Saving from MCF, CPF, WMF, MiBF<br />
Total saving from MCF, CPF, WMF, MiBF, TAF<br />
Recommended contribution from MCF, CPF, WMF<br />
£7,306k<br />
-£1,674k<br />
-£526k<br />
-£2,200k<br />
£5,106k<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 755
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
table G, this constitutes a saving<br />
from connexional funds compared to<br />
current contributions of £2,200k, or<br />
30%.<br />
268 The Committee recommends,<br />
as illustrated in table F, that an<br />
additional funding stream is<br />
established using the funds and<br />
assets of the Discipleship and<br />
Ministries Learning Network, providing<br />
an income of £927k per annum.<br />
Based on the recommendations<br />
made by the Committee in section<br />
J, the Committee anticipates that<br />
the Network’s funds and assets will<br />
include Cliff College, the Guy Chester<br />
Centre (the North Bank Estate), the<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Diaconal Order Centre,<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> International Centre, the<br />
Southlands <strong>Methodist</strong> Trust, the<br />
Network’s interest in the Queen’s<br />
Foundation, and, as a permanent<br />
endowment, the Trusts associated<br />
with Wesley House, Cambridge. The<br />
Committee further recommends that<br />
the Fund for Training, renamed the<br />
Discipleship and Ministries Learning<br />
Fund, forms a part of the Network’s<br />
wider funds; this fund, as the Fund for<br />
Training, will receive the proceeds of<br />
the sale of Wesley College, Bristol. 25<br />
In the case of the Guy Chester<br />
Centre, <strong>Methodist</strong> International<br />
Centre, the Southlands <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Trust, the Discipleship and Ministries<br />
Learning Fund and, potentially,<br />
the Trusts associated with Wesley<br />
House, Cambridge, these funds and<br />
assets will provide an income for<br />
the Network, and the Committee<br />
anticipates that the income generated<br />
will be sufficient to meet the annual<br />
costs attributed to the Network’s<br />
funds and assets of £927k. The<br />
Committee further recommends that<br />
the Network develop a fund and asset<br />
management strategy which, as well<br />
as enabling revenue costs to be<br />
met from the Network’s income, will<br />
enable the costs of moderate capital<br />
expenditure projects at the two<br />
centres to be met from the Network’s<br />
funds (see paragraph 271 below).<br />
269 The Committee is aware that this<br />
use of funds and assets constitutes<br />
a more focused and intentional<br />
approach to a number of the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong>’s assets than has been<br />
the case for a number of years. Some<br />
may be troubled by such a focus.<br />
However, the Committee is aware of<br />
its duty at this time to exercise wise<br />
stewardship of the investment by<br />
the <strong>Methodist</strong> people in a number<br />
of centres, institutions and colleges,<br />
as well as to ensure that this<br />
historic investment is configured to<br />
assist the development and growth<br />
of today’s <strong>Methodist</strong> Church. As<br />
well as this responsibility towards<br />
25 The Fund for Training is currently raised and administered by the <strong>Methodist</strong> Council under the terms of<br />
Standing Order 362. Its purposes are “(i) the provision of initial and further training for ministers, deacons,<br />
lay employees and other lay persons; (ii) the provision of maintenance grants for persons undergoing such<br />
training and their dependants; (iii) the maintenance, management and staffing of the <strong>Methodist</strong> theological<br />
colleges, and the <strong>Methodist</strong> contribution to the cost of joint theological colleges; (iv) the examination of<br />
candidates for the ministry and the diaconate and of ministerial and diaconal probationers.”<br />
756 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
connexional assets, the Committee<br />
recognises its complementary duty<br />
to adopt a realistic attitude towards<br />
the income which the Network can<br />
expect to receive through the District<br />
Assessment and from connexional<br />
funds. Consequently, in order to<br />
achieve a sustainable income stream<br />
which can support the entirety of the<br />
Network’s purposes and activities, the<br />
Committee is confident of the need<br />
for the fund and asset management<br />
strategy outlined above.<br />
270 Acting on the advice of the<br />
Connexional Treasurers, the<br />
Committee also recommends that<br />
this strategy include consideration of<br />
fundraising and the encouragement<br />
of generous giving to support the<br />
Network’s activities. The funds<br />
contributed by Circuits and Districts<br />
during 2001/2007 to establish<br />
the Training Assessment Fund<br />
may demonstrate a readiness to<br />
support focused and intentional<br />
fundraising campaigns in this area<br />
of the Connexion’s life. Grass roots<br />
involvement and engagement is<br />
essential to the success of the<br />
Discipleship and Ministries Learning<br />
Network in many ways. Moreover,<br />
interest has already been shown<br />
by a number of Partner Churches<br />
in collaborating with the life of<br />
the Network, and this may also<br />
open avenues to other fundraising<br />
opportunities. Any such fundraising<br />
initiatives will clearly need to<br />
exist within the wider connexional<br />
fundraising strategy.<br />
Capital expenditure<br />
271 Planned preventative maintenance<br />
costs at Cliff College and the<br />
Queen’s Foundation will form part of<br />
a developing premises-management<br />
strategy for both centres. It is<br />
anticipated that these costs will<br />
be met from revenue expenditure,<br />
including from the budgeted allocation<br />
within the Network’s expenditure for<br />
maintenance and premises-related<br />
purposes. However, within both<br />
centres, development work will be<br />
required both to generate increased<br />
capacity and to enhance the quality<br />
of the learning environment. These<br />
moderate capital projects will be in<br />
addition to those capital projects<br />
which both centres have already<br />
been developing and whose costs<br />
the centres anticipate being able to<br />
meet from funds already earmarked<br />
for the purpose. The Committee<br />
recommends that the costs of<br />
moderate capital expenditure projects<br />
at the two centres should be met<br />
from the Network’s funds. Prudent<br />
management of the funds and assets<br />
of the Network will largely determine<br />
the magnitude of the additional<br />
capital expenditure projects which the<br />
Network will be able to support.<br />
Other centre activities<br />
272 The two centres at Cliff College<br />
and the Queen’s Foundation will,<br />
as is currently the case, continue<br />
to serve significant constituencies<br />
outside and beyond the life of the<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Church, and to meet goals<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 757
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
which are broader than those of the<br />
Discipleship and Ministries Learning<br />
Network. From a financial perspective,<br />
these subsidiary activities incur<br />
costs and generate income for the<br />
centres, and both currently present<br />
broadly balanced budgets for these<br />
non-<strong>Methodist</strong> funded activities. The<br />
recommended expenditure outlined<br />
above does not therefore anticipate<br />
any subsidy from the Network’s funds<br />
towards these subsidiary activities,<br />
nor do the recommended funding<br />
streams include a contribution from<br />
these subsidiary activities towards<br />
the Network’s costs. As overarching<br />
medium-term operational and<br />
financial strategies are developed for<br />
the activities of both centres by the<br />
Network’s governance structure, the<br />
financial relationship between the<br />
contribution made by these subsidiary<br />
activities and the Network’s core<br />
activities will necessarily be explored,<br />
especially, for example, within the<br />
context of the development of a<br />
consolidated premises-management<br />
strategy. However care will be taken<br />
to ensure that the Network’s funds<br />
do not, directly or indirectly, subsidise<br />
subsidiary activities.<br />
273 Both centres are currently supported<br />
by generous donations from former<br />
students and other supporters. The<br />
governance structure of the Network<br />
will wish to take care to ensure that<br />
both centres are able to continue to<br />
elicit the support of former students<br />
and friends, and that supporters can<br />
continue to see the impact which<br />
their contribution can make to the<br />
development and improvement of<br />
cherished premises and activities. As<br />
with other trusts and restricted funds<br />
in its care, the Network’s governance<br />
structure will ensure that the<br />
intentions of supporters and donors<br />
are respected.<br />
Transitional and implementation<br />
expenditure<br />
274 An allocation of £300k towards<br />
anticipated transitional costs during<br />
2012/2013 is included within the<br />
Connexional Central Services Budget<br />
presented elsewhere in the <strong>Agenda</strong>.<br />
In addition to Connexional Team<br />
supporting staff costs, the Committee<br />
anticipates further transitional and<br />
implementation costs of £825k<br />
spread over the 2013/2014 and<br />
2014/2015 connexional years. It is<br />
a key priority to ensure that those<br />
currently following pathways, for<br />
example as student ministers, can<br />
complete those pathways during a<br />
time of transition and change with<br />
confidence and security, and with<br />
full levels of support. It is also, as<br />
noted above, a priority to ensure<br />
that careful processes can be put<br />
in place and supported for those<br />
who hold posts which may be<br />
affected by the implementation of<br />
the recommendations. Furthermore,<br />
it will be important to ensure that<br />
partnerships and associations which<br />
will cease during the implementation<br />
of various recommendations<br />
can be brought to an end in an<br />
ordered and considerate manner.<br />
These considerations lie behind<br />
758 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
this estimate of transitional and<br />
implementation costs. Transitional<br />
and implementation expenditure will<br />
be met from the Fund for Training,<br />
which contains sufficient cash funds<br />
to meet these costs.<br />
Section M: Conclusion<br />
275 This report has necessarily touched<br />
on many aspects of formation,<br />
learning, training, theological<br />
education, scholarship, research<br />
and development within the life<br />
of the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church. It has<br />
recorded the great deal of work<br />
and many processes involving<br />
dedicated committees and very<br />
many other <strong>Methodist</strong>s. It brings<br />
recommendations to this <strong>Conference</strong><br />
and outlines the reasoning and<br />
the discernment leading to the<br />
recommendations, all offered in an<br />
attitude of responsibility and prayer.<br />
It closes as it began, setting the<br />
work requested by the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
and undertaken by the Committee<br />
within the wider and more significant<br />
call of God to those who desire to be<br />
disciples of the Lord Jesus and who<br />
are invited to partner in the mission<br />
of God in a time of change, challenge<br />
and potential.<br />
276 To other believers in Christ, long ago,<br />
in Ephesus, was written a reminder<br />
about the quintessential purpose of<br />
the Christian ministry in which we<br />
all share – a reminder also of the<br />
source and the fulfilment of the gifts<br />
with which we are all richly blessed.<br />
For the end of all our ardent, zealous<br />
striving is to live together within the<br />
breadth and length and depth and<br />
height of Jesus Christ, whose vast<br />
love is ours to know and share.<br />
The gifts he gave were that<br />
some would be apostles, some<br />
prophets, some evangelists,<br />
some pastors and teachers, to<br />
equip the saints for the work of<br />
ministry, for building up the body<br />
of Christ, until all of us come to<br />
the unity of the faith and of the<br />
knowledge of the Son of God, to<br />
maturity, to the measure of the<br />
full stature of Christ.<br />
Ephesians 4:11-13 (NRSV)<br />
***RESOLUTIONS<br />
57/1. The <strong>Conference</strong> receives the report.<br />
57/2. The <strong>Conference</strong> adopts paragraphs 115-128.3 of section G (“A Discipleship and<br />
Ministries Learning Network”).<br />
57/3. The <strong>Conference</strong> adopts section H (“A Team of Expert Staff”).<br />
57/4. The <strong>Conference</strong> adopts sections I and J (“Spaces” and “Centres”).<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 759
57. The Fruitful Field Project<br />
57/5. The <strong>Conference</strong> adopts sections K and L (“Governance and Oversight”<br />
and “Expenditure, Funding Streams, Funds and Assets”), including the<br />
recommendation in section L concerning the use of the Connexional Priority<br />
Fund.<br />
57/6. The <strong>Conference</strong> directs the <strong>Methodist</strong> Council to oversee such processes as<br />
may be required to implement section H of the report.<br />
57/7. The <strong>Conference</strong> directs the <strong>Methodist</strong> Council to oversee such work as may<br />
be necessary to achieve the establishment of a governance structure for the<br />
Discipleship and Ministries Learning Network.<br />
57/8. The <strong>Conference</strong> records its deep gratitude to all those across the Connexion<br />
who work diligently in the fields of formation, learning, training, theological<br />
education, scholarship, research and development, and gives thanks to God for<br />
their faithful service and witness.<br />
760 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
58. Sharing Agreements and Ecumenical Partnerships<br />
Key<br />
B Baptist<br />
CE Church of England<br />
J Joint<br />
JA Joint, vested in DBF for the Church<br />
of England<br />
JL Joint, vested in a Limited Company<br />
JR Joint, vested in Roman Catholic<br />
Diocese Trustees<br />
M <strong>Methodist</strong> Church<br />
RC Roman Catholic Church<br />
URC United Reformed Church<br />
WRU Wesleyan Reform Union<br />
* Amendment of a SA<br />
A: Consents for sharing agreements<br />
The consent of the Ecumenical Officer (EO)<br />
is required for the making or amendment<br />
of any Sharing Agreement (SA) under the<br />
Sharing of Church Buildings Acts, 1969<br />
and, where any such Agreement requires<br />
consent, to its termination (SO 334(3)).<br />
The first list below reports the Sharing<br />
Agreements authorised by the Ecumenical<br />
Officer and not previously reported to<br />
the <strong>Conference</strong>. Since not all Sharing<br />
Agreements so authorised come into<br />
effect, and those that do sometimes take<br />
a considerable time to reach that stage,<br />
further lists are provided to indicate those<br />
Sharing Agreements that have come into<br />
effect since the last <strong>Conference</strong>. The last<br />
list reports those Sharing Agreements to<br />
whose termination the Ecumenical Officer<br />
has given consent during the past year.<br />
Circuit<br />
No<br />
Local or<br />
Circuit<br />
Trustee<br />
Body<br />
Building(s)<br />
to be shared<br />
and other<br />
details<br />
(including<br />
owners)<br />
Other<br />
Church(es)<br />
party to the<br />
agreement<br />
Date<br />
of EO<br />
consent<br />
Date<br />
of SA<br />
Registered<br />
Number<br />
Date<br />
SA<br />
registered<br />
14/18 Diss CC Mere Street<br />
Diss IP22 4AD<br />
(Church: URC)<br />
14/26 Cambourne CC Site for new<br />
building:<br />
High Street<br />
Cambourne<br />
(Church: JL)<br />
14/26 Christ the<br />
Redeemer,<br />
Cambridge<br />
(formerly<br />
Meadowlands)<br />
CC<br />
Christ the<br />
Redeemer<br />
Newmarket<br />
Road<br />
Cambridge<br />
CB5 8RS<br />
(Church: CE)<br />
URC 15/2/11<br />
B, CE, URC 21/7/08 25/12/08 39/221 8/1/09<br />
CE 8/08 12/6/08 39/226 7/4/09<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 761
58. Sharing Agreements and Ecumenical Partnerships<br />
19/1 Edge Lane CC Epiphany,<br />
Droylsden<br />
Merton Drive<br />
Droylsden<br />
Manchester<br />
M43 6BH<br />
(Church: JA)<br />
19/13 Heaton Moor CC Heaton Moor<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Church<br />
Heaton Moor<br />
Road<br />
Stockport<br />
(Church: M)<br />
22/15 Christchurch,<br />
Grantham CC<br />
St Peter’s Hill<br />
(Church: URC)<br />
23/1* Circuit Meeting 8 Fry’s Hill<br />
Oxford<br />
OX4 7GN<br />
(Manse: M)<br />
CE, URC 01/06/11 28/9/11 39/251 4/1/12<br />
URC 5/4/12 22/4/12 39/254 26/4/12<br />
URC 5/5/09 10/8/09 39/231 10/9/09<br />
B, URC 22/3/12<br />
24/20 Goodleigh CC St Gregory’s<br />
Goodleigh Road<br />
Goodleigh<br />
EX32 7LX<br />
(Church: CE)<br />
24/20 Circuit Meeting Woolacombe<br />
Beech Road<br />
Woolacombe<br />
EX34 7BJ<br />
(Church: M)<br />
25/19 Levertons CC <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Church<br />
Sturton Road<br />
North Leverton<br />
Retford DN22<br />
0AB<br />
(Church: M)<br />
CE 10/4/12<br />
Calvary<br />
Chapel,<br />
Woolacombe<br />
5/4/12<br />
CE 26/4/12<br />
762 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
58. Sharing Agreements and Ecumenical Partnerships<br />
25/19 Levertons CC All Saints’<br />
Church<br />
Church Street<br />
South Leverton<br />
Retford DN22<br />
0BX<br />
(Church: CE)<br />
25/19 Levertons CC St Martin’s<br />
Church<br />
Church Walk<br />
Main Street<br />
Retford DN22<br />
0AD<br />
(Church: CE)<br />
26/4 Drayton CC Drayton<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Church<br />
Havant Road<br />
Drayton<br />
Portsmouth<br />
PO6 1PA<br />
(Church: M)<br />
CE 26/4/12<br />
CE 26/4/12<br />
URC 22/6/11<br />
29/6 Selby CC Portholme,<br />
Selby<br />
Portholme Road<br />
Selby YO8 4QH<br />
(Church: M)<br />
34/9* St Augustine’s CC St Augustine’s<br />
Church<br />
Pump Lane<br />
North Springfield<br />
Chelmsford CM1<br />
6XG<br />
(Church: JR)<br />
36/13 Broadway United<br />
CC<br />
The Broadway<br />
Lindfield Road<br />
Eastbourne<br />
BN22 0AS<br />
(Church: M)<br />
URC 6/2/12<br />
CE, RC, URC 16/9/08 26/1/09 39/224 5/3/09<br />
URC 15/1/10 19/11/09 39/233 24/11/09<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 763
58. Sharing Agreements and Ecumenical Partnerships<br />
Sharing Agreements registered since the last <strong>Conference</strong> to which EO consent was<br />
reported to the <strong>Conference</strong> in 2006:<br />
7/24 Central Church,<br />
The Pilgrim<br />
Centre CC<br />
Regent Circus,<br />
Swindon<br />
Regent Circuit<br />
Swindon SN1<br />
1PX<br />
(Church: B)<br />
B, URC 20/3/06 26/8/11 39/248 16/9/11<br />
Sharing Agreements registered since the last <strong>Conference</strong> to which EO consent was<br />
reported to the <strong>Conference</strong> in 2008:<br />
25/5 Stocksbridge CC Stocksbridge<br />
URC<br />
Stocksbridge<br />
S36 1DY<br />
(Church: URC)<br />
URC 15/11/07 6/2/12 39/253 15/2/12<br />
Sharing Agreements registered since the last <strong>Conference</strong> to which EO consent was<br />
reported to the <strong>Conference</strong> in 2009:<br />
7/15 Christchurch CC Linden Road,<br />
Clevedon<br />
Chapel Hill<br />
Clevedon<br />
BS21 7NL<br />
(Chruch: CE)<br />
14/25 Alconbury Alconbury<br />
Parish Church<br />
Alconbury<br />
PE28 4DX<br />
(Church: CE)<br />
CE 11/11/11 18/11/11 39/250 22/11/11<br />
CE 10/11/08 22/2/11 39/252 15/2/12<br />
764 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
58. Sharing Agreements and Ecumenical Partnerships<br />
Sharing Agreements registered since the last <strong>Conference</strong> to which EO consent was<br />
reported to the <strong>Conference</strong> in 2011:<br />
19/13 Edgeley CC Edgeley Road,<br />
Stockport<br />
Edgeley Road<br />
Stockport SK3<br />
9NB<br />
(Church: M)<br />
24/25 Roadwater CC Roadwater<br />
Watchet<br />
TA23 0QY<br />
(Church: M)<br />
25/13 Tideswell CC Fountain Square<br />
Fountain Street<br />
Tideswell<br />
SK17 8JX<br />
(Church: M)<br />
36/25<br />
(was<br />
36/26)<br />
Hythe CC<br />
Rampart Road,<br />
Hythe<br />
Rampart Road<br />
Hythe<br />
CT21 5BG<br />
(Church: M)<br />
URC 23/3/11 14/8/11 39/247 26/8/11<br />
CE 9/2/11 14/7/11 39/246 26/8/11<br />
URC 9/6/11 2/8/11 39/245 26/8/11<br />
CE 8/3/11 1/8/11 39/249 6/10/11<br />
Terminations:<br />
Circuit<br />
No<br />
Local or<br />
Circuit<br />
Trustee Body<br />
2/12 St John’s,<br />
Colwyn Bay<br />
5/1<br />
(was<br />
5/7)<br />
Building(s) shared<br />
and other details<br />
(including owners)<br />
Pwllycrochan Av<br />
Colwyn Bay<br />
(Church: M)<br />
St Francis Church Centre<br />
Woodgate Valley<br />
(Church and Community<br />
Centre: JA)<br />
Other<br />
Church(es)<br />
party to the<br />
agreement<br />
Date of<br />
notice<br />
given by<br />
EO<br />
Date<br />
of SA<br />
Registered<br />
Number<br />
B, URC 27/9/11 30/8/07 39/198<br />
CE 15/8/11 21/7/82 38/259<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 765
58. Sharing Agreements and Ecumenical Partnerships<br />
7/2 Brentry CC Lower Knole Lane<br />
Brentry, Bristol<br />
(Church: M)<br />
14/13 Cawston CC Norwich Road<br />
Cawston<br />
Norwich NR10 4AP<br />
(Church: M)<br />
19/1 Circuit Meeting Carisbrook Street<br />
Harpurhey<br />
(Chapel: M)<br />
21/9 Circuit Meeting Chapel Lane<br />
West Bradford<br />
Clitheroe<br />
(Church: M)<br />
24/1 Pilgrim Church<br />
St Levan Road<br />
Plymouth PL1 1BA<br />
(Church: URC)<br />
CE 13/1/10 17/2/89 38/720<br />
WRU 21/5/12 9/3/10 39/237<br />
B, CE 9/2/10 23/10/81 38/221<br />
RC 20/3/12 3/12/02 39/134<br />
URC 17/3/10 22/12/04 39/167<br />
27/31 Cononley CC St John’s United Church<br />
Centre<br />
Main Street<br />
Cononley<br />
(Church: M)<br />
CE 10/5/12 24/10/85 38/510A<br />
***RESOLUTION<br />
58/1. The <strong>Conference</strong> adopts the Report.<br />
B: SCHEMES APPROVED BY THE DISTRICTS UNDER SO 412(2)<br />
The Ecumenical Officer (EO) is required to report all new schemes approved by the<br />
Synods under Standing Order 412(2).<br />
The following list records those schemes reported to the Ecumenical Officer. It indicates<br />
which other Churches are involved and the nature of the Partnership. It also records<br />
those Partnerships in which a new constitution has been adopted and whether the Synod<br />
gave a direction under Standing Order 611.<br />
766 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
58. Sharing Agreements and Ecumenical Partnerships<br />
Circuit<br />
No<br />
Local or<br />
Circuit<br />
Trustee<br />
Body<br />
Other<br />
Church(es)<br />
Single Congregation<br />
Partnership (SCP) or<br />
Congregations in<br />
Covenanted Partnership<br />
(CCP)<br />
New<br />
Partnership (NP)<br />
or New<br />
Constitution (NC)<br />
Direction<br />
given under<br />
SO 611<br />
16/5 Beeston Hill<br />
United Free<br />
Church<br />
16/15 Christchurch,<br />
Ilkley<br />
18/13 Cross Lane<br />
United<br />
Church<br />
Newton-le-<br />
Willows<br />
19/13 Edgeley<br />
Community<br />
Church<br />
19/13 Heaton Moor<br />
United Church<br />
24/16 Tiverton and<br />
Wellington<br />
B, URC SCP NC Yes<br />
URC SCP NC Yes<br />
URC SCP NP Yes<br />
URC SCP NP Yes<br />
URC SCP NP Yes<br />
URC SCP NP Yes<br />
27/31 Eldwick CE SCP NP Yes<br />
***RESOLUTION<br />
58/2. The <strong>Conference</strong> adopts the Report.<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 767
59. Memorials to the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
Notes for the Guidance of Members<br />
of the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
1. Introduction to memorials<br />
Memorials are messages from Circuit<br />
Meetings and District Synods to the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong>. They suggest that the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> takes action or makes a<br />
statement on an issue. The memorials<br />
received since the last <strong>Conference</strong> are<br />
listed in this section of the <strong>Agenda</strong>.<br />
These memorials may help members<br />
of <strong>Conference</strong> judge the main concerns<br />
currently felt in the Connexion, and the<br />
strength of opinion represented.<br />
Each year the <strong>Methodist</strong> Council<br />
is required to appoint a Memorials<br />
Committee made up of representatives<br />
from Districts so as to aid the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
in replying to each memorial. The<br />
replies have been drafted by officers of<br />
other relevant bodies or members of<br />
the Connexional Team. They have been<br />
scrutinised by the Memorials Committee<br />
and amended where the Committee felt it<br />
was appropriate.<br />
The Committee recommends to the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> the replies printed in the<br />
<strong>Agenda</strong> under each memorial. The<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> binds itself either to agree this<br />
reply, to amend it, or to agree an alternative<br />
reply [see the Rules of Procedure printed at<br />
the beginning of <strong>Volume</strong> One of the <strong>Agenda</strong>,<br />
Standing Order 133(4)].<br />
In some of its responses, the Committee<br />
makes no comment on the substance<br />
of a memorial, but indicates that the<br />
reply of the <strong>Conference</strong> is given in other<br />
resolutions of the <strong>Conference</strong>. This kind<br />
of response does not mean that the<br />
Committee has not taken seriously the<br />
points made in the memorial. It means<br />
that another report deals with the issue<br />
more fully. Debate on that report gives the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> an opportunity to discuss the<br />
issues raised by the memorial.<br />
A separate report provides a list<br />
of memorials referred by previous<br />
<strong>Conference</strong>s to the <strong>Methodist</strong> Council or to<br />
committees, where a report was required<br />
to be brought to a subsequent <strong>Conference</strong>.<br />
This list provides an update of the work<br />
undertaken in respect of those memorials<br />
and provides a reference to those reports<br />
before this year’s <strong>Conference</strong>.<br />
2. Consideration of the memorials by<br />
the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
Any member of the <strong>Conference</strong> has the<br />
right to move an amendment to the reply<br />
recommended by the Committee, or to<br />
propose that it is substituted by a totally<br />
different reply. Amendments to replies<br />
should be submitted in the form of a<br />
notice of motion, the deadline for which<br />
is 12:30pm on Tuesday 3 July. However,<br />
members are urged to give notice of their<br />
intention to move an amendment as<br />
early as possible and not to wait until the<br />
deadline.<br />
If the <strong>Conference</strong> rejects a reply, an<br />
acceptable alternative must, then or later,<br />
be put to and agreed by the <strong>Conference</strong>.<br />
In addition, any two members of the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> may, by notice of motion<br />
submitted on the first day of the relevant<br />
session, propose that, instead of dealing<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 769
59. Memorials to the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
with the Committee’s recommended<br />
replies in the ordinary course of business,<br />
the <strong>Conference</strong> shall debate a resolution<br />
based on one or more of the memorials.<br />
This year, the Memorials Committee has<br />
agreed with the recommendation of the<br />
Business Committee that the replies to<br />
any memorials which relate to other items<br />
of business in the <strong>Agenda</strong> be taken at the<br />
same time as that business, and that the<br />
remaining replies should be taken en bloc.<br />
Any recommended reply to a memorial<br />
which is the subject of an amending notice<br />
of motion will automatically be removed<br />
from en bloc business [see Standing Order<br />
136(2A)].<br />
Throughout each session, the Memorials<br />
Secretary, Martin Harker, is available<br />
to members of the <strong>Conference</strong> for<br />
consultation on any matter affecting<br />
memorials and the procedures described<br />
above. For example, if any member wishes<br />
to change the recommended reply of the<br />
Committee, the Memorials Secretary<br />
is willing to advise on how and when to<br />
propose either an amendment or the<br />
substitution of a different reply.<br />
The Memorials Secretary will also notify<br />
each Synod and Circuit of the reply the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> has made to its memorial.<br />
M1<br />
Stationing<br />
The Whitehaven (9/4) Circuit Meeting<br />
(Present: 35. Voting: unanimous), being<br />
a geographically-isolated Cumbrian rural<br />
Circuit and an area particularly affected<br />
by deprivation, is aware of the difficulty<br />
experienced by some northern Districts<br />
in filling presbyteral appointments for<br />
2012/13, and therefore expresses its<br />
concern that there are no longer any<br />
priority appointments, nor the filling of<br />
superintendencies before other presbyteral<br />
appointments. There is a real danger<br />
that west Cumbrian Circuits could find<br />
themselves without adequate presbyteral<br />
presence in the future. We urge the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> and the Stationing Committee<br />
to look again at the invitation system and<br />
explore ways in which greater itinerancy<br />
can be promoted and the principles of<br />
being a connexional Church honoured.<br />
Reply<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> thanks the Whitehaven<br />
Circuit Meeting for its memorial and notes<br />
with concern the difficulty experienced by<br />
some Districts in matching presbyters with<br />
some Circuits.<br />
The Stationing Matching Group works<br />
hard to ensure that as far as possible<br />
all Districts are represented fairly in the<br />
matches made, and always conducts a<br />
review of how each District has fared<br />
throughout the process. The matching<br />
process also endeavours to respond to the<br />
personal needs of presbyters. Matching<br />
has been particularly difficult this year,<br />
with a deficit of 38 presbyters in the<br />
process. This year’s stationing process<br />
is the second year of the pilot scheme,<br />
where all appointments are considered in<br />
the first round of matching. With this and<br />
the geographical anomalies in mind the<br />
Stationing Committee has commissioned<br />
a review of all aspects of the process.<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> directs the Committee<br />
to report the results of the review and on<br />
770 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
59. Memorials to the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
any changes to be made as a result in its<br />
annual report to the <strong>Conference</strong> of 2013.<br />
M2<br />
Stationing<br />
The Cumbria District Synod (R) (Present:<br />
104. Voting: 98 for, 0 against) urges the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> and the Stationing Committee<br />
to look again at the invitation system.<br />
In the light of the difficulty experienced<br />
by some northern districts in filling<br />
presbyteral appointments for 2012/13, the<br />
Cumbria District, containing geographicallyisolated<br />
Cumbrian rural Circuits and<br />
areas particularly affected by deprivation,<br />
expresses its concern that there are no<br />
longer any priority appointments, nor the<br />
filling of superintendencies before other<br />
presbyteral appointments. There is a real<br />
danger that Cumbrian Circuits could find<br />
themselves without adequate presbyteral<br />
presence in the future. We urge the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> and the Stationing Committee<br />
both to look again at the invitation<br />
system and explore ways in which greater<br />
itinerancy can be promoted and the<br />
principles of being a connexional Church<br />
honoured.<br />
Reply<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> adopts the same reply as<br />
M1.<br />
M3<br />
Stationing<br />
The Truro (12/4) Circuit Meeting<br />
(Present: 49. Voting: unanimous)<br />
aware of Memorials M7 and M8 to the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> of 2011 and the promised<br />
report to the <strong>Conference</strong> of 2012 was<br />
dismayed to discover how few presbyters<br />
in the 2011/12 round of stationing were<br />
prepared even to consider a move to the<br />
Cornwall District. Anecdotal evidence<br />
suggests that there are some parts of<br />
the Connexion that consistently find it<br />
harder to attract ministers to consider<br />
appointments in their Districts regardless<br />
of the nature of that appointment.<br />
If the report to <strong>Conference</strong> 2012 finds this<br />
anecdotal evidence is grounded in fact, the<br />
Truro Circuit requests that the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
takes steps to ‘weight’ positively the<br />
matching process so as to address this<br />
inherent imbalance.<br />
Reply<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> adopts the same reply as<br />
M1.<br />
M4<br />
Reinvitation of ministers<br />
The Norwich (14/1) Circuit Meeting<br />
(Present: 56. Voting: unanimous) believes<br />
that the process by which extensions to the<br />
invitation of presbyters and deacons are<br />
considered appears to be unnecessarily<br />
lengthy under the current Connexional Good<br />
Practice for those involved in Stationing<br />
(Section E). The process begins officially<br />
in May and is not finalised until the Circuit<br />
Meeting in September. It can therefore be<br />
as much as four months in length, including<br />
the period when most ministers would<br />
take their summer holiday, and all this<br />
to deal with something which in secular<br />
employment would be dealt with in a much<br />
shorter period.<br />
We therefore ask the <strong>Conference</strong> to institute<br />
a review of the Connexional Good Practice<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 771
59. Memorials to the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
(paragraph E3), so that an extension to<br />
invitation can be finalised at ‘a Circuit<br />
Meeting to be held no earlier than six weeks<br />
after the start of the process’ rather than<br />
at the ‘September Circuit Meeting’, as at<br />
present. While we recognise that the wide<br />
consultation required for Superintendents<br />
seeking extensions may require longer<br />
than six weeks in large Circuits, the change<br />
would have the effect in most cases of<br />
reducing the length of what at the moment<br />
can seem unnecessarily protracted.<br />
Furthermore, and for similar reasons, we<br />
can see no real reason for the provision<br />
in guideline E13, which allows objections<br />
to be raised as late as the Circuit Meeting<br />
itself. Having given the members of the<br />
Circuit Meeting written notice of the<br />
request for extension and the result of the<br />
Invitation Committee’s deliberations, and<br />
having been invited to inform the Chair of<br />
the Meeting of any substantive objections,<br />
we do not see any reason for such a<br />
request being repeated at the beginning of<br />
the Circuit Meeting itself.<br />
The very fact of this may be sufficient to<br />
prevent some presbyters and deacons<br />
seeking an extension to their appointment<br />
even when such an extension would be<br />
beneficial both to the presbyter or deacon<br />
concerned and to the Circuit itself.<br />
We ask for this provision to be removed<br />
from the process.<br />
Reply<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> is grateful to the Norwich<br />
Circuit Meeting for raising this subject, and<br />
assures the Circuit that it believes that the<br />
invitation process should be completed<br />
efficiently and as sensitively as possible.<br />
This is why section E6 of the Guide refers<br />
to the consultation being completed in<br />
three weeks. The Stationing Committee<br />
reviews the Guide annually in the light of<br />
the previous year’s experience. This year’s<br />
Guide, which has been re-named the Code<br />
of Practice, has given particular attention<br />
to the invitation process, which we hope<br />
Circuits will find helpful.<br />
Circuits are reminded in the Guide that<br />
20 September is the date by which Circuit<br />
Meetings must have taken place. It is the<br />
latest date which will allow the Connexional<br />
Team to prepare the appropriate information<br />
for the stationing process to commence.<br />
Standing Order 545(2) requires that the<br />
Circuit Meeting addresses the invitation<br />
in the ‘fifth year of the minister’s service’.<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> is sympathetic to the views<br />
expressed in the memorial, and welcomes<br />
all comments that can assist in improving<br />
the invitation process. To this end the Stationing<br />
Committee has appointed a working<br />
group to investigate the suggestions made<br />
by the Circuit in collaboration with the Law<br />
and Polity Committee, and to consider how<br />
best procedures may be modified in order to<br />
improve the invitation process. The <strong>Conference</strong><br />
directs the Stationing Committee to<br />
report the outcomes of this work in its<br />
annual report to the <strong>Conference</strong> of 2013.<br />
M5<br />
Reinvitation of ministers<br />
The Falmouth and Gwennap (12/3) Circuit<br />
Meeting (Present: 47. Voting: unanimous)<br />
notes that the current Connexional Good<br />
Practice Guidelines for all involved in<br />
772 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
59. Memorials to the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
Stationing do not provide clear guidance as<br />
to the re-invitation procedure to be followed<br />
when the initial view of the Circuit Invitation<br />
Committee is to recommend an extension<br />
period that differs from that requested by<br />
the minister concerned. Clauses E12 and<br />
E13 cover the ‘clear cut’ case but not the<br />
above scenario.<br />
The Circuit Meeting calls upon the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> to ask the Connexional<br />
Stationing Committee to augment the<br />
procedure so as to provide clear guidance<br />
in such cases.<br />
Reply<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> thanks the Falmouth and<br />
Gwennap Circuit Meeting for its memorial.<br />
The Stationing Committee reviews the<br />
guidance Connexional Good Practice<br />
for those involved in Stationing, now renamed<br />
the Code of Practice, each year.<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> has been assured by the<br />
Committee that it will take this request into<br />
account during the next review.<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> directs the Stationing<br />
Committee to report the outcome of this<br />
work in its annual report to the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
of 2013.<br />
It should be noted that the decision of<br />
the Circuit Invitation Committee should<br />
be discussed with the minister prior to<br />
the Circuit Meeting (E12), which would<br />
hopefully resolve any conflict. Should<br />
this not resolve the situation it would be<br />
normal practice for the Circuit Meeting to<br />
consider any reasoned statement from the<br />
minister. The Circuit Meeting may consider<br />
an amendment to the recommendation<br />
from the Circuit Invitation Committee,<br />
which may be accepted or rejected.<br />
Guidance on rules of debate can be found<br />
in Standing Order 131.<br />
M6 Stipends and Salaries for 2012/13<br />
The Telford (28/21) Circuit Meeting<br />
(Present: 50. Voting: 23 for, 12 against)<br />
recognises that the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church seeks<br />
to ensure that stipends and salaries paid to<br />
its staff keep pace with the cost of living.<br />
Stipends and salaries are the major<br />
element of a circuit budget and the<br />
assessments paid by its Local Churches.<br />
Consequently, the Circuit Meeting wishes<br />
to raise its concern that the current<br />
method used to apply a cost of living<br />
increase is difficult to support when the<br />
general trend in both public and private<br />
sectors is for the workforce to face a<br />
minimal increase, a pay freeze or even<br />
a pay cut. Pensioners are also suffering<br />
adverse effects on their incomes and<br />
resources.<br />
Therefore the Circuit Meeting requests that<br />
the <strong>Conference</strong> of 2012 considers capping<br />
the stipends and salaries of all <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Church staff for 2012/13 at the same<br />
level as that paid in 2011/12 (excluding<br />
those staff on the Living Wage).<br />
Reply<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> thanks the Telford Circuit<br />
Meeting for its memorial and assures the<br />
Circuit that its concerns regarding stipend<br />
and salary reviews have been taken into<br />
account in the recommendations brought<br />
to the <strong>Conference</strong> in the Connexional<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 773
59. Memorials to the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
Allowances Committee and Connexional<br />
Central Services Budget reports which<br />
can be found elsewhere in the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
<strong>Agenda</strong>.<br />
To underline the reasoning for the stipend<br />
review proposals, it is important to<br />
understand that there is a lag between<br />
the publication of inflation index numbers<br />
used in the calculation and the date of<br />
implementation. This is necessary to<br />
enable reliable budgets to be prepared<br />
throughout the Church. Thus the<br />
recommended stipend increase from<br />
September 2012 is based on consumer<br />
price and average earnings data from<br />
several months before, currently January<br />
data. If, as the memorial suggests,<br />
earnings during 2012 have been rising very<br />
slowly, static or even decreasing, then this<br />
will be reflected accordingly in the 2013<br />
review.<br />
As the annual stipend review takes<br />
account of trends in earnings as well as<br />
price inflation, proposed rises are not<br />
always in line with inflation. When the wider<br />
economy is relatively depressed, as in<br />
recent years, average earnings increases<br />
have tended to be below the rate of price<br />
inflation. In these circumstances the<br />
stipend rises recommended are unlikely to<br />
match inflation. The current policy does not<br />
therefore guarantee inflation is matched in<br />
stipend increases over a period of years,<br />
and the wider economic circumstances –<br />
with their impact on church members – is<br />
already a factor taken into account.<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> notes that it is for each<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> employing body to set and<br />
review the salaries of lay employees,<br />
within its policy of ensuring that nobody<br />
is paid less than the Living Wage. Within<br />
the Connexional Central Services Budget<br />
which has been before the <strong>Conference</strong> is<br />
a proposal to increase the salaries of lay<br />
employees of the <strong>Methodist</strong> Council by<br />
2%. This figure is substantially below the<br />
level of both Consumer Price Index (CPI)<br />
and Retail Price Index (RPI) inflation, but<br />
equated to the level of the Average Weekly<br />
Earnings Index in February. The Strategy<br />
and Resources Committee specifically<br />
recommended an increase below the<br />
level of inflation in recognition of the<br />
factors mentioned in this memorial. The<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> recalls that two years ago it<br />
agreed to a budget that allowed for no<br />
across-the-board pay increase at all for the<br />
lay staff, again reflecting an awareness of<br />
the pressures on churches and Circuits.<br />
The reply to the memorial is therefore<br />
contained in the resolutions of the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong>.<br />
M7<br />
The Cannock Chase (28/8) Circuit<br />
Meeting (Present: 52. Voting: 38 for,<br />
8 against)<br />
This memorial was received with the same<br />
text as M6, omitting the final sentence of<br />
the second paragraph. The <strong>Conference</strong><br />
adopts the same reply.<br />
M8<br />
Stipends<br />
In the light of the current economic<br />
climate, the Amber Valley (22/14)<br />
Circuit Meeting (Present: 45. Voting:<br />
unanimous) requests the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
to consider reducing the increase in<br />
ministerial stipends in order to show<br />
774 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
59. Memorials to the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
unity and solidarity with church members,<br />
congregations and other supporters.<br />
Reply<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> thanks the Amber Valley<br />
Circuit for its memorial and assures<br />
the Circuit that its concerns regarding<br />
stipend review have been taken into<br />
account in the recommendations brought<br />
to the <strong>Conference</strong> in the Connexional<br />
Allowances Committee and Connexional<br />
Central Services Budget reports which<br />
can be found elsewhere in the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
<strong>Agenda</strong>. It also refers the Circuit to the<br />
reply to memorial M6 on a related<br />
subject.<br />
The reply to the memorial is therefore<br />
contained in the resolutions of the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong>.<br />
M9 Stipends for 2012/13<br />
The Welshpool and Bro Hafren (2/25)<br />
Circuit Meeting (Present: 25. Voting: 13<br />
for, 3 against) is concerned that, at this<br />
time of continuing economic hardship, the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> is proposing another significant<br />
increase in stipends for 2012/13 when<br />
the majority of the UK workforce is having<br />
to accept minimal pay rises, pay freezes,<br />
or even pay cuts, and when some churches<br />
and chapels are already struggling to<br />
meet assessments, and requests that the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> re-considers its proposals.<br />
Reply<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> adopts the same reply as<br />
M8.<br />
M10 Monthly payment of stipends<br />
The Lincoln and Grimsby District Synod<br />
(M) (Present: 47. Voting: 46 for, 1 against)<br />
notes from the quarterly letter to ministers<br />
included with the stipends that a proposal<br />
is coming to the <strong>Conference</strong> to transfer<br />
all active ministers to monthly stipend<br />
payments from June 2013. The Synod<br />
asks the <strong>Conference</strong> not to make such<br />
a significant change in the conditions of<br />
service of ministers and others without<br />
full consultation with everyone affected,<br />
including a proper reasoned statement as<br />
to why this change should be implemented<br />
along with its consequences.<br />
Reply<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> thanks the Lincoln and<br />
Grimsby District Ministerial Synod for<br />
its memorial regarding the Connexional<br />
Allowance Committee’s (CAC) proposals for<br />
the Church to introduce monthly payment<br />
of all stipends.<br />
These proposals have arisen as a result<br />
of memorials M18, M19 and M20 to<br />
the <strong>Conference</strong> of 2010 relating to the<br />
payment of Statutory Sick Pay (SSP)<br />
for monthly-paid ministers. It became<br />
apparent that SSP could only be reclaimed<br />
and handled through the payroll system for<br />
quarterly-paid ministers, not for those paid<br />
monthly. Circuits experiencing long-term<br />
sickness of monthly-paid ministers pointed<br />
out the inequity of this. In conjunction with<br />
the payroll system software provider, it was<br />
estimated that the cost of incorporating<br />
SSP provision for monthly-paid ministers<br />
would be of the order of £50,000.<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 775
59. Memorials to the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
During 2010/11, the CAC evaluated all the<br />
options to achieve an equitable outcome,<br />
and with the support of the (then Shadow)<br />
Ministries Committee, concluded that it<br />
was an opportune time to consider the<br />
economic case for moving to a single<br />
harmonised monthly payroll system for<br />
all ministers, which would include SSP<br />
recovery.<br />
These conclusions and proposals were<br />
clearly set out in the CAC’s Report to<br />
the <strong>Conference</strong> of 2011 (page 84) and<br />
approved. Moreover, noting that of the<br />
1690 active ministers paid through the<br />
system 440 had already opted for monthly<br />
pay and that the proportion is increasing<br />
year on year, the <strong>Conference</strong> agreed<br />
that as from 1 September 2011 it would<br />
become compulsory that all new ministers<br />
be paid monthly.<br />
Since September 2011, further analysis<br />
has demonstrated that the introduction<br />
of a monthly payroll for all ministers can<br />
be achieved at no greater operational<br />
cost than the current arrangements, with<br />
the benefit of solving the SSP problem<br />
without the added one-off cost. At this time<br />
of financial stringency, the CAC submits<br />
that this is a responsible proposal and<br />
underlines that monthly stipends will<br />
continue to be paid in advance.<br />
In terms of communication and<br />
consultation, the <strong>Conference</strong> draws<br />
attention to the 2011 CAC report<br />
mentioned above which set out its<br />
intentions, supplemented by information<br />
given in the quarterly letters which<br />
accompany stipend advice. The CAC’s<br />
report to this <strong>Conference</strong> (elsewhere<br />
in the <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong>) refers to<br />
provision being made for concerns and<br />
queries to be answered before the planned<br />
implementation date.<br />
M11 Fees received for Occasional<br />
Services<br />
The Synod of the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church in<br />
Scotland (M: Present: 32. Voting: 15<br />
for, 11 against; R: Present 83. Voting:<br />
51 for, 7 against), noting the work of<br />
the Connexional Allowances Committee<br />
reported to the <strong>Methodist</strong> Council in<br />
March 2012, requests that a policy<br />
be established across the Connexion<br />
whereby any monies received by ministers<br />
as a result of conducting Occasional<br />
Services, such as those of marriage or<br />
funerals, be remitted to the Circuit and any<br />
expenses, such as a Preaching Fee for a<br />
supernumerary minister, be claimed in the<br />
usual way.<br />
Reply<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> thanks the Scotland Synod<br />
for expressing their concern in respect<br />
of ministerial fees. The Connexional<br />
Allowances Committee (CAC) report, which<br />
can be found elsewhere in the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
<strong>Agenda</strong>, recommends that further work<br />
be done with a view to bringing proposals<br />
to the <strong>Conference</strong> of 2013 on these and<br />
related matters. The CAC will take into<br />
account these and other views expressed<br />
as it undertakes its work in the coming<br />
year.<br />
The reply to the memorial is therefore<br />
contained in the resolutions of the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong>.<br />
776 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
59. Memorials to the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
M12 Additional responsibility allowances<br />
The Synod of the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church in<br />
Scotland (M: Present: 32. Voting: 16<br />
for, 8 against; R: Present: 83. Voting:<br />
58 for, 7 against), noting the work of<br />
the Connexional Allowances Committee<br />
reported to the <strong>Methodist</strong> Council in March<br />
2012, believes that there is no theological<br />
justification for responsibility allowances<br />
for some ministers and asks for their<br />
abolition across the Connexion.<br />
Reply<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> thanks the Scotland Synod<br />
for expressing their concern in respect of<br />
allowances for additional responsibilities.<br />
The Connexional Allowances Committee<br />
(CAC) report, which can be found<br />
elsewhere in the <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong>,<br />
recommends that further work be done<br />
with a view to bringing proposals to the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> of 2013 on these and related<br />
matters. The CAC will take into account<br />
these and other views expressed as it<br />
undertakes its work in the coming year.<br />
The reply to the memorial is therefore<br />
contained in the resolutions of the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong>.<br />
M13 Assessments<br />
The Salisbury (26/23) Circuit Meeting<br />
(Present: 45. Voting: unanimous) in<br />
acknowledging the current economic<br />
climate, regrets the substantial increase in<br />
connexional assessments for the coming<br />
year and requests the <strong>Conference</strong> to<br />
instruct the <strong>Methodist</strong> Council to review<br />
costs with a view to producing savings<br />
which might then be passed back to<br />
Circuits.<br />
Reply<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> thanks the Salisbury<br />
Circuit for its engagement with the<br />
connexional assessment. The Connexional<br />
Central Services Budget reflects a number<br />
of difficult decisions regarding cost<br />
savings. Both the <strong>Methodist</strong> Council and<br />
its Strategy and Resources Committee<br />
spent considerable time debating these<br />
in the context of the current economic<br />
climate. For this reason, they agreed that<br />
a more radical review is required of the<br />
services provided centrally and the costs<br />
of doing so.<br />
The Connexional Central Services Budget<br />
report, which can be found elsewhere<br />
in the <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong>, includes a<br />
commitment for this work to be undertaken<br />
by the <strong>Methodist</strong> Council, and hence the<br />
memorial is accepted.<br />
M14 Budgeting and assessments<br />
The Lancashire District Synod (R) (Present:<br />
124. Voting: unanimous) thanks those who<br />
have worked hard to produce the budget<br />
for the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church Fund (MCF).<br />
Aware of the difficulties being faced by so<br />
many in the present state of the economy,<br />
the Lancashire District Synod therefore<br />
requests that the <strong>Conference</strong> directs those<br />
who are producing the budget for future<br />
years:<br />
a) to create an MCF budget in future<br />
years which takes as a starting<br />
point the 2012/2013 budget and<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 777
59. Memorials to the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
increases no more in any given year<br />
than the level of inflation calculated<br />
by the change in CPI;<br />
b) to operate Standing Order 361 in<br />
applying the assessment equally<br />
to Circuits based on the number of<br />
presbyters, deacons and lay staff<br />
employed in each Circuit, so Circuits<br />
can easily budget from year to year<br />
their contribution to the connexional<br />
funds;<br />
c) to continue to support by grants<br />
those Circuits which are creating<br />
innovative appointments.<br />
Reply<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> thanks the Lancashire<br />
District Synod for engaging in this<br />
important issue and responds to the three<br />
points in the memorial in turn:<br />
a) The memorial refers to the <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Church Fund (MCF) budget, which is<br />
the terminology currently used within<br />
Standing Orders. In order to enable<br />
the <strong>Conference</strong> to consider the use<br />
of connexionally-held finances more<br />
holistically, the Connexional Central<br />
Services Budget now includes a<br />
much wider range of funds than this.<br />
The 2012 <strong>Conference</strong> is being asked<br />
to amend the relevant Standing<br />
Orders to reflect this requirement for<br />
a budget including all of the relevant<br />
funds.<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> notes that the total<br />
MCF assessment figure proposed<br />
for 2012/13 represents an increase<br />
of 2.7% on the total for 2011/12,<br />
which compares with a CPI level<br />
that has gradually fallen from<br />
around 4.0% to 3.5% over the 12<br />
months from March 2011 to March<br />
2012. This reflects the concerns<br />
raised by a District Resolution to<br />
the <strong>Conference</strong> of 2011 and those<br />
raised here.<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> has agreed a formula<br />
for calculating the total annual MCF<br />
assessment for three years, the last<br />
of which will be the 2013/14 year.<br />
A new formula will be brought to the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> of 2013 which will need<br />
to reflect the prevailing economic<br />
environment within and outside<br />
the Church, and the <strong>Conference</strong> is<br />
unwilling to modify the formula before<br />
that date. However, the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
asks the <strong>Methodist</strong> Council to take<br />
this section of the memorial into<br />
account when constructing the<br />
proposed calculation formula for the<br />
following three years.<br />
b) The relevant portion of Standing<br />
Order 361 states “The fund shall be<br />
maintained by an assessment levied<br />
by the <strong>Conference</strong> on each Circuit<br />
in the home church through the<br />
several Districts […]”. Standing Order<br />
650(4) also states that payment of<br />
this assessment shall be the first<br />
charge on the general fund of the<br />
Local Church. The current practice is<br />
that although the assessment is a<br />
charge on each Circuit, the process<br />
by which the total is apportioned<br />
is delegated downwards: ie the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> divides it between<br />
778 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
59. Memorials to the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
Districts (in accordance with Standing<br />
Order 136(2C)), district Synods<br />
(often via the recommendation of the<br />
district treasurer) divide it between<br />
Circuits, and Circuit Meetings (often<br />
via the recommendation of the circuit<br />
treasurer) divide it between individual<br />
churches. This process ensures<br />
that decisions are taken as close<br />
as possible to the point of impact,<br />
ensuring that the most appropriate<br />
local factors are taken into account.<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> considers this to<br />
be the most equitable and effective<br />
means of operating.<br />
The memorial refers to fluctuations<br />
in the year-on-year changes to the<br />
level of assessment paid by each<br />
individual Circuit. Such changes<br />
reflect the connexional nature of<br />
the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church: because the<br />
total MCF assessment is shared<br />
out as a fresh calculation each<br />
year, the level of payment required<br />
in any particular District is affected<br />
by the combination of changes<br />
across all other Districts relative<br />
to its own changes. This can result<br />
in significant changes in level of<br />
assessment from year-to-year, with<br />
possible changes of 15% or more<br />
required. In order to prevent such<br />
large annual swings, increases have<br />
in the past been capped. For the<br />
2012/13 figures that are before<br />
the <strong>Conference</strong> this cap is 7%. The<br />
level of this cap and its impact<br />
across the Church is discussed<br />
collaboratively each year with<br />
Districts via their treasurers before<br />
any recommendations are brought<br />
to the <strong>Methodist</strong> Council or the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong>.<br />
In addition to the deployment of<br />
ministers and lay employees, the<br />
apportionment between Districts is<br />
adjusted using the Nomenclature<br />
of Units for Territorial Statistics<br />
(NUTS) index of relative regional<br />
wealth. Recent experience has<br />
shown that the application of the<br />
NUTS index and a fixed cap often<br />
work against each other. This matter<br />
has been considered during the<br />
last year by the Council’s Budget<br />
Stakeholder Forum, which includes a<br />
representative of the Chairs’ Meeting<br />
and a District Treasurer. As a result,<br />
it is intended that draft figures for<br />
2013/14 with and without the NUTS<br />
formula and with and without any cap<br />
will be presented for discussion by<br />
District Treasurers.<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> therefore declines<br />
this portion of the memorial, but<br />
instructs the <strong>Methodist</strong> Council<br />
to ensure that these options are<br />
amongst those presented for<br />
consultation via District Treasurers,<br />
feeling that it will be more effective to<br />
take a decision based on a clear view<br />
of what the actual financial impact<br />
will be, rather than establishing a new<br />
principle itself in abstract.<br />
c) Another matter considered by the<br />
Budget Stakeholder Forum this<br />
year has been the use of Circuit<br />
Model Trust Funds. At the end of<br />
2011 across the entire Connexion<br />
these contained approximately £70<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 779
59. Memorials to the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
million. The previous restriction<br />
on the amount of this money that<br />
could be accessed in any one year<br />
was removed in 2010 and the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> encourages all Circuits<br />
to ensure that they are used to the<br />
maximum effect to support local<br />
mission and ministry work. It also<br />
reminds district Policy Committees<br />
of the requirement on them under<br />
Standing Order 955(7) to conduct a<br />
review of all such funds within their<br />
District at least every three years to<br />
ensure that Circuits are using them<br />
innovatively and effectively.<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> itself provides<br />
funding for innovative circuit<br />
appointments in several ways. The<br />
Connexional Priority Fund distributes<br />
27.5% of its net annual income from<br />
property sales to District Advance<br />
Funds for use in local mission and<br />
ministry projects. In addition, the<br />
Connexional Grants Committee<br />
makes grants on behalf of the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> under Standing Order<br />
213B from a number of funds for<br />
a wide variety of projects, some of<br />
which may involve innovative circuit<br />
appointments.<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> therefore commits<br />
to continue to support innovative<br />
appointments via the existing<br />
processes that it has established.<br />
M15 Calculation of assessments<br />
The Gainsborough (17/9) Circuit Meeting<br />
(Present: 15. Voting: unanimous)<br />
requests the <strong>Conference</strong> to review the<br />
policy of including Lay Workers engaged<br />
in pioneer ministry in the formula used<br />
to calculate the portion of the District<br />
Assessment levied against the Circuit.<br />
The present practice significantly adds<br />
to the employment oncosts of appointing<br />
people to these positions and serves as a<br />
disincentive to employ Mission workers.<br />
Reply<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> thanks the Gainsborough<br />
Circuit Meeting for highlighting the process<br />
by which the annual <strong>Methodist</strong> Church<br />
Fund (MCF) assessment is apportioned<br />
between Circuits.<br />
The total MCF assessment is agreed<br />
each year by the <strong>Conference</strong>, using a predetermined<br />
formula, and is included within<br />
the Connexional Central Services Budget.<br />
Although this total is divided between the<br />
Districts, it is, as the memorial says, a<br />
levy on the Circuits, not Districts. Standing<br />
Order 361(2) states that the MCF “shall be<br />
maintained by an assessment levied by the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> on each Circuit”.<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> notes that the actual<br />
amount of the assessment paid by each<br />
Circuit is set by the relevant District.<br />
Districts are empowered to use whichever<br />
policy they find to be most appropriate for<br />
dividing up their portion of the connexional<br />
assessment. This is in keeping with the<br />
policy of devolving decision making as<br />
close as possible to the point of impact.<br />
In response to memorial M19 in 2011 the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> encouraged Districts to reevaluate<br />
the method used for apportioning<br />
the assessment between its Circuits each<br />
year, in order to ensure that it is based on<br />
780 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
59. Memorials to the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
the relevant local factors. The inclusion of<br />
the number of lay employees, as with any<br />
other factor, is purely a decision for each<br />
individual District, and is not a matter for<br />
the <strong>Conference</strong>.<br />
The memorial is therefore declined.<br />
M16 Transfer of manses between<br />
Circuits<br />
The South Petherton and Crewkerne<br />
(24/18) Circuit Meeting (Present: 22.<br />
Voting: 16 for, 2 against) requests the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> to issue clear guidance,<br />
including recommendations for any<br />
financial settlement, as to how the transfer<br />
of a manse from one Circuit to another<br />
should be achieved.<br />
Reply<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> thanks the South<br />
Petherton and Crewkerne Circuit for its<br />
memorial. The <strong>Conference</strong> reminds the<br />
Circuit that when making the transfer of<br />
a manse from one Circuit to another they<br />
are not transferring the legal title of the<br />
property, only the managing trusteeship.<br />
Under Model Trust 16(k) a Circuit can<br />
delegate all or any of their responsibilities<br />
and duties as managing trustees for any<br />
property to another Circuit. Both Circuits<br />
will need to be clear what responsibilities<br />
and duties are being transferred should it<br />
not be all of them. The key points to agree<br />
are which Circuit has the power of sale and<br />
who will benefit from the proceeds of sale<br />
of the manse. Clearly a written record of<br />
the agreement reached should be kept for<br />
future reference.<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> is not aware of the<br />
issue of transferring properties between<br />
Circuits being of significant concern, and<br />
therefore at this time considers the current<br />
provisions for delegation under Model Trust<br />
16(k) to be sufficient. The <strong>Conference</strong><br />
therefore declines the memorial.<br />
M17 Definition of replacement schemes<br />
The North East Somerset and Bath (7/13)<br />
Circuit Meeting (Present: 53. Voting:<br />
unanimous) requests the <strong>Conference</strong> to<br />
review the principles under which a levy<br />
upon the proceeds of sale of a property<br />
are made and to broaden the definition<br />
of ‘replacement schemes’ to include new<br />
ventures in mission that may not involve<br />
buildings, thereby releasing resources for<br />
new models of mission.<br />
Whilst the Circuit Meeting recognises that<br />
such new ventures in mission may attract<br />
money from the Connexional Priority Fund<br />
there is no certainty of this when Circuits<br />
are planning policy for the future and there<br />
is a built-in bias in the present system<br />
towards work involving new or renewed<br />
buildings rather than personnel.<br />
Reply<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> thanks the North East<br />
Somerset and Bath Circuit Meeting for this<br />
memorial.<br />
The question of the interpretation of<br />
Standing Order 973 with respect to<br />
replacement projects was considered<br />
by the <strong>Conference</strong> and the <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Council last year, and the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
refers the Circuit to the <strong>Methodist</strong> Council<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 781
59. Memorials to the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
papers MC/11/20 and MC/11/45 which<br />
considered the significant impact that<br />
any wider interpretation of replacements<br />
projects would have on the Connexional<br />
Priority Fund (CPF).<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> of 2011 accepted<br />
memorials M24 and M25, the<br />
consequence of which was to change<br />
the interpretation of Standing Order 973<br />
to allow for the proceeds of multiple<br />
dispositions to be included in a single<br />
replacement project without attracting<br />
the CPF Levy. The effect of the new<br />
interpretation on the CPF has yet to be<br />
ascertained given that the new guidelines<br />
issued by the Connexional Grants<br />
Committee only applied from 1 September<br />
2011.<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> reminds the Circuit that<br />
the CPF does not only contribute to the<br />
Pension Reserve Fund, but money raised<br />
from the CPF levy is also redistributed<br />
annually to District Advance Funds for<br />
the support of mission and ministry, for<br />
major connexional programmes, and for<br />
grants provided by the Connexional Grants<br />
Committee.<br />
Given the concerns raised in paper<br />
MC/11/45 on a widening of the<br />
interpretation of Standing Order 973,<br />
and the actual effect on the CPF still<br />
being unknown, the <strong>Conference</strong> does<br />
not consider it appropriate to extend<br />
the definition of replacement project<br />
under Standing Order 973 to include the<br />
application of proceeds of sale for any new<br />
mission project. The <strong>Conference</strong> therefore<br />
declines the memorial.<br />
M18 District levy on funds allocated for<br />
replacement schemes<br />
The North East Somerset and Bath<br />
(7/13) Circuit Meeting (Present: 53.<br />
Voting: unanimous) requests that the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> exempts moneys held in a<br />
Circuit Advance Fund from the proceeds<br />
of sale where a replacement scheme has<br />
been agreed or is planned, from the annual<br />
levy on such Advance Funds, enabling the<br />
planning of such replacement schemes<br />
to be undertaken with more certainty and<br />
reducing administrative burdens at Circuit<br />
and District level.<br />
Reply<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> thanks the North East<br />
Somerset and Bath Circuit Meeting for this<br />
memorial. It notes that Standing Order<br />
955(6)(b) already provides an exemption<br />
from this levy to District Advance Funds for<br />
“money raised by any appeal specifically<br />
for the acquisition of land or erection or<br />
alteration of any building”. However, it<br />
accepts that any proceeds from property<br />
sales that are to be designated as<br />
replacement projects would not qualify for<br />
this exemption and refers the matter to the<br />
Law and Polity Committee to be reviewed<br />
for report back to the <strong>Conference</strong> of 2013.<br />
M19 Funding for VentureFX<br />
The Newcastle upon Tyne District Synod<br />
(R) (Present: 157. Voting: 92 for, 39<br />
against) gives thanks to God for new and<br />
encouraging signs being seen through<br />
hundreds of grass root fresh expressions<br />
and the early stages of the 13 VentureFX<br />
projects within the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church. The<br />
782 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
59. Memorials to the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> <strong>Conference</strong> of 2011 wholeheartedly<br />
affirmed the General Secretary’s<br />
Report which states:<br />
that making more disciples of Jesus<br />
Christ through apt and appropriate<br />
ways is a key priority for our Connexion<br />
today. This involves committing<br />
ourselves, even in a time of scarcity,<br />
to put a disproportionate degree of<br />
resources and energy to this end, as<br />
the acknowledged weakest ‘health<br />
indicator’ throughout our Connexion.<br />
The Synod of the Newcastle upon<br />
Tyne District expresses its concern at<br />
the proposed budget reduction to the<br />
VentureFX project and asks the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
to reinstate the previously agreed<br />
VentureFX budget over the next two years<br />
whilst supporting the necessary funding for<br />
Fresh Expressions connexionally to cover<br />
any shortfall. We believe that:<br />
l<br />
l<br />
l<br />
As a matter of principle a scheme<br />
that was approved and set up by the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> with agreed funding for<br />
a specified period of time (ie not an<br />
open-ended commitment) should<br />
not be changed partway through the<br />
scheme.<br />
To move monies allocated to<br />
VentureFX in order to fund other<br />
fresh expressions sets one part<br />
of the Church in competition with<br />
another which is bad practice,<br />
divisive, and damaging to<br />
relationships and confidence.<br />
It is a failure of nerve. Pioneer<br />
ministry within the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church<br />
l<br />
Reply<br />
has a very different style to other<br />
pioneering schemes and is highly<br />
regarded across the denominations.<br />
The recently commissioned<br />
independent review of VentureFX<br />
strongly supports the current<br />
work and recommends ongoing<br />
commitment beyond the initial first<br />
five-years’ support for each project.<br />
In a time when <strong>Methodist</strong> people<br />
are being encouraged to affirm<br />
the suggested emphasis of apt<br />
evangelism and fresh ways of<br />
being church as a priority this is a<br />
negative sign in which our rhetoric<br />
is not matched by our practice. We<br />
ought to be supporting both Fresh<br />
Expressions and VentureFX.<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> thanks the Newcastle<br />
upon Tyne Synod for its memorial.<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> recalls that the<br />
General Secretary’s Report was indeed<br />
enthusiastically endorsed by the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> of 2011, and the direction<br />
of travel that it set now shapes the way<br />
that the Church undertakes God’s mission<br />
across the Connexion. That journey<br />
involves a number of key themes and<br />
priorities, including the need to make<br />
“more disciples of Jesus Christ through apt<br />
and appropriate ways”.<br />
This process of making more disciples is<br />
wide-ranging and requires an incredibly<br />
diverse strategy to engage with our multifaceted<br />
world. VentureFX represents<br />
one way in which the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 783
59. Memorials to the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
is undertaking this process, but it is<br />
one project out of a wide range of other<br />
programmes and activities, most of them<br />
carried out on much smaller scales,<br />
without such significant connexional<br />
backing.<br />
As well as whole-heartedly endorsing<br />
the emphasis on evangelism across<br />
the whole Connexion, the <strong>Conference</strong> of<br />
2011 considered its own budget. The<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> whole-heartedly endorsed a<br />
resolution requiring the <strong>Methodist</strong> Council<br />
to prepare future budgets with “a realistic<br />
understanding of the implications of<br />
declining income” and clearly signalled<br />
a shift in expenditure policy from the<br />
previous three-year plan allowing for<br />
increased expenditure. This provides<br />
the context for discussing any proposals<br />
affecting the Connexional Budget element<br />
of support for the Church’s priorities. It<br />
certainly means that not all expenditure<br />
planned in earlier years can be sustained,<br />
however disappointing and frustrating that<br />
change may be.<br />
As was discussed at the <strong>Methodist</strong> Council<br />
meeting which debated this budget, as well<br />
as its commitment to VentureFX and its<br />
policy of budget restraint, the <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Church remains a highly committed partner<br />
in the ecumenical Fresh Expressions<br />
organisation, which supports different<br />
but related work to VentureFX. Given the<br />
pressures on the general budget, there<br />
was a need this year to find some other<br />
source of funding for some of the regular<br />
support for Fresh Expressions, just as<br />
the funding for VentureFX has come from<br />
designated funds for several years. In<br />
addition, the Church needs to increase its<br />
annual funding of Fresh Expressions Ltd<br />
by £50,000 per annum for the next two<br />
years if the organisation is to survive its<br />
current financial challenges. After careful<br />
debate, the budget proposed by the<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Council finds some of the money<br />
needed for Fresh Expressions Ltd from the<br />
designated fund that supports VentureFX,<br />
with a compensating reduction in funding<br />
for VentureFX. The VentureFX project will<br />
nonetheless still receive £374,000 in the<br />
coming year, representing a continuing<br />
very substantial connexional investment,<br />
alongside at least £200,000 from Districts.<br />
The memorial refers to the recent<br />
independent VentureFX evaluation report<br />
which is indeed positive about the existing<br />
work. However, it does recommend that<br />
the number of pioneer projects be capped<br />
at the current number of 13 and not<br />
expanded to the originally planned 20.<br />
It also recommends the creation of an<br />
additional half-time central post. In the<br />
current economic climate the Strategy<br />
and Resources Committee did not feel<br />
that it could support this addition to<br />
the Connexional Team headcount, so a<br />
significant share of the savings (around<br />
£25,000) comes from not creating a<br />
new post that does not yet exist; it does<br />
not represent a cut to the budget for any<br />
existing projects.<br />
Furthermore, the VentureFX programme<br />
has always been a shared financial<br />
responsibility between the Connexional<br />
Budget and the Districts within which<br />
the Pioneers are located. Discussions at<br />
the Connexional Leaders’ Forum and the<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Council have indicated that<br />
some of the participating Districts would<br />
784 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
59. Memorials to the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
be open to discussions regarding shifting<br />
the balance of ongoing support for their<br />
projects so that the sponsoring District<br />
contributed more and the overall work<br />
did not have to be scaled back at all. For<br />
a typical project, this would require the<br />
District to find an extra £5k per year.<br />
The <strong>Methodist</strong> Church faces significant<br />
challenges in producing a sustainable<br />
budget for connexional funds within the<br />
constraints set by the <strong>Conference</strong> of 2011.<br />
As the budget report shows, cost savings<br />
have been made in a wide range of areas,<br />
one of which is VentureFX. This matter was<br />
carefully debated at great length by the<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Council, which considered, but<br />
rejected, a specific amendment regarding<br />
the VentureFX budget.<br />
The reply to the memorial is therefore<br />
contained within the resolutions of the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong>.<br />
M20 Chester and Stoke-on-Trent District<br />
Synod (R) (Present: 131. Voting: 125<br />
for, 0 against)<br />
This memorial was also received with the<br />
same text as M19, except for the omission of<br />
the ending of the third paragraph from ‘whilst<br />
supporting’ onwards (replaced by ‘For the<br />
following reasons:’) and the last sentence of<br />
the seventh paragraph, and the substitution<br />
of a different final paragraph, as below. The<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> adopts the same reply.<br />
l<br />
As a District we have made financial<br />
commitments on the basis of what<br />
we believed is a five-year commitment<br />
and partnership between the<br />
Connexion and the District. Such<br />
a change in that relationship will<br />
cause considerable disquiet across<br />
the District as we already have to<br />
work hard to justify the movement of<br />
money via assessments from Circuit<br />
to District to the Connexion.<br />
M21 Liverpool Synod (R) (Present: 80.<br />
Voting: 57 for, 10 against)<br />
This memorial was also received with the<br />
same text as M20, except for the omission<br />
of the final paragraph. The <strong>Conference</strong><br />
adopts the same reply.<br />
M22 Nottingham and Derby District Synod<br />
(R) (Present: 144. Voting: 137 for, 2<br />
against)<br />
This memorial was also received with the<br />
same text as M21, except for the omission<br />
of the first sentence of the sixth paragraph,<br />
and the addition of a different final<br />
paragraph, as below. The <strong>Conference</strong> adopts<br />
the same reply.<br />
l<br />
The Nottingham East Circuit,<br />
supported by the District, has made<br />
financial commitments on the basis<br />
of what we believed was a five-year<br />
commitment and partnership. Such a<br />
change in that relationship will cause<br />
considerable disquiet across the<br />
Circuit and could have a detrimental<br />
impact on the Church in Sherwood,<br />
the project itself and the project’s<br />
relationship with the local community.<br />
M23 Funding for VentureFX<br />
The Cumbria District Synod (R) (Present:<br />
104. Voting: 94 for, 0 against) shares<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 785
59. Memorials to the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
the concern expressed by other Districts<br />
at the proposed budget reduction to the<br />
VentureFX project and asks the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
to reinstate the previously agreed<br />
VentureFX budget over the next two years.<br />
The Synod gives thanks to God for new<br />
and encouraging signs being seen through<br />
hundreds of grass root fresh expressions<br />
and the early stages of the 13 VentureFX<br />
projects within the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church.<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> of 2011 whole-heartedly<br />
affirmed the General Secretary’s Report<br />
which stated:<br />
that making more disciples of Jesus Christ<br />
through apt and appropriate ways is a<br />
key priority for our Connexion today. This<br />
involves committing ourselves, even in a<br />
time of scarcity, to put a disproportionate<br />
degree of resources and energy to this<br />
end, as the acknowledged weakest ‘health<br />
indicator’ throughout our Connexion.<br />
Reply<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> adopts the same reply as<br />
M19.<br />
M24 Inter Faith Relations<br />
The London District Synod (R) (Present:<br />
182. Voting: 140 for, 23 against)<br />
commends to the <strong>Conference</strong> the work of<br />
the Inter Faith Relations Office and regrets<br />
the decision in the Central Services Budget<br />
proposals that in future the Connexional<br />
Team will only deal with inter faith matters<br />
at the level of the Secretary for External<br />
Relations. While the Secretary for External<br />
Relations is perfectly suited to manage<br />
matters at a strategic level, we believe<br />
that any such post holder would be unlikely<br />
to have either the time or the specialist<br />
knowledge to enable them to deal with the<br />
background tasks and maintain the legion<br />
of low-level relationships that have made<br />
the <strong>Methodist</strong> Inter Faith Relations Office<br />
renowned across not only the Christian<br />
denominations but also the eight major<br />
religions in the United Kingdom.<br />
We believe that the proposal to simply do<br />
away with the Inter Faith Relations Office<br />
may be justified on purely financial grounds<br />
but shows a poor understanding of both the<br />
nature and importance of the role of the<br />
Inter Faith Relations Officer to the <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Church at both a national and a local level.<br />
In an increasingly diverse and multifaith<br />
country we need to understand our<br />
neighbours and, as the <strong>Conference</strong> has<br />
previously recognised (for example in<br />
the 1999 statement Called to Love and<br />
Praise), learn about our own faith through<br />
relationships with friends of other religions.<br />
We propose that a proper evaluation be<br />
carried out to determine the most costeffective<br />
and practical means of providing<br />
a recognisable inter faith service from<br />
within the Connexional Team. We also<br />
believe that while this evaluation is in<br />
production the current Inter Faith Relations<br />
Officer should remain in post.<br />
Reply<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> reaffirms its commitment<br />
to seeking positive inter faith relations<br />
and welcomes the dedicated, patient and<br />
prophetic work done towards this end in<br />
many places around the Connexion. The<br />
786 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
59. Memorials to the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
<strong>Conference</strong> notes that the Connexional<br />
Grants Committee has provided substantial<br />
funding for locally-based projects of wider<br />
significance as a sign of connexional<br />
support for such work; there is no policy<br />
change being proposed in relation to this.<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> recalls that the impact<br />
of the inter faith work done specifically<br />
within the Connexional Team has been<br />
scrutinised before and as a result of the<br />
Team Focus process the previous fulltime<br />
post was ended in 2008. A four-year<br />
project with a budget of around £110,000<br />
was set up to explore the various ways in<br />
which the priority of inter faith work could<br />
best be embedded in the regular life of<br />
the Team and the wider Connexion, and a<br />
part-time project officer was appointed to<br />
support this. It was also agreed to retain<br />
a part-time Inter Faith Officer position for<br />
the duration of the project at the cost of<br />
around another £160,000.<br />
That project has now come to its end<br />
and there was never any intention or<br />
commitment to extend its funding. Its<br />
output was studied in the light of the<br />
instruction from the <strong>Conference</strong> of 2011<br />
to constrain overall budget expenditure,<br />
and in the light of the various places in<br />
the Team and beyond where effective inter<br />
faith work has been taking place. It was<br />
also noted that many vital areas of the<br />
Church’s life thrive without a desk officer<br />
in London. In this total context it was<br />
considered that to reinstate a full-time<br />
inter faith post could not be justified in<br />
present circumstances.<br />
As noted in the Connexional Central<br />
Services Budget report to the <strong>Conference</strong>,<br />
several important resources will be in<br />
place to support inter faith work. The<br />
Secretary for External Relationships,<br />
who has been prominent in dealing<br />
with the major inter faith issues since<br />
2008, will be the point of contact for<br />
external parties. The Inter Faith Advisor<br />
of Churches Together in England will<br />
continue to be substantially funded from<br />
the Connexional Central Services Budget<br />
and provide support as is appropriate.<br />
Working ecumenically in this way is in<br />
line with the <strong>Conference</strong>’s instruction to<br />
work in partnership with others wherever<br />
possible. It is expected that expertise<br />
will also be drawn from centres around<br />
the Connexion such as Touchstone in<br />
Bradford and St Philip’s in Leicester<br />
to help fulfil this important area of the<br />
Church’s engagement in society. It is<br />
hoped that an authorised volunteer can<br />
also add prominence to the Connexion’s<br />
engagement with the issue, as is already<br />
the case with areas of work such as health<br />
and healing and music in worship.<br />
The budget proposal brought to the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> hence envisages continuing<br />
support for the Connexion’s interfaith<br />
work from central resources but not the<br />
introduction of a full-time staff member. The<br />
reply to the memorial is therefore contained<br />
in the resolutions of the <strong>Conference</strong>.<br />
M25 Inter Faith Relations<br />
The Birmingham District Synod (R)<br />
(Present: 120. Voting: 70 for, 37 against)<br />
greatly regrets the Central Services Budget<br />
proposal not to continue the post of<br />
Connexional Inter Faith Relations Officer<br />
after the summer of 2012.<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 787
59. Memorials to the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
The <strong>Methodist</strong> <strong>Conference</strong> has consistently<br />
affirmed the importance of positive inter<br />
faith relations and has commended<br />
engagement in inter faith relations by the<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> people. In 1972 the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
adopted a Faith and Order report which<br />
stated that “Local Churches should take<br />
the initiative to establish ‘dialogue’ with<br />
representatives of other faiths”. The 1999<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> Statement Called to Love and<br />
Praise states: “The Church’s vocation<br />
is to be a sign, witness, foretaste and<br />
instrument of God’s kingdom. This involves<br />
both evangelism and social action and, in<br />
our day especially, engaging with people of<br />
differing cultures and faiths.” In 1982 the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> instructed the setting up of the<br />
Inter Divisional Connexional Committee<br />
for Relations with People of Other Faiths.<br />
Since 2005 the Connexional Inter Faith<br />
Relations Group has met jointly with<br />
the United Reformed Church Inter Faith<br />
Relations Group. Alongside these formal<br />
developments, individual <strong>Methodist</strong>s have<br />
often played a leading role in inter faith<br />
dialogue at an international level as well<br />
as making very substantial contributions to<br />
the building up of good relations locally.<br />
The opportunity and need for engagement<br />
and mutual understanding between people<br />
of different faiths are as great now as they<br />
have ever been. Consequently there is an<br />
equally strong need for central resourcing<br />
of <strong>Methodist</strong>s throughout Britain, and<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> representation in dialogue at a<br />
national level, by a specialist in this area.<br />
The Birmingham District acknowledges<br />
the financial constraints of the <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Church. However, in the light of the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong>’s consistent endorsing of the<br />
importance of the whole <strong>Methodist</strong> people<br />
engaging with friends and neighbours of<br />
different faiths and its recognition that<br />
inter faith relations are an intrinsic part<br />
of the Church’s vocation, we request the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> to instruct the Connexional<br />
Team to maintain a dedicated team post<br />
for a suitably qualified and experienced<br />
inter faith relations specialist.<br />
Reply<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> adopts the same reply as<br />
M24.<br />
M26 Fruitful Field<br />
The Bromsgrove and Redditch (5/18)<br />
Circuit Meeting (Present: 29. Voting:<br />
unanimous) expresses its concern at the<br />
haste with which the Ministries Committee<br />
wishes the <strong>Conference</strong> to commit itself to<br />
the recommendations regarding the Fruitful<br />
Field process and urges the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
to delay any decision for a further year of<br />
consultation.<br />
Reply<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> thanks the Bromsgrove<br />
and Redditch Circuit Meeting for its<br />
memorial and its concern for the Fruitful<br />
Field process. The issues raised by the<br />
memorial are discussed within the Fruitful<br />
Field report to the <strong>Conference</strong> from the<br />
Ministries Committee, and so that report<br />
constitutes the reply of the <strong>Conference</strong> to<br />
this memorial.<br />
M27 Fruitful Field<br />
The York and Hull District Synods (M:<br />
Present: 95. Voting: unanimous; R:<br />
788 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
59. Memorials to the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
Present: 133. Voting: 109 for, 1 against)<br />
calls upon the <strong>Conference</strong> to ensure that<br />
any proposals relating to the Fruitful Field<br />
project are subject to the normal scrutiny<br />
of Synods, Circuit Meetings, and Church<br />
Councils prior to implementation, in order<br />
to avoid any repetition of the inadequate<br />
period for proper consultation in the<br />
autumn of 2011.<br />
Reply<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> adopts the same reply as<br />
M26.<br />
M28 Suspending Local Preaching studies<br />
The Bangor and Holyhead (2/3) Circuit<br />
Meeting (Present 21. Vote: unanimous)<br />
asks the <strong>Conference</strong> to consider that a<br />
Local Preacher on Trial who experiences<br />
a period when they are unable to preach<br />
or study due to domestic difficulties,<br />
should, with the permission of the Local<br />
Preachers’ Meeting, be able to suspend<br />
their studies for a fixed period to give time<br />
to resolve any difficulties.<br />
The period of suspension should not count<br />
towards the maximum time permitted on<br />
trial. During this period, the Preacher on<br />
Trial would not be allowed to take services.<br />
Such periods of suspension would be<br />
reported to the District Local Preachers’<br />
Secretary in the annual report.<br />
Reply<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> thanks the Bangor and<br />
Holyhead Circuit Meeting for its memorial.<br />
According to Standing Order 564B(3),<br />
preachers on trial may apply to extend their<br />
period on trial beyond five years through an<br />
application to the District Policy Committee.<br />
This mechanism ensures that those on<br />
trial who are unable to preach or study for<br />
a period of time due to their exceptional<br />
circumstances may apply to extend their<br />
training, if this becomes necessary. This<br />
process ensures that the Local Preachers’<br />
Meeting, the District Policy Committee<br />
and (through the work of this committee)<br />
the District Local Preachers’ Secretary<br />
can continue to engage pastorally and<br />
prayerfully with the person on trial and his<br />
or her circumstances, without the loss of<br />
these support structures that a period of<br />
suspension may cause. Following a period<br />
of suspension, and especially one spanning<br />
a longer period of time, it may be difficult<br />
for a person on trial to resume his or her<br />
training from the same point – this may<br />
result in someone who is called to local<br />
preaching feeling unable to continue their<br />
training, when continuous support and<br />
reflection may have enabled them to do so.<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> therefore declines this<br />
memorial.<br />
M29 Blessing civil partnerships<br />
Since the human sexuality debate at the<br />
Derby <strong>Conference</strong> of 1993, Methodism<br />
has sought to respond faithfully to ‘our<br />
calling’ to become a truly inclusive church.<br />
This journey has been a painful one for<br />
many people with strong views on either<br />
side of the debate about human sexuality<br />
in general, and the blessing of the civil<br />
partnerships of faithful gay and lesbian<br />
couples in particular.<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 789
59. Memorials to the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
The passing of the Civil Partnership Act<br />
in 2004 made it legal for gay and lesbian<br />
couples to have their relationships<br />
recognised and the Equalities Act 2010<br />
made it possible for these relationships<br />
to be celebrated on church premises.<br />
However the <strong>Methodist</strong> <strong>Conference</strong> has<br />
confirmed that the blessing of the civil<br />
partnerships of gay or lesbian couples may<br />
not take place on <strong>Methodist</strong> premises.<br />
Recognising that the blessing of the Civil<br />
Partnerships of gay or lesbian couples<br />
remains a very difficult issue within the<br />
church, the Birmingham District Synod<br />
(R) (Present: 115. Voting: 89 for, 20<br />
against) nevertheless concludes that it is<br />
no longer tenable to deny God’s blessing<br />
on a relationship between two people<br />
who have promised to love and care for<br />
each other within the commitment of a<br />
civil partnership, solely on the grounds of<br />
their sexuality. We therefore request that<br />
the ruling of the <strong>Conference</strong> should be<br />
revisited through the appropriate councils<br />
of our Church, giving attention to our<br />
understanding of ‘marriage’, ‘partnership’<br />
and particularly ‘blessing,’ reporting to the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> of 2013, in the hope that we<br />
will allow the blessing of civil partnerships<br />
of gay or lesbian couples on <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
premises.<br />
Reply<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> thanks the Birmingham<br />
Synod for its memorial.<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> last voted on the issue<br />
of the blessing of Civil Partnerships on<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> premises in 2006 as part of<br />
the Pilgrimage of Faith report. In that<br />
report the <strong>Conference</strong> noted that there<br />
was a wide divergence of opinion within<br />
the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church, but directed that<br />
the 1993 Resolutions on Human Sexuality<br />
“precluded the possibility of authorised<br />
liturgies being adopted for the blessing<br />
of same-sex relationships and that<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> premises may not be used for<br />
such a purpose”. Subsequently, the 2007<br />
working group on the 1993 Resolutions on<br />
Human Sexuality also recommended that<br />
the <strong>Methodist</strong> Council should not seek to<br />
review those resolutions.<br />
The issues raised in the memorial are<br />
difficult ones for many people in our<br />
churches and touch on theological<br />
differences, pastoral concerns and personal<br />
experiences. As a Church which has<br />
committed itself to pilgrimage it is important<br />
to hear the experiences expressed in<br />
this memorial, whilst being mindful of the<br />
previous decisions of the <strong>Conference</strong>. The<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Council, supported by the Faith<br />
and Order Committee, are responding to<br />
the Government’s ‘Equal Civil Marriage<br />
Consultation’ and this consultation may<br />
open up further issues for the <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Council to consider. Therefore, the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> directs the <strong>Methodist</strong> Council<br />
to consider the issues identified within<br />
this memorial alongside any further issues<br />
raised by the consultation on same sex<br />
marriage.<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> therefore refers this<br />
memorial to the <strong>Methodist</strong> Council.<br />
M30 Safeguarding training<br />
The Southampton District Synod (R)<br />
(Present: 179. Voting: 87 for, 63 against)<br />
790 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
59. Memorials to the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
urges the <strong>Conference</strong> to require the<br />
connexional Safeguarding Team to produce<br />
a shorter alternative to Creating Safer<br />
Space: Foundation Module for use by<br />
people already trained in safeguarding by<br />
other recognised agencies so as to equip<br />
them for work in the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church<br />
context.<br />
Reply<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> thanks the Southampton<br />
District Synod for its memorial. The current<br />
Creating Safer Space: Foundation Module<br />
is designed to be delivered in a single<br />
session of between two and two-anda-half<br />
hours, and the <strong>Conference</strong> does<br />
not believe that this is excessive. The<br />
presence in a session of some people who<br />
already have experience of safeguarding<br />
training and practice in other environments<br />
can enrich the session for all those who<br />
attend. Providing separate alternative<br />
sessions would add considerably to the<br />
work of those providing them as it would<br />
potentially double the number of sessions<br />
needing to be run.<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> therefore declines the<br />
memorial.<br />
M31 Use of alcohol in churches which<br />
are community centres<br />
The Vale of Glamorgan (2/27) Circuit<br />
Meeting (Present: 31. Voting: 20 for,<br />
7 against) draws the attention of the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> to the fact that just as some<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> premises are predominantly<br />
used as conference centres so others<br />
are being designed and built to serve<br />
predominantly as community centres<br />
and often in partnership with the<br />
local community. It therefore asks the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> to amend Standing Order<br />
922(3A)(i) by the insertion of the words<br />
‘or community’ between ‘conference’ and<br />
‘centre’.<br />
Reply<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> thanks the Vale of<br />
Glamorgan Circuit Meeting for its<br />
memorial. Amendments were made to<br />
Standing Order 922 in 2004 following<br />
a report from Westminster Central Hall<br />
highlighting their need as a centre of<br />
hospitality to be able to offer alcohol for<br />
income reasons. The current position<br />
enables any <strong>Methodist</strong> premises with the<br />
consent of its District Policy Committee<br />
to be able to have alcohol consumed<br />
on their premises where a significant<br />
part of their work and mission is as a<br />
conference centre. There has not been<br />
significant demand for the policy on alcohol<br />
consumption in <strong>Methodist</strong> premises to be<br />
further relaxed.<br />
Inserting the word ‘community’ into<br />
Standing Order 922(3A)(i) would drastically<br />
widen the scope of this Standing Order<br />
and significantly increase the number<br />
of <strong>Methodist</strong> premises able to seek<br />
designation by the appropriate authority<br />
as a community centre in which the lawful<br />
supply, sale or use of alcohol is permitted.<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> believes that this would<br />
not be appropriate at a time when there<br />
is justifiably much public concern over the<br />
too-ready availability of alcohol.<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> therefore declines the<br />
memorial.<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 791
59. Memorials to the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
M32 Tax Justice<br />
The Birmingham District Synod (R)<br />
(Present: 124. Voting: 97 for, 11 against),<br />
believing that so-called ‘tax havens’<br />
need to be phased out of our global<br />
economic system, and that tax justice is<br />
a key objective in the desperately-needed<br />
national and international reform of that<br />
system, welcomes the adoption of the<br />
report on poverty and inequality by the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> of 2011 and the <strong>Conference</strong>’s<br />
support for Church Action on Poverty’s<br />
‘Close the Gap’ campaign, and asks the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong>:<br />
a) that this support be extended to<br />
both Christian Aid’s ‘Trace the<br />
Tax’ campaign which addresses tax<br />
justice internationally and to the<br />
international Tax Justice Network;<br />
b) to give general support to the<br />
objectives of the <strong>Methodist</strong> Tax<br />
Justice Network (MTJN) currently<br />
being set up, based in the<br />
Birmingham District;<br />
c) to urge all relevant sections of the<br />
Connexional Team to give active<br />
support to the issues being raised by<br />
the MTJN as and when they are able;<br />
d) in particular to encourage the World<br />
Church Relationships team to raise<br />
this issue in their communications<br />
with the wider <strong>Methodist</strong> family and<br />
to discuss how to take it forward as<br />
a fundamental objective of mission<br />
in today’s world.<br />
Reply<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> welcomes the concerns of<br />
the Birmingham District.<br />
Of Equal Value: Poverty and Inequality in the<br />
United Kingdom, a report to the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
of 2011, highlighted and supported the<br />
Christian Aid campaign, ‘Trace the Tax’.<br />
This campaign asks companies to disclose<br />
the amount and the location of tax paid,<br />
and calls on so-called ‘tax havens’ to end<br />
the practice of obstructive secrecy which<br />
prevents the collection of taxes owed in<br />
other nations. Christian Aid estimates<br />
this would raise $160 billion in tax for<br />
developing countries; the tax recovered by<br />
wealthier nations such as ours would be<br />
many times higher.<br />
The Joint Public Issues Team is already<br />
working with Christian Aid, Church Action<br />
on Poverty and the embryonic <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Tax Justice Network to explore how<br />
these issues might be further promoted.<br />
The Beckly Lecture at the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
of 2012 was given by Richard Murphy,<br />
co-founder of the Tax Justice Network.<br />
World Church Relationships Partnership<br />
Coordinators are raising these issues<br />
with partner churches and welcome the<br />
stimulus provided by the <strong>Methodist</strong> Tax<br />
Justice Network.<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> therefore accepts the<br />
memorial, asks the <strong>Methodist</strong> Council to<br />
ensure that these issues are included<br />
within the workplans of the Connexional<br />
Team as resources allow, and recommends<br />
that churches and individuals use the<br />
study resource material from both the<br />
‘Trace the Tax’ and the ‘Close the Gap’<br />
792 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
59. Memorials to the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
campaigns to aid understanding of the<br />
issues raised in the memorial.<br />
M33 Ethical Banking<br />
The Stamford and Rutland (23/22) Circuit<br />
Meeting (Present: 24. Voting: 23 for, 0<br />
against) notes that it resolved in June 2011<br />
that all churches in the Circuit should seek<br />
to move to ethical banking for church funds<br />
as soon as practically possible.<br />
We believe that the prevailing financial<br />
climate presents an opportune time for<br />
the <strong>Methodist</strong> Connexion to declare its<br />
commitment to ethical banking – as it<br />
has done already for ethical investments.<br />
We further believe that it is unlikely that<br />
there are any insurmountable difficulties<br />
as Christian Aid moved to the Co-operative<br />
Bank several years ago for all its local and<br />
global transactions.<br />
We therefore propose that the <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Connexion reconsiders where its accounts<br />
are held with a view to moving to a bank<br />
with more clearly defined ethical standards.<br />
Reply<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> thanks the Stamford and<br />
Rutland Circuit Meeting for reminding it of<br />
the need to be alert to the ethics of the<br />
providers of services to the <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
community.<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> notes that it is unlikely<br />
that any bank of other major company<br />
which provides professional services to<br />
the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church, either connexionally<br />
or locally will never make a decision that<br />
conflicts with the preferences of some<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong>s. The Church does not endorse<br />
every action of every company with which<br />
it does business. The <strong>Conference</strong> of 2010<br />
acknowledged that the Church’s current<br />
bankers have a better record than many of<br />
their competitors in some areas that have<br />
rightly been of concern to Christians.<br />
Nonetheless, the matter of our main<br />
connexional banking relationship was raised<br />
during the <strong>Conference</strong> of 2009. Senior<br />
Connexional Team staff have continued<br />
to keep that matter under review. Issues<br />
concerning the range of services that could<br />
be provided and the costs of transferring<br />
the very large number of accounts the<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Church uses have been<br />
considered. The Connexional Team wants to<br />
work entirely in the spirit of this memorial<br />
without compromising the standards of<br />
service and related costs, about which the<br />
wider Connexion also feels strongly.<br />
The memorial mentions “the <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Connexion” which refers to all <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
churches, Circuits and Districts, not<br />
merely the accounts administered by the<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Council. There is no requirement<br />
that any <strong>Methodist</strong> trustee body uses<br />
a particular bank, and the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
encourages them to consider the ethical<br />
considerations involved in that.<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> therefore encourages all<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> bodies to consider the ethical<br />
stance of their bank account providers.<br />
M34 Installation of solar panels on<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> property<br />
The Sheffield District Synod (R) (Present:<br />
116. Voting: 84 for, 0 against) urges the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 793
59. Memorials to the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
<strong>Conference</strong> to form a policy and process<br />
allowing Managing Trustees to install solar<br />
panels on Model Trust property. Such<br />
installation would be in keeping with the<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Church environmental policy of<br />
reducing carbon footprint and encouraging<br />
eco-congregations.<br />
Reply<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> welcomes the commitment<br />
of the Sheffield Synod to encouraging<br />
measures intended to reduce the carbon<br />
footprint of the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church. In 2009<br />
it directed (Resolution 2009/10/1) the<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Council to resource Districts<br />
and Circuits in their responses to the<br />
report Hope in God’s Future, which was<br />
adopted as a <strong>Conference</strong> Statement<br />
in 2011. In response, the connexional<br />
Carbon Reduction Project has produced<br />
advice on energy audits for churches (www.<br />
methodist.org.uk/carbonreduction).<br />
The installation of Solar Photovoltaics<br />
(solar panels) on property is one way<br />
of contributing to carbon reduction,<br />
in conjunction with other building<br />
improvements such as double glazing and<br />
insulation.<br />
In response to a number of enquiries on<br />
this subject, a Solar Photovoltaic (SPV)<br />
guidance document has been produced<br />
and is now available on the <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Church website (www.methodist.org.uk/<br />
solarpanels). The purpose and aim of the<br />
guidance is to encourage churches to<br />
explore the benefits and options available<br />
to them, whilst avoiding potential pitfalls.<br />
As with all such projects, consent for<br />
the installation of SPV’s on Model Trust<br />
Property would be required in accordance<br />
with Standing Orders 930 and 931 through<br />
the ‘Consents’ website. The <strong>Conference</strong><br />
reminds trustees that they should engage<br />
the appropriate professional advisers<br />
whenever undertaking any property<br />
improvement projects, including the<br />
installation of SPV panels.<br />
Since the introduction of Feed-in Tariffs<br />
a number of <strong>Methodist</strong> Churches have<br />
installed SPVs. The <strong>Methodist</strong> Church in<br />
conjunction with ecumenical partners has<br />
submitted a response to HM Government’s<br />
consultation on Feed-in Tariffs for SPVs<br />
(available at www.jointpublicissues.org.uk).<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> hence notes that the<br />
request made in the memorial has already<br />
been fulfilled.<br />
M35 Employment for asylum seekers<br />
The South Bedfordshire (34/4) Circuit<br />
Meeting (Present: 69. Voting: 67 for, 0<br />
against) is deeply concerned that those<br />
seeking asylum in Britain or undergoing<br />
the later stages of due legal processes to<br />
obtain leave to remain are not allowed to<br />
undertake employment or claim benefits.<br />
Deliberately making people destitute<br />
puts them at risk: open to the whim of<br />
those operating black market economies<br />
or forced to resort to crime out of<br />
desperation.<br />
The Circuit Meeting therefore requests<br />
the <strong>Conference</strong> or the Connexional Team<br />
to petition government for changes in<br />
legislation in order that people may work<br />
(thus contributing to our economy via<br />
794 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
59. Memorials to the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
taxation while also maintaining their skills<br />
and dignity) or be entitled to claim benefits<br />
if unable to obtain employment.<br />
In the meantime, with regard to the current<br />
situation, we request the <strong>Conference</strong> or<br />
the Connexional Team to make changes<br />
to <strong>Methodist</strong> policy in order that manses<br />
and other property may be used to offer<br />
hospitality to those without funds and for<br />
other mission purposes (which may not<br />
obtain market rent) in keeping with SO<br />
929(2)(iv).<br />
Reply<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> thanks the South<br />
Bedfordshire Circuit Meeting for raising<br />
these matters, as the issue of destitution<br />
amongst asylum seekers is one of great<br />
concern to the many churches who work<br />
with those seeking asylum.<br />
An asylum seeker is someone who<br />
has left their home country for fear of<br />
persecution and has made a claim for<br />
protection, but whose claim has not been<br />
decided yet. During this period they will<br />
normally receive accommodation (often<br />
sub-standard) and cash support (£36.62 a<br />
week for a single person) while their claim<br />
is being investigated. If they are refused,<br />
this support is ended for couples without<br />
children or single people and they are<br />
evicted and left without an income.<br />
At this point they may qualify for ‘Section<br />
4 support’ which, provided they agree<br />
to return home as soon as the UK<br />
government says it is safe to do so,<br />
consists of accommodation and a payment<br />
card to spend in a limited number of<br />
shops. If a person has been waiting<br />
for 12 months and has not had their<br />
initial case decided, they may request<br />
‘permission to work’, but only take up a job<br />
which is included on the list of shortage<br />
occupations published by the UK Border<br />
Agency.<br />
The UK needs policies to control who<br />
has the right to live here and who may<br />
receive state support. The UK Border<br />
Agency claims that most new applications<br />
now receive a decision within 30 days<br />
(although there are ongoing concerns<br />
about the accuracy of such decisions,<br />
many of which are overturned on appeal),<br />
and there has been a renewed effort to<br />
remove applicants who have exhausted<br />
the legal process. However, the current<br />
arrangements mean that there are a<br />
significant number of people who have not<br />
been removed but have insufficient means<br />
of support.<br />
Organisations such as the Refugee<br />
Council and Church Action on Poverty are<br />
supporters of the coalition Still Human,<br />
Still Here which campaigns against<br />
destitution. They argue that it makes<br />
sense for people seeking sanctuary to<br />
be given permission to work if they have<br />
been waiting for more than six months<br />
for their cases to be concluded, or if they<br />
have been refused asylum but cannot be<br />
returned home through no fault of their<br />
own (for example if removals have been<br />
suspended due to their home country<br />
being unsafe). Allowing people to work will<br />
stop them being kept in limbo and allow<br />
a small number of asylum seekers to<br />
support themselves.<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 795
59. Memorials to the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
The <strong>Methodist</strong> Church works on asylum<br />
issues largely through the Churches<br />
Refugee Network (CRN), which provides<br />
assistance for church-based support for<br />
refugees and people seeking sanctuary.<br />
CRN runs an annual conference<br />
and coordinates some lobbying and<br />
campaigning work with the Churches. They<br />
would be key partners for the <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Church in raising these issues with other<br />
Churches and with government.<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> therefore encourages<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong>s to ask their MPs to sign<br />
the ‘Still Human, Still Here’ declaration<br />
on permission to work, and asks the<br />
Connexional Team to work with the<br />
Churches Refugee Network to raise these<br />
issues with government and in the Church.<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> property is held upon Model<br />
Trusts for the purposes of the <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Church as set out in Section 4 of the<br />
1976 <strong>Methodist</strong> Church Act and therefore<br />
any use of the premises must be in<br />
accordance with the purposes of the<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Church. The primary purpose of<br />
a manse is for the residence of a minister<br />
but where a manse is not required for<br />
occupation by a minister the property<br />
can be let under Model Trust 16(e) for a<br />
rent. Standing Order 929(2)(iv) requires<br />
the consent of the Circuit Meeting to be<br />
obtained before a manse can be used for<br />
any other purpose which is in furtherance<br />
or incidental to a purpose of the Church.<br />
Model Trust 16(e) provides that a rent or<br />
other consideration must be obtained for<br />
a letting of model trust property. However<br />
the Model Trusts and Standing Orders<br />
do not prohibit a Circuit agreeing that a<br />
manse can be let at an undervalue or for<br />
some other consideration if it is deemed<br />
appropriate use of the premises that would<br />
further the purposes of the <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Church. The Circuit and Local Church also<br />
need to recognise their responsibilities<br />
as managing trustees to act in the best<br />
interest of the Local Church as a charity<br />
when making such a decision. Any use of<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> property must be in accordance<br />
with the law and the people residing in the<br />
property must have a right to be in the UK<br />
as someone seeking asylum. It must be<br />
noted that Standing Order 929(5) requires<br />
a binding written agreement to be entered<br />
into by all parties to the arrangement.<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> hence confirms that the<br />
Model Trusts and Standing Order do allow<br />
a Circuit to agree to a manse being used<br />
to offer accommodation to those seeking<br />
asylum at less than the market rent or for<br />
some other consideration. However there<br />
must be a binding written agreement with<br />
those residing in the property. The Circuit<br />
must also be satisfied that the use of the<br />
manse in this way would be a furtherance<br />
of the purposes of the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church<br />
and is an appropriate use of model<br />
trust property, and that the letting at an<br />
undervalue is in the best interest of the<br />
Local Church as a charity.<br />
M36 Christian presence in British society<br />
The West Somerset (24/25) Circuit<br />
Meeting (Present: 23. Voting: 18 for, 5<br />
against) notes with concern the erosion<br />
of a visible Christian presence in<br />
contemporary British culture and society.<br />
We believe this challenge is made to the<br />
right to a lawful freedom of expression<br />
796 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
59. Memorials to the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
of religious belief, and to the central role<br />
Christian faith and values have played in<br />
British life for many centuries, not least in<br />
helping to shape our modern health and<br />
education systems and in eradicating such<br />
evils as the transatlantic slave trade.<br />
While recognizing the equal rights of<br />
other faiths to their forms of public<br />
devotion and practice, the West Somerset<br />
Circuit requests the <strong>Conference</strong> to make<br />
representations to HM Government<br />
to make clear the concern of the<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Church of Great Britain that<br />
a clear Christian presence in society<br />
be safeguarded and celebrated as an<br />
important strand in British multicultural<br />
life, and as a vital contribution to the<br />
spiritual and moral health of the nation.<br />
Reply<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> notes the concerns of the<br />
West Somerset Circuit Meeting. This is a<br />
concern shared by others; indeed the allparty<br />
group Christians in Parliament recently<br />
conducted an inquiry into the topic, to which<br />
the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church submitted oral and<br />
written evidence. The report of the inquiry,<br />
Clearing the Ground, found that Christians<br />
in the UK are not persecuted for their faith<br />
but that there is evidence of Christianity<br />
being ‘squeezed’ in public life. This is partly<br />
due to the consequences of the working out<br />
of equalities legislation, partly because of<br />
our changing society, and partly because of<br />
‘religious illiteracy’ which sees religion as a<br />
private eccentricity rather than as a central<br />
part of a person’s life and being.<br />
Much of the concern in this area is around<br />
whether different rights are in competition<br />
or if one right can ‘trump’ another. Under<br />
Article 9 of the Human Rights Act, the<br />
right to hold a belief, is absolute; the right<br />
to manifest it (for example by acting in<br />
accordance with your faith) is a qualified<br />
right. Therefore, the right to manifest your<br />
religious belief can be limited if such a<br />
limitation can be justified as necessary in<br />
a democratic country, including to protect<br />
the rights and freedoms of others. This is<br />
as it should be in a civilised society: the<br />
question is where this balance should lie.<br />
The Clearing the Ground report found that<br />
perceptions of marginalisation are greater<br />
than people’s personal experiences of<br />
it. There are a number of cases which<br />
have reached the courts, some of which<br />
were arguably unwisely pursued by those<br />
involved, whilst others explored legal<br />
points which had not been tested before.<br />
Christians should not use a few difficult<br />
cases to bolster the myth that Christians<br />
have fewer rights than people of other<br />
faiths or that others’ rights always ‘trump’<br />
those of Christians. Christianity has been<br />
in a position of power for many centuries;<br />
some of the discomfort people feel may be<br />
a recognition that this power relationship<br />
has shifted as our society has changed.<br />
Nonetheless the Equality and Human<br />
Rights Commission has recently<br />
acknowledged that the operation of<br />
equalities legislation is still deficient in<br />
places, and has suggested that courts<br />
should take greater account of whether<br />
a person’s human rights have been<br />
interfered with, before then looking at<br />
whether that interference is reasonable.<br />
The Clearing the Ground report called for<br />
‘reasonable accommodation’ between<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 797
59. Memorials to the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
different rights as a way of enabling people<br />
to manifest their beliefs. Together these<br />
offer greater hope for recognition in law<br />
that religious belief should not just be<br />
manifested in private.<br />
One of the most effective ways in which<br />
the Church can increase the impact of<br />
Christianity on society is for Christians<br />
to be truly engaged. This may include<br />
involvement in public life locally, such<br />
as ensuring that churches serve their<br />
local communities or are involved in<br />
neighbourhood forums; that church<br />
members invite MPs to events or social<br />
projects; and that individuals lobby MPs<br />
and councillors over issues of local and<br />
national concern, or stand for election. It<br />
also involves the Church speaking out to<br />
government, often with other Churches,<br />
over issues which <strong>Methodist</strong>s believe are<br />
important.<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> therefore affirms that<br />
Christianity is a vital strand in British<br />
multicultural life, asks that this continues<br />
to be communicated in our dealings<br />
with government, and encourages Local<br />
Churches and all Christians to ensure that<br />
they are active in engaging positively with<br />
the communities in which they live as a<br />
demonstration of their Christian love.<br />
M37 Statements by the President<br />
The North Lancashire (21/16) Circuit<br />
Meeting (Present 70. Voting: 69 for, 1<br />
against) asks the <strong>Conference</strong> to instruct<br />
the Connexional Team that the phrase ‘The<br />
President said’ (or equivalent) followed<br />
by words in quotation marks should only<br />
be used in press statements or other<br />
publications where the words quoted<br />
have in fact been spoken or written by the<br />
President. The practice of media officers<br />
inventing quotations, even if those words<br />
are later approved by the person who<br />
is supposedly being quoted, denies the<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> people access to the authentic<br />
voice of their President and brings into<br />
question the integrity of the Church. It<br />
should be possible to read the phrase ‘the<br />
President said’ and the words which follow<br />
it in quotation marks with confidence that<br />
they are in fact the President’s own words.<br />
Reply<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> thanks the North<br />
Lancashire Circuit for taking an interest in<br />
public statements made on behalf of the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> and the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church.<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> confirms that this is the<br />
Connexional Team practice and has been<br />
for many years, but also that the President<br />
or Vice-President will always have the final<br />
say about what is issued in his or her<br />
name. The members of the Presidency<br />
are busy throughout their year of office,<br />
therefore to expect them to be able to give<br />
a suitable, accurate, and well-informed<br />
quote on any topic at short notice is not<br />
realistic, especially as the 2001 report<br />
Speaking for the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church requires<br />
any such statement to be consistent with<br />
resolutions of the <strong>Conference</strong>, the Deed of<br />
Union and the Standing Orders. The Media<br />
Service, with other specialist staff in the<br />
Team, perform a core part of their duties<br />
to enable the Church to have a voice in the<br />
media by working with the Presidency to<br />
agree suitable quotes as required.<br />
In cases where the President or Vice-<br />
798 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
59. Memorials to the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
President have spoken in the course<br />
of an interview or public meeting, their<br />
words will never be altered or misquoted.<br />
In cases where the press request a<br />
quotation, the words drafted by staff<br />
in the Team will always be sent to the<br />
President or Vice-President for approval<br />
before publication. There is no intent to<br />
mislead because the quotes are agreed<br />
by the President or Vice-President. This is<br />
common practice elsewhere, including in<br />
other Churches. The process is affirmed as<br />
helpful by current and previous members<br />
of the Presidency, who are grateful for the<br />
support it provides them with in dealing<br />
with a wide range of matters.<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> declines the memorial.<br />
M38 Titles of ministers<br />
The High Wycombe (23/27) Circuit Meeting<br />
(Present: 39. Voting: unanimous), having<br />
adopted the principle of the Deferred<br />
Special Resolution that the wording in<br />
our official documents rightly assert the<br />
equality of both ordained ministries whilst<br />
recognising their differences, nonetheless<br />
opposes any widespread and public use<br />
of the term ‘presbyter’ which could create<br />
a barrier in communication and cause<br />
confusion, and urges the <strong>Conference</strong> to do<br />
the same.<br />
Reply<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> thanks the High Wycombe<br />
Circuit Meeting for its interest in this<br />
matter. In 2008 the <strong>Conference</strong> – in<br />
response to a 2004 memorial from the<br />
Newcastle Upon Tyne Synod – agreed<br />
the resolutions in the report Signalling<br />
Vocation. In particular, the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
agreed that both in formal and informal<br />
communications we should use presbyter<br />
to refer to someone ordained to the Order<br />
of Presbyters, deacon to refer to someone<br />
ordained to the Order of Deacons, and<br />
minister to refer to all who are ordained<br />
within Methodism. This replaced the earlier<br />
usage wherein minister sometimes meant<br />
presbyter and sometimes meant presbyter<br />
or deacon.<br />
Recent years have therefore seen an<br />
increase in the use of presbyter as we<br />
have removed this confusion, and this<br />
rapid change can make the word look more<br />
prominent than it really is. The <strong>Conference</strong><br />
encourages the Circuit to use the word<br />
presbyter where it is correct and helpful to<br />
do so, but affirms that it remains entirely<br />
proper to use the word minister when no<br />
distinction is being made between the two<br />
orders of ministry. All <strong>Methodist</strong> presbyters<br />
continue to be ministers and it is correct to<br />
refer to them using either word.<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> advises all those<br />
communicating on behalf of the Church<br />
to consider their intended audience, and<br />
to use the appropriate language in each<br />
case to avoid causing confusion. This<br />
should be possible without contradicting<br />
the policy set out above. For example the<br />
Connexional Team Media Service has only<br />
used presbyter in press releases three<br />
times since 2005, of which two uses were<br />
formal titles.<br />
However it is necessary and important to<br />
retain language which makes clear the<br />
distinction between the different <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
ordained ministries, as well as a word<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 799
59. Memorials to the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
that refers to both, so that when the term<br />
presbyter, deacon or minister is used, it is<br />
done so confidently and correctly.<br />
M39 Church treasurers<br />
The Enfield (35/34) Circuit Meeting<br />
(Present: 34. Voting: 33 for, 1 against)<br />
requests the <strong>Conference</strong> to amend<br />
Standing Order 635 to allow church<br />
treasurers to be appointed who are<br />
members of the local Community Roll<br />
(Standing Order 606(1)(iii)). Churches are<br />
finding it increasingly difficult to appoint a<br />
treasurer within the present Standing Order<br />
635 which restricts the office to those<br />
formally members of the church.<br />
Reply<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> thanks the Enfield Circuit<br />
Meeting for its memorial and affirms<br />
that the role of treasurer is an important<br />
one, as the person fulfilling it helps their<br />
church to exercise wise stewardship of the<br />
finances that God has generously provided.<br />
Members of the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church are<br />
subject to its discipline. The treasurer of a<br />
Local Church needs to be a member who<br />
accepts that discipline and is the person<br />
accountable to the Church Council, of<br />
which s/he is a member, for the financial<br />
side of the Church’s life.<br />
In most situations the treasurer also<br />
does the bookkeeping him/herself. But<br />
that is not always the case and does not<br />
have to be. Standing Order 012A talks<br />
of ‘overseeing’ the work and ‘ensuring’<br />
that budgets are made. In clause (3) it<br />
states “For these purposes a treasurer<br />
shall arrange for and participate in the<br />
preparation of budgets and the monitoring<br />
of income and expenditure, or shall ensure<br />
that adequate and effective systems are<br />
in operation for the discharge of those<br />
responsibilities by others.” This makes it<br />
clear that the actual work can be delegated<br />
– in some cases this may be to a member<br />
of the Community Roll, a suitably-skilled<br />
lay employee, or a bureau service offered<br />
from elsewhere, but it is the treasurer who<br />
remains accountable to the Church Council<br />
for that work.<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> therefore declines the<br />
memorial, believing that there are already<br />
appropriate ways whereby the current<br />
Standing Order can operate even when a<br />
Local Church does not have an ‘expert’<br />
or ‘professional’ available to be their<br />
treasurer.<br />
M40 Openness of Circuit Meetings and<br />
Church Councils<br />
The Leicester (Trinity) (23/7) Circuit<br />
Meeting (Present 48. Voting: 43 for, 1<br />
against), noting that in some Circuits<br />
persons who are members in the Circuit<br />
but are not members of the Circuit<br />
Meeting, are being excluded from such<br />
meetings on the mistaken grounds that<br />
this is the import of Standing Order<br />
510(3), further noting that a similar<br />
exclusion might be applied to members<br />
of churches who are not members of the<br />
Church Council of that church by virtue<br />
of identical provisions in Standing Order<br />
610(3), and believing that it is undesirable,<br />
if not unconstitutional, for members of a<br />
Circuit or Local Church to be prevented<br />
from witnessing how their governing<br />
800 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
59. Memorials to the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
body conducts its affairs, requests the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> to direct that such meetings<br />
are to be open meetings unless and until<br />
they resolve for good reason to go into<br />
closed session pursuant to Standing<br />
Orders 514(3) and 613(3) respectively, and<br />
to amend Standing Orders to make it clear<br />
that this is the case.<br />
Reply<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> thanks the Leicester<br />
(Trinity) Circuit Meeting for its memorial<br />
and notes that the matters it raises and its<br />
request for greater clarity within Standing<br />
Orders as to who may attend Circuit<br />
Meetings and Church Councils are dealt<br />
with in the business of the Law and Polity<br />
Committee elsewhere in the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
<strong>Agenda</strong>.<br />
The reply to the memorial is therefore<br />
contained in the resolutions of the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong>.<br />
M41 Paperwork<br />
The Peak (25/13) Circuit Meeting (Present<br />
32. Voting: unanimous) draws the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong>’s attention to its belief that<br />
there is far too much extra information<br />
required on schedules and statistical<br />
returns which the meeting considers<br />
unnecessary. In rural Circuits the task of<br />
recruiting office holders is getting far more<br />
difficult due to diminishing populations,<br />
and those who would be willing are put<br />
off by the ever increasing amount of<br />
paperwork requested from the Connexion,<br />
and asks the <strong>Conference</strong> to take into<br />
account that Methodism is an evangelistic<br />
movement and the missionary drive<br />
is being frustrated because of what is<br />
increasingly regarded as strangulation by<br />
red tape.<br />
Reply<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> thanks the Peak Circuit<br />
for drawing its attention to the important<br />
collection of local information that is<br />
designed to assist the Church in moving<br />
forward as a discipleship movement<br />
shaped for mission. One of the benefits of<br />
being a connexional Church is the ability<br />
to collect data in a consistent manner<br />
nationwide that can then be used at a local<br />
level as the basis for planning in mission.<br />
It is for this reason that in recent years,<br />
additional types of information have been<br />
added to the October Statistics for Mission<br />
count. Some will remain permanently;<br />
others will be removed or changed year<br />
on year. Key to this expansion, and to the<br />
specifics of the data collection, has been<br />
the call from Local Churches around the<br />
Connexion to make this process more<br />
flexible and mission-focused, gathering<br />
information on the varied activities of<br />
churches to demonstrate and educate<br />
others in active and engaging mission<br />
work around the British Isles. This data is<br />
used regularly, both locally and for central<br />
strategic decision making, in a way which<br />
shorter, basic schedules of attendance<br />
and membership could not offer. As such<br />
the <strong>Conference</strong> strongly affirmed these<br />
developments in 2011. The Connexional<br />
Team will gladly offer support in assisting<br />
Circuits and Local Churches to use the<br />
available data to develop their mission<br />
work.<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 801
59. Memorials to the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
At the same time, the <strong>Conference</strong> is<br />
clear on the need to ensure that the<br />
Church thinks carefully before adding<br />
to the information required regularly of<br />
Local Churches. This applies across all<br />
its areas of work. Within Statistics for<br />
Mission, questions and the web form are<br />
shaped to ensure the need for lengthy<br />
work is minimised. In terms of process,<br />
the revised website means data can be<br />
entered by a group of people, and therefore<br />
work shared between officers and<br />
ministers as best fits the local context. It<br />
also now carries forward data from year to<br />
year, ensuring only some of the form needs<br />
filling in annually.<br />
It is also important for the Church to<br />
collect and provide data in relation to its<br />
property. This will assist churches, Circuits<br />
and Districts as they develop property<br />
strategies that enable them to make the<br />
most effective use of buildings in pursuing<br />
mission by serving the communities in<br />
which God has placed them.<br />
The introduction of the consents process<br />
for approving building projects has enabled<br />
decisions to be taken more locally and<br />
completion of annual schedules assists<br />
district consent-giving bodies in taking<br />
these important decisions. The information<br />
assists them as they seek to critically<br />
appraise the viability and future potential<br />
of church buildings as a place for mission<br />
and discipleship.<br />
The data collected are critical in enabling<br />
local trustees to demonstrate their<br />
effective management of and care for<br />
property and progress towards the<br />
Church’s ongoing goals, including the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> commitment to reduce the<br />
overall carbon emissions of the <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Church in Britain by 80% by 2050.<br />
However, the <strong>Conference</strong> is mindful of the<br />
work that this generates for local officers,<br />
and assures the Circuit Meeting that the<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Council will continue to review<br />
these matters to ensure that the burden is<br />
no greater than necessary.<br />
M42 Paperwork<br />
In view of the duplication and length<br />
of the forms required by the <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Central Office to be completed by Church<br />
officers, the Thanet (36/29) Circuit Meeting<br />
(Present: 24. Voting: unanimous) proposes<br />
that all forms be vetted to ensure that they:<br />
(a)<br />
(b)<br />
(c)<br />
(d)<br />
contain only questions that are<br />
relevant and necessary for the safety<br />
and efficient running of the Church<br />
with the emphasis being on reducing<br />
the current number of questions and<br />
information required;<br />
do not duplicate questions asked in<br />
other forms;<br />
are required to be completed only<br />
as often as is absolutely necessary<br />
and not automatically on an annual<br />
basis;<br />
should allow a simple statement<br />
that there are no alterations to the<br />
replies given in the last previously<br />
completed form except for items<br />
specifically noted, as an alternative<br />
to completing the form in full (in<br />
particular for Schedule A).<br />
802 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
59. Memorials to the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
Reply<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> adopts the same reply as<br />
M41.<br />
M43 Explanatory documentation<br />
The Epworth and Scunthorpe (17/1) Circuit<br />
Meeting (Present: 66. Voting: 62 for, 0<br />
against) has considered the implications<br />
of the recent proposed change to the Deed<br />
of Union, and found what purports to be<br />
the supporting documentation unhelpful<br />
and not readily accessible. It therefore<br />
requests as good practice, and to facilitate<br />
the process, that in any connexional<br />
consultation with Circuits and churches<br />
this be done by way of a succinct and<br />
accessible reasoned statement.<br />
Reply<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> regrets that the Epworth<br />
and Scunthorpe Circuit Meeting found<br />
the explanatory material provided to aid<br />
the consideration of the Deferred Special<br />
Resolution in respect of Clause 4 of the<br />
Deed of Union unhelpful and not readily<br />
accessible.<br />
Officers of the <strong>Conference</strong> were readily<br />
available and accessible to offer further<br />
elucidation on this matter throughout the<br />
process of referral to Local Churches,<br />
Circuits and Districts.<br />
In noting that the explanatory material<br />
was found to be very helpful in the majority<br />
of situations, the <strong>Conference</strong> assures the<br />
Epworth and Scunthorpe Circuit that the<br />
accessibility of any material required for<br />
future Deferred Special Resolutions<br />
and consultations will be considered<br />
carefully.<br />
M44 Use of BCE and CE<br />
The Amersham (23/28) Circuit Meeting<br />
(Present: 28. Voting: 9 for, 8 against)<br />
recognises that the letters ‘BCE’ and<br />
‘CE’ are being used in place of ‘BC’ and<br />
‘AD’ respectively. We commend to the<br />
Church that at every opportunity and in<br />
all its publications it makes clear that for<br />
Methodism these letters stand for Before<br />
the Christian Era and the Christian Era and<br />
that the Church should encourage other<br />
Christian Churches to adopt the same<br />
approach.<br />
Reply<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> thanks the Amersham<br />
Circuit Meeting for its memorial but does<br />
not recognise that the letters ‘BCE’ and<br />
‘CE’ are being used in place of ‘BC’ and<br />
‘AD’ respectively. In fact, the House Style<br />
document for the Connexional Team<br />
specifies that AD and BC shall be used,<br />
with the explicit instruction ‘Do not use<br />
BCE or CE’. All new <strong>Methodist</strong> Church<br />
publications use the terms AD and BC,<br />
as an appropriate practice for a body<br />
confessing Christian faith. The <strong>Conference</strong>,<br />
therefore, does not agree that there is a<br />
need to attempt to modify the meaning<br />
of the acronyms ‘BCE’ and ‘CE’ in the<br />
manner suggested, nor to encourage other<br />
Christian Churches to adopt the same<br />
approach.<br />
However, the <strong>Conference</strong>, recognising the<br />
intention of the reply to the memorial from<br />
the Newcastle District Synod in 2009<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 803
59. Memorials to the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
concerning the use of BC and AD, regrets<br />
that for practical purposes it has not<br />
been possible for <strong>Methodist</strong> Publishing to<br />
ensure that, specifically, reprints of Faith<br />
& Worship incorporate amendments to<br />
adjust all instances of BCE and CE to AD<br />
and BC. The Faith & Worship course for<br />
local preachers is currently under review in<br />
the light of the Fruitful Field project which<br />
means that it would be unwise to invest in<br />
editorial amendments at this time.<br />
M45 Recognition of new Circuits<br />
The Southampton District Synod (R)<br />
(Present: 179. Voting: 154 for, 1 against)<br />
draws the <strong>Conference</strong>’s attention to<br />
the significant number of new Circuits<br />
established in recent years and in<br />
particular asks it to note that there is very<br />
little recognition of these critical moments<br />
in the life of the Connexion.<br />
The Southampton District Synod requests<br />
that the <strong>Conference</strong> directs the President<br />
and Vice-President to write a letter of<br />
welcome and thanks to each new Circuit.<br />
The list of new Circuits can be supplied by<br />
the Governance Support Cluster.<br />
send greetings to be read at the inaugural<br />
act of worship. The <strong>Conference</strong> believes<br />
that some form of recognition on the part<br />
of the Presidency is appropriate and the<br />
memorial is therefore accepted.<br />
M46 Legal action involving the <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Church<br />
The Sevenoaks (36/20) Circuit Meeting<br />
(Present: 29. Voting: 22 for, 1 against)<br />
deprecates the legal costs incurred<br />
in contesting Ms Moore’s claim for<br />
compensation for unfair dismissal, and<br />
urges the <strong>Conference</strong> to instruct its<br />
solicitors to abandon their attempt to<br />
take the case to the Supreme Court and<br />
address Ms Moore’s claim on its merits (or,<br />
if so advised, settle it).<br />
Reply<br />
The reply to this memorial will be tabled on<br />
the Order Paper.<br />
Reply<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> thanks the Southampton<br />
District Synod for giving thought to this<br />
matter. The creation of any new Circuit<br />
always represents a significant amount<br />
of work which should be honoured in<br />
appropriate ways. There have been<br />
some instances where members of the<br />
Presidency have been invited to the<br />
inauguration of new larger Circuits; in other<br />
cases the President has been invited to<br />
804 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
60. Referred Memorials and Notices of Motion<br />
Below appears a list of Memorials and Notices of Motion from previous <strong>Conference</strong>s<br />
which have not yet received a final reply. At the meeting of the <strong>Methodist</strong> Council in<br />
October 2011 the Council received a list of outstanding items as part of the work-plan for<br />
the Connexional Team and welcomed the proposals made in it for the prioritisation of the<br />
work [<strong>Methodist</strong> Council paper MC/11/93, which can be found at www.methodist.org.uk/<br />
downloads/coun-MC1193-team-work-plan-2011-12-031011.doc].<br />
In the final column of the list below under the heading “Current Situation” a report is<br />
given on how the items of business have been dealt with at this <strong>Conference</strong>, or what<br />
recommendations are being made about how they are to be dealt with in the future.<br />
Memorials from previous years, deemed to have been answered<br />
Number<br />
and Year<br />
Title/subject Referred to Action in the<br />
intervening years<br />
How response given<br />
M5<br />
(2008)<br />
Circuit<br />
Responsibility<br />
for local church<br />
property<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Council for<br />
consideration and<br />
report no later than<br />
2010<br />
Interim report in<br />
2009 <strong>Agenda</strong><br />
Item 59 See<br />
further 2011<br />
<strong>Agenda</strong> item<br />
35 re Modified<br />
Circuit<br />
Constitutions<br />
superseded by M27 in 2011 and<br />
the resolutions passed by the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> in 2011 in response<br />
to <strong>Agenda</strong> item 35 Modified Church<br />
Constitutions. A resolution<br />
confirmed that there would be no<br />
change made to the principle of<br />
holding together trusteeship.<br />
M27<br />
(2008)<br />
Size of circuit<br />
meetings<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Council<br />
Interim reports<br />
2009 and 2010<br />
[2010 <strong>Agenda</strong> p<br />
309 para. 12.9]<br />
Through 2011 <strong>Agenda</strong> item 35<br />
Modified Circuit Constitutions<br />
M26<br />
(2009)<br />
M27<br />
(2009)<br />
M31<br />
(2009)<br />
Circuit<br />
Advance<br />
Funds<br />
Circuit<br />
Advance Funds<br />
Sale of property<br />
to other<br />
denominations<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Council 2010 The object of the Memorial was<br />
SO 955(2), which has now been<br />
revoked.<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Council 2010 This was answered by the response<br />
to M20 in 2011.<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Council<br />
directed to carry out a<br />
review of policy relating<br />
to Model Trust 20 and<br />
in particular the sale of<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> property to<br />
other denominations at<br />
an undervalue.<br />
2010; 2011 <strong>Methodist</strong> Council approved the<br />
review paper MC/11/7 at its<br />
meeting in January 2011<br />
[Minute 11.1.11]. See further<br />
http://www.methodist.org.uk/<br />
index.cfm?fuseaction=opentogod.<br />
content&cmid=130<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 805
60. Referred Memorials and Notices of Motion<br />
M9<br />
(2010)<br />
M27<br />
(2010)<br />
M35,<br />
M36<br />
(2010)<br />
M32<br />
(2011)<br />
Relocation<br />
of <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Property Office<br />
responsibilities<br />
Mental health<br />
in the armed<br />
forces<br />
Child protection: <strong>Methodist</strong> Council<br />
Minutes of<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> and<br />
case review<br />
Anti-Semitism <strong>Methodist</strong> Council<br />
in consultation with<br />
the Faith and Order<br />
Committee<br />
2011 See 2011 <strong>Agenda</strong> item 28.<br />
No date set<br />
See 2011 <strong>Agenda</strong><br />
item 8.<br />
No date set<br />
Joint Public Issues Team have<br />
contacted the Government<br />
Past Cases Review is underway<br />
No further work deemed necessary<br />
Memorials from previous <strong>Conference</strong>s referred for report to the <strong>Conference</strong> of 2012<br />
Number<br />
and Year<br />
Title/Subject Referred to Original date set<br />
for report and<br />
actions in the<br />
intervening years<br />
Current Situation<br />
M29<br />
(2007)<br />
M24<br />
(2008)<br />
M2-6<br />
(2009)<br />
M32<br />
(2009)<br />
M34<br />
(2009)<br />
Payment of utility<br />
bills for ministers<br />
who live in their own<br />
homes<br />
Eligibility to vote on<br />
stipends<br />
Faith and Worship;<br />
Local Preachers’<br />
Sunday<br />
Timing for<br />
calculations of<br />
district contributions<br />
Training and support<br />
for Local Preachers<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Council<br />
2010 <strong>Conference</strong><br />
gave permission<br />
for reply to come<br />
to 2011<br />
Review is underway by the<br />
Connexional Allowances Committee<br />
in conjunction with the Ministries<br />
Committee. Outcomes to be brought<br />
to a future <strong>Conference</strong>.<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Council 2011 A report from the Law and Polity<br />
Committee is shown below.<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Council<br />
Initial report<br />
2010 <strong>Agenda</strong><br />
pp 591-600<br />
Dealt with alongside Fruitful Field<br />
project.<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Council 2011 A Budget Stakeholders Forum has<br />
been established and a report on<br />
the matter will be brought to the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> of 2012<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Council 2011 Dealt with alongside Fruitful Field<br />
project.<br />
806 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
60. Referred Memorials and Notices of Motion<br />
M38<br />
(2009)<br />
M18,<br />
19,20<br />
(2010)<br />
M7, 8<br />
(2011)<br />
M18<br />
(2011)<br />
M24, 25<br />
(2011)<br />
M31<br />
Absence of<br />
presbyters and<br />
deacons from work<br />
Reclaiming ministers’<br />
sick pay<br />
Stationing<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Council 2011 See 2011 <strong>Agenda</strong> item 49.<br />
Connexional<br />
Allowances<br />
Committee<br />
Matching Group<br />
and Stationing<br />
Committee<br />
2011 Connexional Allowances Committee<br />
has brought to the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
proposals for standardised monthly<br />
payment of ministers.<br />
2012 See report from Stationing<br />
Committee below.<br />
World Mission Fund <strong>Methodist</strong> Council 2012 See <strong>Methodist</strong> Council Report.<br />
Classification of<br />
replacement<br />
projects<br />
Titles of District<br />
Chairs<br />
Connexional Grants<br />
Committee<br />
Law and Polity<br />
Committee<br />
CGC prepared and issued revised<br />
guidelines on 1 September 2011.<br />
2012 A report will be made in light of the<br />
outcome of the work commission<br />
by the Council to look at the role of<br />
Districts.<br />
Memorials from previous <strong>Conference</strong>s referred for report to future <strong>Conference</strong>s<br />
M39<br />
(2006)<br />
M7-8<br />
(2009)<br />
M41<br />
(2009)<br />
third<br />
paragraph<br />
M1<br />
(2010)<br />
Bullying and<br />
Harassment<br />
Timing of<br />
sabbaticals<br />
Annual<br />
Development<br />
Review<br />
Age of ministerial<br />
candidates<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Council No date Work yet to be completed<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Council 2011 This is being looked at as part of<br />
work with Ministerial Development<br />
Reviews, and so will be considered<br />
in that context by the Ministries<br />
Committee which will report to the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> of 2013.<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Council 2011 This is being looked at as part of<br />
work with Ministerial Development<br />
Reviews, and so will be considered<br />
in that context by the Ministries<br />
Committee which will report to the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> of 2013.<br />
MCPOC/DCPOC/<br />
Shadow Ministries<br />
Committee<br />
2011 Ministries Committee to report<br />
in 2013.<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 807
60. Referred Memorials and Notices of Motion<br />
M24<br />
(2010)<br />
Banking ethics<br />
Joint Advisory<br />
Committee on<br />
the Ethics of<br />
Investment (JACEI)<br />
No date<br />
M2<br />
(2010)<br />
Working with other<br />
denominations to<br />
provide ministerial<br />
oversight<br />
Ministries<br />
Committee<br />
Optional<br />
M5<br />
(2010)<br />
Training of local<br />
preachers and<br />
worship leaders<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Council<br />
No date set<br />
Dealt with alongside Fruitful Field<br />
project.<br />
M8<br />
(2010)<br />
M23<br />
(2010)<br />
M28<br />
(2010)<br />
M40<br />
(2010)<br />
M41<br />
(2010)<br />
M42<br />
(2010)<br />
Releasing financial<br />
resources for<br />
mission priorities<br />
Connexionallymandated<br />
officers<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Council No date set Work on Model Trust 20 approved<br />
by <strong>Methodist</strong> Council at its meeting<br />
in January 2011 [Paper MC/11/7;<br />
Minute 11.1.11]. See further<br />
http://www.methodist.org.uk/<br />
index.cfm?fuseaction=opentogod.<br />
content&cmid=130.<br />
Other work is ongoing.<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Council No date set Included in the Fruitful Field Project.<br />
Palm Oil JPIT/CFB/JACEI No date set See JACEI report 2011 <strong>Agenda</strong><br />
Item 51.<br />
Use of <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
premises by other<br />
faiths<br />
Eligibility for<br />
membership of the<br />
Youth Assembly<br />
Correct titles in<br />
the Minutes of<br />
<strong>Conference</strong><br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Council<br />
in conjunction<br />
with the Law and<br />
Polity Committee<br />
and the Faith and<br />
Order Committee to<br />
provide material<br />
for Managing<br />
Trustees<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Council<br />
in conjunction with<br />
the Law and Polity<br />
Committee<br />
No date set<br />
No date set<br />
Law & Polity No date Ongoing<br />
The Law and Polity Committee have<br />
drafted an advice note and this will<br />
be considered by the Faith and Order<br />
Committee in the next connexional<br />
year.<br />
808 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
60. Referred Memorials and Notices of Motion<br />
M1<br />
(2011)<br />
Leading and<br />
Presiding<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Council,<br />
Convocation,<br />
Faith and Order<br />
Committee<br />
No date set For report no later than 2013.<br />
M3<br />
(2011)<br />
Ministers being<br />
received into Full<br />
Connexion<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Council<br />
No later than<br />
2013<br />
For report by the Council in 2013.<br />
M12<br />
(2011)<br />
Ministerial<br />
Supervision<br />
Ministries<br />
Committee<br />
2013 For report by the Ministries<br />
Committee in 2013.<br />
M13<br />
(2011)<br />
Communion<br />
mediated through<br />
social media<br />
Faith and Order<br />
Committee<br />
No date set For report no later than 2013.<br />
M16<br />
(2011)<br />
Preaching at Local<br />
Arrangement<br />
Services<br />
Faith and Order<br />
Committee<br />
Memorial declined but Worship and<br />
Liturgy Resource Group asked to look<br />
at producing guidelines with a view<br />
to clarifying SOs.<br />
Notices of Motion from previous <strong>Conference</strong>s referred for report to the <strong>Conference</strong><br />
NM 106<br />
(2009)<br />
NM 215<br />
(2009)<br />
NM 206<br />
(2010)<br />
Fresh Expressions<br />
and Church<br />
Wesley’s World<br />
Parish<br />
Supporting<br />
Christians against<br />
discrimination in<br />
the workplace<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Council 2011 The subject of this is addressed in<br />
the report of JAMWPEEEC<br />
Referred to<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Council<br />
2011 Work is ongoing. See 2011 <strong>Agenda</strong><br />
item 2 paragraphs 75-79<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Council No date set Work yet to be completed<br />
***RESOLUTION<br />
60/1. The <strong>Conference</strong> adopts the Report.<br />
M24 (2008)<br />
1. M24 (2008) was referred by the <strong>Conference</strong> to the <strong>Methodist</strong> Council and the Council<br />
sought the advice of the Law and Polity Committee. The Committee’s advice is now<br />
presented to the <strong>Conference</strong> as a more detailed reply to the Memorial.<br />
2. The original memorial and reply are as follows:<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 809
60. Referred Memorials and Notices of Motion<br />
“M24 Eligibility to vote on stipends<br />
The Derby (South) 22/8 Circuit Meeting (Present: 39. Voting: 35 for, 1 against) considers<br />
that it is no longer appropriate for ministers to vote on the recommendations for their<br />
stipends and other allowances at <strong>Conference</strong>. This should be for the sake of transparency<br />
of process and the avoidance of suspicion that self-interest affects the vote.<br />
Reply<br />
The <strong>Conference</strong> thanks the Derby (South) Circuit for its concern. It recognised that<br />
there is some public concern about various sections of society (e.g. Members of<br />
Parliament) being able to decide their own levels of pay and allowances; and some<br />
assumption or fear that even public servants cannot be trusted not to act inappropriately<br />
in their own interest. But it also recognises that presbyters and deacons have an<br />
essential role to play in the oversight of the whole church, of which they are part; that<br />
not all presbyters and deacons who are members of <strong>Conference</strong> receive a stipend<br />
or allowances or housing from the Church; and that the recommendations about<br />
stipends and allowances are made to the <strong>Conference</strong> by the Connexional Allowances<br />
Committee and calculated according to agreed formulae. It therefore judges that the<br />
matter would bear re-examination, and refers the memorial to the <strong>Methodist</strong> Council<br />
for consideration and report to the <strong>Conference</strong> in 2009.”<br />
3. The current provisions for determining stipends and other allowances are as follows.<br />
The decision itself is made by the <strong>Conference</strong>. The <strong>Methodist</strong> Council has responsibility<br />
under SO 212(3) for making recommendations to the <strong>Conference</strong> for minimum stipends<br />
and additional allowances. To assist it in its task, the Council appoints the Connexional<br />
Allowances Committee in accordance with SO 212(4). That committee currently consists<br />
of nine people, three of whom must be ministers and one of whom must be a deacon<br />
and has the task of making recommendations to the Council, now through the newly<br />
formed Ministries Committee, on questions of stipends and allowances.<br />
4. As the original reply to the Derby (South) Circuit’s memorial states, the recommendations<br />
of the committee are based on certain formulae. Those formulae themselves, however,<br />
are agreed by the <strong>Conference</strong> from time to time. It is clear from the report of the<br />
committee to the <strong>Conference</strong> of 2011 that changes are afoot and will be brought to<br />
the <strong>Conference</strong> of 2012. It is also clear that the committee envisaged the possibility<br />
of changes to its own constitution.<br />
5. The questions raised by the Derby (South) Circuit are therefore likely to assume a<br />
degree of prominence at the <strong>Conference</strong> of 2012. The Law and Polity Committee<br />
draws attention to the distinction between transparency of process, which in its view<br />
is achieved by the current system and which will no doubt be borne in mind by those<br />
810 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
60. Referred Memorials and Notices of Motion<br />
charged with proposing any changes to the <strong>Conference</strong> of 2012, and the avoidance of<br />
suspicion that the vote is affected by self-interest.<br />
6. The general rule of law is that a person in a fiduciary position is not allowed to put<br />
himself or herself in a position where his or her duty and interest conflict. That is the<br />
general principle which underlies provisions such as SO 919, governing how conflicts<br />
of interest are to be dealt with. A similar principle applies where different duties may<br />
conflict. In both cases, however, the principle does not apply if informed consent<br />
has been given to the fiduciary’s being in such a position. This exception is often of<br />
relevance in cases where a person is appointed to one trustee body because of his<br />
or her involvement in a fiduciary capacity with another body. In broad terms, since the<br />
second body has chosen to make the appointment, it has consented to its appointee’s<br />
acting (as he or she must) in the best interests of the first body.<br />
7. In deciding on the level of minimum stipends and other allowances, members of the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> are not acting strictly as trustees, since they are not dealing with property<br />
held by the <strong>Conference</strong>. Nor are they strictly in a fiduciary position equivalent to that<br />
of company directors determining how the company’s assets are to be applied. It<br />
therefore seems that the general rule of law does not strictly apply.<br />
8. Even supposing that it did, however, the <strong>Methodist</strong> Church has chosen, through the<br />
Deed of Union and Standing Orders, to establish a governing body which, as a matter of<br />
principle, is composed of a mixture of ministers and lay people all of whom are regarded<br />
as having an essential role to play in the oversight of the Church. It is inherent in<br />
that structure that there may be circumstances in which the interests of presbyters or<br />
deacons or lay people may be affected by the decisions that have to be made. On the<br />
particular question of connexional allowances, the views of lay people may be affected<br />
by issues of local resources; it cannot be assumed that they will necessarily be free<br />
from any conscious or unconscious bias. In the view of the Law and Polity Committee,<br />
the Church has chosen a particular form of governance structure and has accepted the<br />
inevitable consequence that members of the <strong>Conference</strong> have to be trusted to vote<br />
according to their consciences and not from motives of self-interest.<br />
9. This committee therefore concludes that there is no legal objection to the continuance<br />
of the present practice whereby presbyters and deacons may vote on matters relating<br />
to stipends and allowances.<br />
***RESOLUTION<br />
60/2. The <strong>Conference</strong> adopts this report as its reply to M24(2008).<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 811
60. Referred Memorials and Notices of Motion<br />
M7, 8 (2011)<br />
The Stationing Committee continues to review the Stationing Procedures on an<br />
annual basis, and acknowledges the difficulties experienced by the South Molton<br />
Circuit and the Plymouth and Exeter District in 2010/11. This year has been a<br />
particularly difficult year for a number of Districts who have experienced similar<br />
problems.<br />
The Stationing Matching Group works hard to ensure that as far as possible all<br />
Districts are represented fairly in the matches which are made and always conducts<br />
a review of how each District has fared throughout the matching process. This<br />
process will diligently continue.<br />
***RESOLUTION<br />
60/3. The <strong>Conference</strong> adopts this report as its reply to M7, 8 (2011).<br />
812 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
61. The Stationing Committee<br />
Basic Information<br />
Title<br />
Contact Name and Details<br />
Status of Paper<br />
Resolution<br />
The Stationing Committee<br />
Andrew Owen, Chair of the Stationing Committee<br />
broceliande84@btopenworld.com<br />
Final report<br />
61/1. The <strong>Conference</strong> receives the Report.<br />
Summary of Content<br />
Subject and Aims<br />
Main Points<br />
Background Context<br />
and Relevant Documents<br />
(with function)<br />
Impact<br />
A report of the work of the Stationing Committee.<br />
The Stationing Matching process; the Stationing Action<br />
Group; diaconal stationing; other reflections; initial<br />
stationing; guidance<br />
N/a<br />
N/a<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 813
61. The Stationing Committee<br />
1 The Stationing Matching Process<br />
1.1 The stationing matching process<br />
for presbyters due to take up<br />
appointments in September 2012<br />
followed the arrangements outlined<br />
in the Committee’s report to the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> of 2010. Three meetings<br />
of the Stationing Matching Group<br />
took place at which matches were<br />
made for all appointments, replacing<br />
the previous pattern of separate<br />
phases for superintendencies and<br />
other presbyteral appointments. This<br />
was the second year in which this<br />
process was followed. During the year,<br />
the Committee, in consultation with<br />
members of the Stationing Matching<br />
Group, agreed that a review of the<br />
new process will be carried out in<br />
order to accommodate feedback and<br />
experience, but that in essence the<br />
revised process will be retained for<br />
future years.<br />
1.2 At the commencement of the matching<br />
process for presbyters, 166 Circuit<br />
profiles and 128 presbyteral profiles<br />
were submitted – a deficit of 38 (the<br />
equivalent figure for 2010/2011 being<br />
11). The 2010/2011 deficit was very<br />
low in comparison to recent years<br />
and was attributed to a combination<br />
of events, including the process of<br />
Regrouping for Mission leading to<br />
reconfigured stations.<br />
1.3 The Stationing Matching Group<br />
first met in early November 2011<br />
and matched 121 presbyters with<br />
appointments. Of these matches, 96<br />
were agreed by presbyter and Circuit –<br />
an agreement rate of 79.3% (compared<br />
to 90% for 2010/2011 and 77% for<br />
2009/2010). At the second meeting of<br />
the Stationing Matching Group in early<br />
December, 25 matches were made<br />
and 20 were agreed – an agreement<br />
rate of 80% (compared to 78% for<br />
2010/2011 and 79% for 2009/2010).<br />
The Committee considers that it is of<br />
benefit to all parties that the outcome<br />
of the process is known as early as<br />
possible in the stationing cycle.<br />
1.4 The third meeting of the Stationing<br />
Matching Group in early January<br />
considered some complex and<br />
challenging matching issues. At this<br />
stage, the magnitude of the large<br />
deficit, together with the complexity<br />
of presbyters offering limited<br />
geographical deployability and/or<br />
looking for part-time appointments<br />
compounded the difficulties faced by<br />
the Stationing Matching Group. This<br />
meeting produced five matches, four<br />
of which were subsequently agreed<br />
(an agreement rate of 80%). By<br />
the end of the third meeting of the<br />
Stationing Matching Group, there were<br />
173 Circuit appointments and 135<br />
presbyters in the process (a deficit of<br />
38 presbyters). At the commencement<br />
of the work of the Stationing Action<br />
Group, there were 49 available<br />
appointments and 8 available<br />
presbyters (3 part-time). Three<br />
appointments had been withdrawn and<br />
one had been filled internally.<br />
1.5 Four Lay Stationing Representatives<br />
were invited to observe the process<br />
at the first meeting of the Stationing<br />
814 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
61. The Stationing Committee<br />
Matching Group and to pass on their<br />
observations to the Committee. In<br />
reflecting on the process they spoke<br />
of the atmosphere of honesty and<br />
graciousness in which the meetings<br />
took place and of the prayerfulness<br />
with which members of the Matching<br />
Group approached their task.<br />
2 The Stationing Action Group<br />
2.1 The Stationing Action Group<br />
commenced its work at the end of<br />
January and will continue its work<br />
until the <strong>Conference</strong>. Three additional<br />
presbyters have entered stationing,<br />
two of whom have been successfully<br />
matched. One appointment has been<br />
reshaped for a deacon. Two presbyters<br />
have agreed to move early to fill<br />
vacant superintendent appointments.<br />
One presbyter has agreed to move<br />
in March 2013 to a presbyteral<br />
appointment and two other presbyters<br />
are currently exploring early moves. A<br />
number of Circuits have requested to<br />
withdraw and, at the time of writing,<br />
it is anticipated that permission<br />
will be granted so that alternative<br />
arrangements can be made. On 31<br />
March, a circuit appointment may<br />
be withdrawn from the matching<br />
process following the submission of<br />
a reasoned statement approved by<br />
the Committee, always provided that<br />
a sufficient number of appointments<br />
with a generous geographical<br />
spread remain available. The task<br />
of the Stationing Action Group is<br />
compounded as new profiles for<br />
appointments and presbyters become<br />
available.<br />
3 Diaconal Stationing<br />
3.1 It was agreed by the Committee that<br />
a pilot process would be used for<br />
the 2011/2012 diaconal stationing<br />
process in recognition of the fact<br />
that the number of deacons being<br />
dealt with was growing ever larger.<br />
Broadly speaking, this involved<br />
several major changes to the process<br />
including: asking respective Chairs of<br />
District to oversee the completion of<br />
profile forms for individual deacons<br />
rather than Diaconal Stationing Sub-<br />
Committee members and the Warden;<br />
making circuit profiles available to<br />
deacons in the stationing process<br />
(including probationer deacons) and<br />
encouraging the identification of up to<br />
three appointments that they felt were<br />
appropriate to their skills, experience<br />
and family needs; making diaconal<br />
profiles available to Circuits seeking<br />
a deacon (including probationers’<br />
profiles) and encouraging the<br />
identification of up to three deacons<br />
who on paper seemed to be a good<br />
match for the focus of the ministry<br />
the Circuit was envisaging; changing<br />
the focus of the conversations that<br />
normally took place between the<br />
Diaconal Stationing Sub-Committee<br />
members and individual deacons (and<br />
families as appropriate) from what<br />
was to be submitted in their profiles<br />
to consideration of the possible<br />
appointments they had identified and<br />
why they had done so.<br />
3.2 Twenty seven deacons were available<br />
for stationing for September 2012,<br />
including one who has been granted<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 815
61. The Stationing Committee<br />
permission by the Stationing Advisory<br />
Committee to seek an appointment<br />
outside the control of the Church.<br />
There were originally twenty three<br />
diaconal appointments available,<br />
the additional four appointments<br />
being provided by a reconfiguration of<br />
presbyteral appointments. As of March<br />
2012 all available deacons have been<br />
stationed.<br />
3.3 As the number of people offering as<br />
diaconal candidates continues to rise,<br />
the number of deacons married to<br />
presbyters continues to rise, and the<br />
number of deacons facing complex<br />
domestic circumstances which affect<br />
their ability to be fully itinerant also<br />
continues to rise. At the time of<br />
writing the pilot scheme continues to<br />
be reviewed and developed in the light<br />
of experience.<br />
4 Other Reflections<br />
4.1 The diaconal and presbyteral<br />
stationing processes are complex and<br />
dynamic and the Committee would<br />
again like to draw to the attention<br />
of the <strong>Conference</strong> the number of<br />
ministerial partnerships (deacons<br />
married to deacons, deacons<br />
married to presbyters, presbyters<br />
married to presbyters and deacons<br />
and presbyters married to diaconal<br />
and presbyteral probationers). The<br />
Committee welcomes this important<br />
gift to the Connexion and confirms that<br />
work has commenced on examining<br />
and reviewing how stationing can<br />
best be achieved in order to reconcile<br />
multifaceted demands. The Committee<br />
has convened a working group to<br />
review the protocols for dealing with<br />
these situations.<br />
4.2 This year, the process of matching has<br />
been done against a background of<br />
a significant shortfall in the number<br />
of presbyters available. At the same<br />
time, we are witnessing an increase<br />
in the number of people candidating<br />
for diaconal ministry. The Committee<br />
encourages Circuits to explore new<br />
patterns of ministry and to consider<br />
the value of an interval between<br />
the departure of a minister and the<br />
submission of a new circuit profile.<br />
Such an interval can offer the time<br />
and space needed for new models of<br />
ministry to be explored.<br />
4.3 The Stationing Matching Group<br />
always does its best to take into<br />
account geographical restrictions<br />
identified by presbyters when making<br />
a match, especially where proximity to<br />
hospitals, schools, the employment of<br />
household members and vulnerable<br />
family members are concerned.<br />
Achieving a proper balance between<br />
the needs of the Connexion and its<br />
Circuits and those of presbyters is an<br />
increasingly significant issue in the<br />
matching process.<br />
4.4 The Committee commends to the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> the work of preparation<br />
carried out by Circuit Stewards,<br />
Lay Stationing Representatives,<br />
District Chairs and the Warden of the<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Diaconal Order.<br />
4.5 The processes of stationing rely<br />
816 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
61. The Stationing Committee<br />
on the honesty and openness of<br />
profiles and the very real knowledge<br />
which District Chairs, Lay Stationing<br />
Representatives and the Warden have<br />
of the gifts and skills of ministers. The<br />
preparation of profiles by ministers<br />
and Circuits is a demanding and timeconsuming<br />
exercise, but it is vital that<br />
profiles present an accurate picture if<br />
the processes are to work effectively<br />
for both ministers and Circuits.<br />
5 Initial Stationing<br />
5.1 The Initial Stationing Sub-Committee<br />
met on 5 January 2012 to station<br />
presbyteral probationers and<br />
presbyters coming to serve the<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> Church from other<br />
<strong>Conference</strong>s and churches. For each<br />
of these groups, the process is one of<br />
direct stationing.<br />
5.2 Student ministers are represented<br />
by oversight tutors from the learning<br />
institutions. Presbyters from other<br />
<strong>Conference</strong>s and churches are<br />
represented by a member of the<br />
Connexional Team. Circuits and<br />
Districts are represented by a Chair<br />
from each of the seven Regional<br />
Stationing Groups. The Group this year<br />
was chaired by the immediate past<br />
Chair of the Stationing Committee.<br />
5.3 A small group of Chairs, together with<br />
the Warden of the <strong>Methodist</strong> Diaconal<br />
Order, the Convenor of the Tutors’<br />
Meeting, a member of the Connexional<br />
Team and the Chair of the Stationing<br />
Committee meets in September<br />
each year to carry out the process of<br />
selecting and scrutinising appropriate<br />
circuit profiles which match the criteria<br />
for inclusion at the Initial Stationing<br />
Sub-Committee.<br />
5.4 The Initial Stationing Sub-Committee<br />
stationed 32 presbyteral students<br />
and 8 transferring presbyters. Of the<br />
presbyteral students, two had very<br />
limited deployability, having candidated<br />
from Circuits with the expectation that<br />
they would serve in ministry in those<br />
Circuits.<br />
6 Guidance<br />
6.1 The contents of the Connexional<br />
Good Practice document are reviewed<br />
and updated annually, in line with<br />
experiences gained from the various<br />
stationing processes and from<br />
the feedback received from those<br />
involved. This process has been<br />
completed and the document was<br />
re-issued as a Code of Practice in<br />
April for the stationing round for<br />
2012/2013. The Committee is<br />
especially grateful for the work of<br />
revision carried out by Mrs Kate<br />
Woolley and Mr Peter Sercombe, Lay<br />
Stationing Representatives in the York<br />
and Hull and Northampton Districts<br />
respectively, together with the advice<br />
and guidance provided by the Revds<br />
David Gamble and Gareth Powell.<br />
6.2 The Committee, together with the Law<br />
and Polity Committee, has reviewed<br />
all guidance on stationing matters in<br />
Standing Orders; the guidance on the<br />
stationing of ministers to be found<br />
in CPD; and the Code of Practice<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 817
61. The Stationing Committee<br />
to ensure that it is fully consistent<br />
in its approach. Further work has<br />
been identified in order to respond<br />
to a Memorial submitted to the<br />
<strong>Conference</strong>. A proposal will be brought<br />
to the <strong>Conference</strong> of 2013, following<br />
discussions with the Law and Polity<br />
Committee, as to how to complete the<br />
harmonisation.<br />
***RESOLUTION<br />
61/1. The <strong>Conference</strong> receives the Report.<br />
818 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
Xx <strong>Conference</strong> Membership 2012<br />
Members of the <strong>Conference</strong> 2012<br />
1 The Revd Lionel E Osborn Retiring President (Deed of Union 14(2)(i))<br />
2 Mrs Ruth Pickles Retiring Vice-President “<br />
3 The Revd Dr Martyn D Atkins Secretary of the <strong>Conference</strong> “<br />
4 The Revd Alison Tomlin Ex-President (DU 14(2)(ii))<br />
5 Deacon Eunice Attwood Ex-Vice-President<br />
6 The Revd Dr Mark H Wakelin President-Designate (DU 14(2)(iii))<br />
7 Mr Michael King Vice-President Designate<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> Secretariat and other Officers (DU 14(2)(iv) SO 101)<br />
8 The Revd Gareth J Powell Assistant Secretary<br />
9 The Revd Colin A Smith Record Secretary<br />
10 The Revd Jennifer M Dyer Journal Secretary<br />
11 Mr Martin Harker Secretary of the Memorials Committee<br />
12 Mr John A Bell Chair of the Business Committee SO136(1)(i)<br />
13 The Revd David Gamble Officer for Legal and Constitutional Practice<br />
The Chair of each Home District (DU 14(2)(v))<br />
14 The Revd Patrick Slattery Synod Cymru<br />
15 The Revd Dr Stephen D Wigley Wales Synod<br />
16 The Revd William H Anderson Birmingham<br />
17 The Revd Paul Martin Bolton & Rochdale<br />
18 The Revd A Ward Jones Bristol<br />
19 The Revd Richard J Teal Cumbria<br />
20 The Revd David Hinchliffe Channel Islands<br />
21 The Revd Peter E Barber Chester & Stoke-on-Trent<br />
22 The Revd Steven J Wild Cornwall<br />
23 The Revd Ruth Gee Darlington<br />
24 The Revd Graham Thompson East Anglia<br />
25 The Revd Malcolm Peacock Isle of Man<br />
26 The Revd Elizabeth A Smith Leeds<br />
27 The Revd Bruce D Thompson Lincoln and Grimsby<br />
28 The Revd James A Booth Liverpool<br />
29 The Revd Dr Keith Davies Manchester & Stockport<br />
The Revd Lionel E Osborn Newcastle upon Tyne [Dual Qualification]<br />
30 The Revd Stephen J Poxon Lancashire<br />
31 The Revd Loraine Mellor Nottingham & Derby<br />
32 The Revd Peter Hancock Northampton<br />
33 The Revd Peter Pillinger Plymouth & Exeter<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 819
<strong>Conference</strong> Membership 2012<br />
34 The Revd Vernon Marsh Sheffield<br />
35 The Revd Dr Andrew D Wood Southampton<br />
36 The Revd Dr Roger L Walton West Yorkshire<br />
37 The Revd John D Howard Wolverhampton and Shrewsbury<br />
38 The Revd Stephen J Burgess York & Hull<br />
39 The Revd Lily P Twist Scotland<br />
40 The Revd Jeremy C Dare Shetland<br />
41 The Revd Anne E Brown Bedfordshire, Essex and Hertfordshire<br />
42 vacancy London<br />
43 The Revd Jennifer A Impey London<br />
44 The Revd Dr Stuart Jordan London<br />
45 The Revd John Hellyer South-East<br />
Warden of the <strong>Methodist</strong> Diaconal Order (DU (14)(2)(vi))<br />
46 Deacon Susan Culver The Warden<br />
Representatives from the Irish <strong>Conference</strong><br />
47 The Revd Kenneth Lindsay (President, <strong>Methodist</strong> <strong>Conference</strong> in Ireland)<br />
(DU 14(2)(vii))<br />
48 The Revd Donald P Ker (Secretary, <strong>Methodist</strong> Church in Ireland)<br />
“<br />
49 Mrs Gillian Kingston (DU 14(3))<br />
50 Mrs Joy Graham<br />
Representatives of United <strong>Methodist</strong> Church (DU 14(3))<br />
51 Kim Simpson<br />
52 Bishop Sharon Rader<br />
<strong>Conference</strong>-elected Representatives (DU 14(2)(ix) DU 14(5) SO 103)<br />
Retiring in 2012<br />
53 Deacon Myrtle Poxon<br />
54 Mrs Jill Baker<br />
55 Mrs Ruby Beech<br />
Retiring in 2013<br />
56 The Revd Helen Cameron<br />
57 The Revd William R Morrey<br />
58 Mr Simon Pillinger<br />
820 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
<strong>Conference</strong> Membership 2012<br />
Retiring in 2014<br />
59 The Revd Dr Calvin T Samuel<br />
60 The Revd Martin H Turner<br />
61 Ms Daniella Fetuga-Joensuu<br />
Representatives of Connexional and Other Bodies (SO 102)<br />
62 Mr David Walton The Chair of the <strong>Methodist</strong> Council (i)(a)<br />
63 Mr Andrew Gibbs Connexional Treasurer (i)(b)<br />
64 Mr Kenvyn Wales Chair, Strategy & Resources Committee (i)(c)<br />
65 Ms Christine Elliott Connexional Team Secretary (i)(d)<br />
66 Mr John Ellis Connexional Team Secretary<br />
The Revd Dr Mark H Wakelin Connexional Team Secretary [dual qualification]<br />
67 The Revd Ernest Grimshaw Forces Chaplain (i)(e)<br />
68 The Revd Peter Clark Overseas Service (i)(f)<br />
69 Dr Graham Longbottom Overseas Service<br />
70 The Revd John H Roberts Appointed by Partner Churches (DU14(4)(d))<br />
71 Bishop Rosemarie Wenner Appointed by Partner Churches<br />
72 The Revd Dr Peter M Phillips Faith and Order Representative (ii)<br />
73 Miss Elizabeth Ovey Law & Polity representative (iii)<br />
74 Mr Andrew Owen Stationing Committee Representative (iv)<br />
75 The Revd Peter Brown concerns of racial justice (v)<br />
76 The Revd Olufemi Cole-Njie concerns of racial justice<br />
77 The Revd Freddy Takavarasha concerns of racial justice<br />
78 The Revd Joseph Suray concerns of racial justice<br />
79 Ms Veronica Franklin concerns of racial justice<br />
80 Mr Brian Taylor concerns of racial justice<br />
81 Mrs Elizabeth Marriott representative <strong>Methodist</strong> Women in Britain (vii)<br />
82 Mr Sam Taylor Youth President (5)<br />
83 Mr Oswald Addo Youth Assembly<br />
84 Ms Charlotte Burke Youth Assembly<br />
85 Mr Lennard Graham Youth Assembly<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 821
<strong>Conference</strong> Membership 2012<br />
Synod Cymru<br />
86 The Revd Dr Ian D Morris<br />
87 The Revd Gwyndaf Richards<br />
88 Mr Alwyn Rees<br />
89 Mr R Arfon Williams<br />
Wales Synod<br />
90 The Revd Rosemarie E G Clarke<br />
91 The Revd Peter Holwell<br />
92 The Revd Mark Rowland<br />
93 Deacon Stephen F Roe<br />
94 Mr Matthew Collins<br />
95 Mr Luke Curran<br />
96 Mr Derek Scanlon<br />
97 Mrs Mary Williams<br />
Birmingham<br />
98 The Revd Helen Bell<br />
99 The Revd Andrew Charlesworth<br />
100 The Revd Nichola G Jones<br />
101 Deacon Kerry R Smith<br />
102 Mr Fred Bell<br />
103 Mr John Cooper<br />
104 Ms Margaret Fuller<br />
105 Mr Malcolm Hamilton<br />
106 Mr Peter Mills<br />
Bolton and Rochdale<br />
107 The Revd Sylvester O Deigh<br />
108 The Revd Stephen J Radford<br />
109 Mr Robert Graham<br />
110 Mrs Val Pownall<br />
111 Mrs Adrienne Simpson<br />
Bristol<br />
112 The Revd Denise Harding<br />
113 The Revd Carolyn Seaton<br />
114 The Revd Ajay Singh<br />
115 Mr Norman Lester<br />
116 Mr Christopher Sledge<br />
117 Mrs Ros Sledge<br />
118 Mr John Seward<br />
119 Mr Ray Warren<br />
Cumbria<br />
120 The Revd Richard Hall<br />
121 The Revd Andrew P Longshaw<br />
122 Ms Irene McKay<br />
123 Mrs Laura Wilson<br />
Channel Islands<br />
124 The Revd Luiz F Cardoso<br />
125 Mr Ed Le Quesne<br />
Chester and Stoke-on-Trent<br />
126 The Revd Janet C Aspey<br />
127 The Revd Ashley R Cooper<br />
128 The Revd Simon C Sutcliffe<br />
129 Mr Brian Barber<br />
130 Dr Jill Barber<br />
131 Mrs Sylvia Harrison<br />
132 Ms Helen J Schoon<br />
133 Mr Michael Valentine<br />
Cornwall<br />
134 The Revd Derek J Balsdon<br />
135 The Revd Celia M Phillips<br />
136 Mrs Mary Gibbs<br />
137 Mr Treve Harvey<br />
138 Dr John Lander<br />
Darlington<br />
139 The Revd Angela J Long<br />
140 The Revd Emma R Morgan<br />
141 Dr Jocelyn Bryan<br />
142 Mr Michael Offler<br />
143 Mrs Susan Smith<br />
144 Mr Brian Thornton<br />
East Anglia<br />
145 The Revd Barbara E Garwood<br />
146 The Revd Jane Leach<br />
147 The Revd Sharon Willimott<br />
148 Deacon Julie Dower<br />
822 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
<strong>Conference</strong> Membership 2012<br />
149 Mr David Ingham<br />
150 Mrs Mary Keer<br />
151 Mr Michael Green<br />
152 Dr Derek Nicholls<br />
Isle of Man<br />
153 The Revd Monwabisi R Vithi<br />
154 Mrs Sue Montgomery<br />
Leeds<br />
155 The Revd Christine Gillespie<br />
156 The Revd Barry D Lotz<br />
157 The Revd Rupert L A Weekes<br />
158 Deacon Allyson Henry<br />
159 Mrs Christine Baker<br />
160 Miss Sarah Cave<br />
161 Mr John Goacher<br />
162 Mrs Doreen Rowley<br />
Lincoln and Grimsby<br />
163 The Revd Elizabeth A Childs<br />
164 The Revd Alan J Robson<br />
165 Mr Michael Childs<br />
166 Mr Gordon Dixon<br />
167 Mrs Diane Patrick<br />
Liverpool<br />
168 The Revd Anthony J Clowes<br />
169 The Revd Dr Andrew M Fox<br />
170 Deacon Jennifer M Knight<br />
171 Mrs Anne Baldwin<br />
172 Mr Stephen Cooper<br />
173 Mr Iain Henderson<br />
Manchester and Stockport<br />
174 The Revd Gillian M Newton<br />
175 The Revd Helen J Stubbs<br />
176 The Revd Paul H Wilson<br />
177 Deacon Janet Heys<br />
178 Mrs Gill Dascombe<br />
179 Mrs Ling Henry<br />
180 Mr David James<br />
181 Mrs Diana Ogden<br />
182 Mr Peter Smith<br />
Newcastle-upon-Tyne<br />
183 The Revd I Neil Cockling<br />
184 The Revd Carla S Hall<br />
185 The Revd Elaine M Lindridge<br />
186 Mrs C Jane Dixon<br />
187 Mrs Sylvia Fuller<br />
188 Miss Sophie C Newsome<br />
189 Mrs Ann Riding<br />
190 Mr Chris Stephens<br />
Lancashire<br />
191 The Revd Paul D Critchley<br />
192 The Revd Paul H Davis<br />
193 The Revd Juliet E Wriglesworth<br />
194 Mrs Wendy Beard<br />
195 Mrs Wendy Bridgeman<br />
196 Ms Rachel Coates<br />
197 Dr Lois Louden<br />
Nottingham and Derby<br />
198 The Revd Dr Paul Hill<br />
199 The Revd Helen M Nice<br />
200 The Revd Michael J Redshaw<br />
201 Mr John Heard<br />
202 Miss Frances Hopwood<br />
203 Mr Peter Marriott<br />
204 Ms Helen Radford<br />
205 Mrs Elaine Robinson<br />
Northampton<br />
206 The Revd Melinda T Bell<br />
207 The Revd Kerry W Tankard<br />
208 The Revd Dr Martin Wellings<br />
209 The Revd E Adam Wells<br />
210 Deacon Stephen J Richardson<br />
211 Mrs Roberta Lunt<br />
212 Mr Robert Peach<br />
213 Mrs Janet Rich<br />
214 Mrs Gillian Richardson<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 823
<strong>Conference</strong> Membership 2012<br />
215 Mr Peter Sercombe<br />
216 Mr Alan Window<br />
Plymouth and Exeter<br />
217 The Revd Simon H Leigh<br />
218 The Revd D Paul C Smith<br />
219 The Revd Neal H Street<br />
220 Ms Jane E Allin<br />
221 Mr Edwin J Dobinson<br />
222 Mrs Kathryn Trotman<br />
223 Mr Frank Watson<br />
Sheffield<br />
224 The Revd Dr Christopher Blake<br />
225 The Revd Mark G Goodhand<br />
226 The Revd Catrin L Harland<br />
227 Mrs Anne Hollows<br />
228 Mr David Humphreys<br />
229 Mrs Rachel McCallum<br />
230 Mr Richard Saunders-Hindley<br />
Southampton<br />
231 The Revd Rosamund V<br />
Hollingsworth<br />
232 The Revd Dr Mark J Kimber<br />
233 The Revd Andrew C Moffoot<br />
234 The Revd Gwyneth M Owen<br />
235 Deacon Margaret L Cox<br />
236 Mr Rodney Betts<br />
237 Mrs Irene Bourne<br />
238 Mr Dudley Coates<br />
239 Ms Lynne Matthews<br />
240 Mr Matthew Reed<br />
West Yorkshire<br />
241 The Revd Jacqueline E L Hale<br />
242 The Revd M Ruth Parry<br />
243 Mrs Janet Clark<br />
244 Mr Peter Holt<br />
245 Ms Jocelyn Jean-Pierre<br />
246 Mrs Caroline Stead<br />
Wolverhampton and Shrewsbury<br />
247 The Revd Peter S Clarke<br />
248 The Revd Derrick R Lander<br />
249 The Revd Nigel J Young<br />
250 Mrs Beatrice M Cloke<br />
251 Mr Brian Dawson<br />
252 Miss Christina M Shaw<br />
253 Ms Stacey Smith<br />
254 Mr Keith Walton<br />
York and Hull<br />
255 The Revd Mark P Haynes<br />
256 The Revd Andrew J Lindley<br />
257 The Revd G Susan Pegg<br />
258 Dr Stephen Leah<br />
259 Mrs Tricia Mitchell<br />
260 Mrs Heather Shipman<br />
261 Mr William Swires<br />
262 Mrs Kate Woolley<br />
Scotland and Shetland<br />
263 The Revd Martin L Keenan<br />
264 The Revd Andrew Letby<br />
265 Deacon Roger K Hensman<br />
266 Mr David A Easson<br />
267 Mr J Keith Hawkins<br />
268 Mrs Jenny Lee<br />
269 Mr R W John Tonkin<br />
Bedfordshire, Essex and Hertfordshire<br />
270 The Revd Richard J Byass<br />
271 The Revd Andrew J L Hollins<br />
272 The Revd Michael J Lewis<br />
273 Mr Peter Brooks<br />
274 Miss Kathy Burrell<br />
275 Miss Jane Dansie<br />
276 Dr Edmund Marshall<br />
277 Mr John Robinson<br />
London<br />
278 The Revd Emmanuel Aggrey-Ogoe<br />
279 The Revd Dr Sheryl M Anderson<br />
824 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
<strong>Conference</strong> Membership 2012<br />
280 The Revd Carol M Hamilton-Foyn<br />
281 The Revd Samuel E McBratney<br />
282 The Revd Dr Ebute Obiabo<br />
283 The Revd Nicholas A Oborski<br />
284 The Revd Bonni-Belle Pickard<br />
285 Deacon Denise A Creed<br />
286 Ms Nancy Acquaah<br />
287 Ms Maizie Ajai-Ajagbe<br />
288 Ms Janet Arthur<br />
289 Mr Steven Cooper<br />
290 Mr Gerry Davis<br />
291 Mr Bala Gnanapragasam<br />
292 Mr Richard Hamilton-Foyn<br />
293 Mr Daniel Lai<br />
294 Ms Monica Pryce-Ross<br />
295 Ms Mo Wills<br />
South East<br />
296 The Revd Linda Francis<br />
297 The Revd Graham Horsley<br />
298 The Revd Fidelio R Patron<br />
299 Deacon Jean F Duckworth-Lloyd<br />
300 Deacon Susan Hibberd<br />
301 Miss Hannah Belsham<br />
302 Mr Jack Delbridge<br />
303 Miss Margaret Faulkner<br />
304 Ms Jenny Jackson<br />
305 Ms Helen Richardson<br />
306 Mr David Ridley<br />
Associate Members<br />
(a) Ecumenical<br />
307 The Right Revd Ian Brackley The Church of England<br />
308 The Revd David Tatem The United Reformed Church<br />
309 Fr Robert Byrne The Roman Catholic Bishops’ <strong>Conference</strong><br />
of England and Wales<br />
310 Bishop Walter Jagucki The Lutheran Council of Great Britain<br />
311 The Revd Canon Robin Paisley The Scottish Episcopal Church<br />
312 The Revd Caroline Eglin The Baptist Union of Great Britain<br />
b) Overseas<br />
313 The Revd Chen Yongtao China Christian Council<br />
314 Mr M M Philip Church of South India<br />
315 The Revd Prakash Subba United Mission to Nepal<br />
316 The Revd Dr Siotame Havea Free Wesleyan Church of Tonga<br />
317 Mr Walter Basil Forbes <strong>Methodist</strong> Church in the Caribbean and<br />
the Americas<br />
318 Pastora Alicia Woelflin The Argentine Evangelical <strong>Methodist</strong><br />
Church<br />
319 Obispo Jorge Bravo-Caballero The <strong>Methodist</strong> Church of Peru<br />
320 The Revd Juan de Dios Peña The Evangelical <strong>Methodist</strong> Church in El<br />
Salvador<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 825
<strong>Conference</strong> Membership 2012<br />
321 Bispo Adonias Pereira The <strong>Methodist</strong> Church in Brazil<br />
322 The Revd Nicodeme Alagbada The Protestant <strong>Methodist</strong> Church in Benin<br />
323 The Rt Revd Hannah Faal-Heim <strong>Methodist</strong> Church The Gambia<br />
324 The Revd Ziphozihle Siwa <strong>Methodist</strong> Church in Southern Africa<br />
325 The Rt Revd Arnold Temple <strong>Methodist</strong> Church Sierra Leone<br />
326 The Revd Dr Stephen The <strong>Methodist</strong> Church in Kenya<br />
Kanyaru M’Impwii<br />
327 The Revd Mark Lewis United <strong>Methodist</strong> Church Central <strong>Conference</strong>s<br />
of Northern Europe<br />
328 Dr David N Field Central <strong>Conference</strong> of Central and Southern<br />
Europe<br />
329 Mr Richard Kofi Ampofo OPCEMI (Italy)<br />
330 Bispo Sifredo Teixeira Igreja Evangelica Metodista Portuguesa<br />
826 <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
Xx<br />
Ministers attending at their own expense<br />
The Revd Dr Keith R Albans<br />
The Revd David R Alderman<br />
The Revd C Mary Austin<br />
The Revd Paul M Beard<br />
The Revd Stuart A Bell<br />
The Revd Malcolm J Benton<br />
The Revd Patricia A Billsborrow<br />
The Revd Mark R Booth<br />
The Revd J Keith Burrow<br />
The Revd David F Clarke<br />
The Revd Deborah A Cornish<br />
The Revd Jane V Craske<br />
The Revd Tom Davies<br />
The Revd Rachel D Deigh<br />
The Revd J Trevor Dixon<br />
The Revd Barbara S Duchars<br />
The Revd Barbara J Fairburn<br />
The Revd Margaret A Goodall<br />
The Revd John H Grice<br />
The Revd Mark P Hammond<br />
The Revd Diane Hicks<br />
The Revd Ronald M Hicks<br />
The Revd John C Howard-Norman<br />
The Revd Christine M Howe<br />
The Revd D Kevin Jones<br />
The Revd Richard D C Jones<br />
The Revd Rachel Larkinson<br />
The Revd Roger C Larkinson<br />
The Revd Carolyn Lawrance<br />
The Revd Susan Levitt<br />
The Revd Andrew J Lunn<br />
The Revd Julie A Lunn<br />
The Revd David P Martin<br />
The Revd Verity J Phillips<br />
The Revd Elaine P Rawlings<br />
The Revd Daniel P Reed<br />
The Revd Jeanette Richardson<br />
The Revd Andrew W Sails<br />
The Revd Colin C Short<br />
The Revd Peter A Smith<br />
The Revd Andrew D Sowden<br />
The Revd Doreen M Sparey-Delacassa<br />
The Revd Edward C P Standhaft<br />
The Revd K John A Stedman<br />
The Revd W Peter Stephens<br />
The Revd Roger Stubbings<br />
The Revd Elizabeth Trinder<br />
The Revd Dr John J Vincent<br />
The Revd C Norman R Wallwork<br />
The Revd Alfred H Williams<br />
The Revd Gwendoline Wills<br />
The Revd D Paul Wood<br />
The Revd Ian J Worsfold<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 827
Index to <strong>Volume</strong>s One, Two and Three<br />
This index covers all <strong>Volume</strong>s of the <strong>Agenda</strong>. Pages 1-366 appear in <strong>Volume</strong> One and<br />
371-567 in <strong>Volume</strong> Two.<br />
3Generate Children’s & Youth Assembly Report...................................................31<br />
A<br />
Action for Children............................................................................................51<br />
Appointments and Appreciations......................................................................627<br />
Appointments of District Chairs........................................................................607<br />
C Central Finance Board (CFB) ...........................................................................499<br />
Committee Appointments................................................................................615<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> Arrangements...............................................................................547<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> Business Committee.....................................................................115<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> Membership.................................................................................819<br />
<strong>Conference</strong> Rules of Procedure............................................................................7<br />
Connexional Allowances Committee.................................................................123<br />
Connexional Central Services Budget.................................................................83<br />
Connexional Team Report................................................................................361<br />
D<br />
E<br />
F<br />
G<br />
J<br />
Diaconal Committee Report.............................................................................563<br />
District Resolution..........................................................................................533<br />
Drones...........................................................................................................151<br />
Election and Induction of the President and Vice-President...................................27<br />
Education Commission....................................................................................287<br />
Exchange of Pastorates...................................................................................591<br />
Expectations of Various Groups..........................................................................19<br />
Faith and Order Committee Report...................................................................507<br />
Fresh Ways Working Group Report......................................................................55<br />
Fresh Ways Working Group: the Future..............................................................611<br />
Fruitful Field...................................................................................................643<br />
Future Mission Together..................................................................................335<br />
General Secretary’s Report..............................................................................373<br />
Joint Advisory Committee on the Ethics of Investment (JACEI)............................389<br />
Joint Working Party on the Ecclesiology of Emerging Expressions........................551<br />
of the Church (JAMWPEEEC)<br />
L Law and Polity Committee (part 1)....................................................................227<br />
Law and Polity Committee (part 2) Amendments to Standing Orders...................487<br />
Law and Polity committee (part 3)....................................................................631<br />
Leading and Presiding: Developing the Presidency of the <strong>Conference</strong>..................103<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong> <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012 829
Index to <strong>Volume</strong>s One, Two and Three<br />
M<br />
Managing Trustees of Central Hall Westminster.................................................139<br />
Memorials to the <strong>Conference</strong>...........................................................................769<br />
<strong>Methodist</strong>:<br />
Academies and Schools Trust......................................................................79<br />
Council Report.........................................................................................535<br />
Diaconal Order General Report..................................................................173<br />
Homes (MHA)...........................................................................................147<br />
Independent Schools..................................................................................43<br />
Ministers’ Housing Society..........................................................................47<br />
Minister’s Pension Scheme (MMPS).............................................................44<br />
Missionary Society (MMS) Reference Group (Future Mission Together)..........335<br />
Relief and Development Fund (MRDF)..........................................................69<br />
Ministerial Candidates and Probationers Oversight Committee...........................575<br />
Ministers and Deacons becoming Supernumerary.............................................587<br />
Ministers attending at their own expense.........................................................827<br />
Ministers from other Churches.........................................................................597<br />
Minister’s Transferring Out, Serving Abroad etc..................................................593<br />
P President’s Inquiry (Safeguarding) 2011...........................................................191<br />
Provision of Manses........................................................................................557<br />
R<br />
S<br />
T<br />
U<br />
W<br />
Reception into Full Connection.........................................................................585<br />
Referred Memorials........................................................................................805<br />
Relief and Extension Fund for Methodism in Scotland........................................553<br />
Safeguarding..................................................................................................177<br />
Safeguarding Past Cases Review.....................................................................465<br />
Safeguarding - President’s Inquiry....................................................................191<br />
Sharing Agreements and Ecumenical Partnerships............................................761<br />
Signalling Vocation, Clarifying Identity...............................................................407<br />
Special Resolutions........................................................................................635<br />
Stationing Advisory Committee........................................................................583<br />
Stationing Committee......................................................................................813<br />
Transfer Committee.........................................................................................595<br />
Trustees for <strong>Methodist</strong> Church Purposes..........................................................261<br />
Trustees for New Room Bristol.........................................................................385<br />
Unified Statement of Connexional Finances......................................................247<br />
Westminster Central Hall.................................................................................139<br />
Westminster College Oxford Trust Ltd...............................................................167<br />
World <strong>Methodist</strong> Council “Achieving the Vision”...................................................67<br />
830 <strong>Methodist</strong> <strong>Conference</strong> <strong>Agenda</strong> 2012
©Trustees for <strong>Methodist</strong> Church Purposes 2012<br />
Design and Production: <strong>Methodist</strong> Publishing
Change language