Agenda Volume 3 - Methodist Conference

57. The Fruitful Field Project
ecumenical and other partnerships,
including new and non-traditional
ecumenical partnerships. In terms
of the Committee’s description of
the role of centres within the life of
the Network (see paragraph 200
above), the Committee noted that
these aspects of Cliff College’s life
and witness demonstrated that
the College was fulfilling important
aspects of such a role.
223 Furthermore, the Committee noted
that Cliff has long experience of
adaptation and change in which a
pattern of entrepreneurial innovation
has enabled the College to respond
rapidly and effectively to the needs
of a changing Church. Indeed, the
College’s consultation submission
demonstrated a readiness to work
creatively and innovatively to better
serve the Church in the context
of the vision put forward by the
Ministries Committee. Further still,
the Committee noted that Cliff
College has not always been central
to the Connexion’s activities in the
fields of formation, learning, training,
theological education, scholarship,
research and development, and that
this had been a loss to the Connexion
as well as to the College.
224 The Committee therefore saw
few risks and many benefits to
the identification of Cliff College
as a centre within the proposed
Discipleship and Ministries Learning
Network, thus allowing Cliff College
to develop as a fully-fledged centre
within the Network, while also
allowing the Connexion to benefit
from Cliff’s ongoing engagement
in a range of partnerships and
programmes which have a life and
a strong impact beyond Methodism.
The Committee noted during its
deliberations about Cliff College
that the College did not have a
history of forming and educating
student ministers. It also noted
that it would not be possible to
expect the College, given its historic
emphases and current expertise, to
represent the breadth and diversity
of Methodist theology. Consequently,
the identification of Cliff College as a
centre was only possible if more than
one centre was to be recommended
to the Conference.
225 While considering these reflections
early in 2012, the Committee was
also conscious that Cliff College was,
in some ways, uniquely vulnerable
to a sustained period of insecurity
about its future. The Committee
has always recognised that The
Fruitful Field project would usher in
a period of insecurity for a number
of postholders and institutions,
but has also wanted to keep such
insecurity to a strict minimum (see
paragraph 14.7 above). Because of
Cliff College’s reliance on self-funding
student fee income and the limited
degree of connexional grant support
offered to the College compared to
other institutions, Cliff College was
particularly vulnerable to a potential
drop in student recruitment caused
by student insecurity about the
College’s future in the light of The
736 Conference Agenda 2012