Agenda Volume 3 - Methodist Conference

57. The Fruitful Field Project
key reflections drawn from the
consultation submissions. These key
reflections are outlined in section
F of this report. Within the interim
response, most of the key reflections
were accompanied by relevant
extracts from the consultation
submissions. The extracts included
were diverse and, occasionally, one
extract contradicted another which
appeared under the same heading. In
this respect, they echoed the range of
voices heard through the consultation
submissions. The interim response
also contained a summary of areas
for further exploration.
38 It was not the Committee’s
intention, when it launched the
consultation period, to publish
all of the submissions. When the
Committee, in response to a concern
raised in one of the submissions,
revisited the question of whether the
submissions should all be published,
the Committee did not judge it
appropriate to change its earlier
decision. It was evident from many
of the submissions that several of
those making submissions had been
able to share reflections (for example
about their own ministry or about an
institution for which they exercise
legal responsibilities) which could not
be shared more publicly. The volume
of submissions was such that the
Committee also judged it to be its
responsibility to digest and identify
the key reflections included within the
submissions, and to share these key
reflections in an accessible format.
39 In its interim response, the
Committee noted:
In order to ensure that our
deliberations take full and fair
account of the consultation
submissions, we have asked a
small number of past officers
of the Conference for their
assistance. These past officers
will be given access to all of the
consultation submissions, to the
notes from our meetings and to
preparatory papers drawing on
the consultation submissions.
We will ask these past officers
to reflect on whether the key
reflections which we have
drawn from the consultation
submissions are supported by
their reading of the submissions.
We will also ask them to
identify any key reflections
which they feel have been left
out of our considerations so
far. We are fully aware that
the final responsibility for
our recommendations to the
Conference rests with us, but we
are grateful in advance to those
who are helping to support our
deliberations in this way.
40 The Revd Dr Brian Beck and the
Revd Alison Tomlin agreed to act
as verifiers. In their report they
confirmed that the key reflections
which the Committee had drawn
from the consultation submissions
were supported by the submissions
themselves. They wrote that “our
overall response is to congratulate
Conference Agenda 2012 657