Methodist Church decides to marginalise itself

Methodist Church decides to marginalise itself

It has been evident for some time that the Methodist Church in Britain is increasingly on the margins of society, with dwindling numbers and influence. Such a trend is difficult to reverse as it is part of a larger, complex shift in the way religion and Christian faith are viewed in ‘post-modern’ Britain. What is particularly galling, however, is that through the Fruitful Field project the Methodist Church has actually encouraged this marginalisation by disengaging from public theology.

Allied with this is the Church’s insistence that it is no longer a Church – but a movement. So, not only is the Methodist Church marginalising itself, it is also diminishing itself. The architects of Fruitful Field would of course claim different motivations and aims – opposite ones in fact. Which makes these unintended consequences all the more sad.

What is also disturbing is the degree to which the Fruitful Field project is about control. The manifold creative, yet untidy (even unruly), relationships with ecumenical partners and centres of academic excellence are being crudely rationalised so that the world can be more ordered and more easily managed and manipulated. Regionalisation will further reduce the influence of District Chairs and checks and balances will be whittled away. Already it is very difficult for those offering an alternative vision to raise their heads above the parapet. A denomination which prides itself on being non-conformist is being forced to conform.

The need to cut costs of course is cited as a major factor in this process, though figures have at best been hazy and often absent. And where has been the entrepreneurial flair that would have seen the huge financial potential of Methodist assets realised so much more imaginatively and productively?

These are some of the dispiriting consequences of the Fruitful Field project, helping to create a marginalised sect shaped for irrelevance. What can be salvaged? What can be done to reverse these trends? Whither Methodism?

A decade of re-structuring

Conference representatives will have now returned home.

In many ways this was a very important Conference with major decisions being made on the future of theological education.
The ramifications will be felt across the Church and beyond.  It is unclear whether the proposals in Fruitful Field will work.
In the past few years restructuring has gripped the Church.  Larger Circuits are growing in number and this process will continue.  Districts are the next target and may be abolished or reduced to ten.
The Fruitful Field proposals will lead to further re structuring  It could take up to five years to implement. There will be enormous upheaval and heartache.

The energy of this decade of restructuring will inevitably take its toll. Financial implications have yet to be worked out but rarely any re structuring of an institution in the end saves money.    Then there is the huge emotional cost let alone the energy it will take.
It will be interesting to ask the question in 2020 whether a decade of re structuring has been worthwhile.  At present the jury is out.
What is certain is that membership will continue to decline and therefore resources will be much more reduced.
The Conference of 2012 was concerned ( as have a number of previous conferences)  almost wholly with internal matters.

An agenda for Conference 2013 could be as follows:
Monday
Day of theological reflection by theologians of repute.  Are we a Church or a movement?

Tuesday
Ecumenical engagement

Wednesday
Consideration of the major issues of the day in society and the world

Thursday
Internal Methodist business
What an opportunity to seize
Now that would be a Conference worth attending!

The Fruitful Field report passed through Conference

There would have been greater impact if the opposition had gathered around a single Notice of Motion but this was not to be.

It is difficult at this point to assess the wider impact of the decision However there will be some immediate consequences:
1. Secular partners - with whom we have worked and built good relationships- will disengage from us very soon That is the nature of secular institutions .
2. Our Ecumenical friends ( although more generous than our secular partners ) will quickly make future plans without us
3. Morale among staff and students in many institutions will now be at a low level Redundancies will now be on the agenda and winding up of institutions will begin.
There has been generated an enormous amount of unease around the process and many have concluded that their voice has not been heard It is interesting to observe that no theologian of repute or senior ecumenical leader voiced their support.

All this leads to an urgent healing process to be undertaken It immediately raises the need for the President, Vice President and General Secretary to begin that process The healing process could begin by these three Church officers meeting and listening to theologians who recently expressed their concern in the Methodist Recorder.

At least this would be a first step.

DECISION TIME LOOMING OVER FRUITFUL FIELD REPORT

DECISION TIME LOOMING OVER FRUITFUL FIELD REPORT
It is hoped  that the Methodist Conference will have a major re think over the report which is not the way forward.
It is hoped that a Notice of Motion will be passed along the lines of those suggested on this website

SALE OF WESLEY COLLEGE BRISTOL
Many rumours are circulating
These include that it was hoped to raise around 10 million from the sale; that an offer around 4 million was possible and that it has almost been sold for 2 million
Also that the library has been put into crates and that no venue for this important asset to the Church has been found
Another rumour is that if the college is sold for 2 million (10 acre site) no profit will be made
The General Secretary should make an urgent statement to Conference clarifying these issues  for the sake of transparency and the integrity of the Church

Wesley College, Bristol: Some Questions

Wesley College, Bristol: Some Questions

1. To whom is the Connexional Team planning to sell the college,its extensive grounds and additional properties - and will Conference be informed ? 
2. How much capital will be realized for the Methodist Church from this sale? £10-11million  is a sum which has sbeen mentioned. But now there are rumours that the Church will actually lose money over this - or receive as little as £2m. Again, will Conference be informed?
3. What is happening to the College Library? The impression is being given that the Connexional Team doesn't know what to do with it. If it goes into storage, for how long will that be, at what cost and for what purpose? Can Conference be assured that the library will remain the property of the British Methodist Church, especially if Wesley House is to close?

                                Methodist Church House: A Question

   How much is this property worth? Presumably, its trust deeds could be changed to make proceeds of sale available to the Church?
Would not this solve some of our major funding problems? Again, could Conference be informed that 'all options are on the table' - or, if they are not, why not?

                             The Two Proposed Connexional Centres: Two Further Questions

1. If Cliff College does not embrace the theological diversity of the whole Methodist Church, how could we avoid thetheological  polarization which would almost inevitably ensue, as Queen's is dubbed the 'liberal' centre?

2. And how certain is the future of Queen's? The Methodist memory cannot but recall the sad fate of Lincoln Theological College, the abrupt closure of which was never discussed with the Methodist Church despite the presence there of Methodist ordinands.

FRUITFUL FIELD: ADOPT PLAN B RATHER THAN PLAN A

An Alternative Report to Fruitful Field: 

A Vision For Lay and Ordination Training

1 We note the Fruitful Field Report, keenly aware of the pressures requiring change, the urgency of the situation, and the contracting resources due to a decreasing membership. However, we have some grave reservations, and this is why we are proposing an alternative. In doing so, we share the conviction that training, including continuing training, both for lay people and for those seeking ordination, is essential for the well-being and future of the Church.

Our reservations and criticisms of FF include the following:

a) The reflection on Romans 12 which purports to provide a biblical foundation for what follows is thin and inadequate. It bears little relation to what follows, and though its emphases are edifying enough (e.g. being ardent in spirit), we need something much more substantial to inform , shape and underscore proposals as weighty as these. There is much in the New Testament, for example, on the place of tradition in the life of the Church, with all that that implies about the tension between continuity and change; on the holy, apostolic, and catholic nature of the Body of Christ, on the emergence of 'orthodoxy', the place of apologetics in evangelism, and a great deal more. What is also lacking -ironically, in view of FF's later emphasis on contextual training - is sustained attention both to the contextual character of the New Testament writings and to the contemporary context in which training will take place in the coming decades. Instead, we have a very introspective, organizational and managerial document devoid of real theological content.  

b) Fruitful Field, in its governance section and in the sweeping powers given to the new Discipleship and Ministries and Learning (?) Network, proposes an alarming centralisation which the revised proposal of two centres rather than one does little to stem. This is a further major step towards the accumulation of power in fewer hands (and tighter control by Methodist Church House). We believe that subsidiarity should be fundamental to any governance as it encourages wider responsibility and involvement, as well as greater accountability, entrepreneurship and enterprise .

c) The report's proposals are likely to be unworkable, top -heavy as they are in management and administration. In particular, the proposed base for future academic work, scholarship and research is simply inadequate: the two proposed centres alone cannot sustain it.

d) FF does not sufficiently take into account our Methodist heritage.  

e) FF would take too long to implement, ( five or six years).  

f) FF does not do justice to our ecumenical relationships.

2 We note that Wesley College Bristol is closing and that the property is about to be sold for the sum of around 4 million. FF presumably did not have this sum in mind when it noted that the market for the Wesley College site is being ‘promisingly tested’. But even the sum of £4m would have sufficed to re-furbish the premises of at least one of the institutions from which we are now proposing to withdraw.

3 We wish to affirm Cliff College as a centre of evangelical excellence. It has been one of British Methodism’s success stories in recent years. All that should continue. But we are concerned that Cliff, as one of the two proposed connexional centres , will not be able to embrace or reflect the theological diversity of the whole Church. But would that not be a fundamental prerequisite of a connexional centre?

4 Accordingly, we suggest a notice of motion to Conference along the following lines:
1.That Cliff College retains its historic role and ministry as a centre of evangelical excellence, continuing to do what it does best.
2. That Wesley House Cambridge and Queen's, Birmingham become the two connexional centres, with Sarum and Durham as two additional regional centres. 3. That each centre retains its own governance.
4. That the Discipleship.... Network work with the centres in shaping teaching courses and programmes, rather than determining and controlling them.
5. That the proceeds of the sale of Wesley College, Bristol be used to implement this notice of motion, and particularly the refurbishment of Wesley House, Cambridge.
6. That the number of District and Connexional officials proposed in FF be pruned, and the proposed structure replaced by a simpler, less costly one.
7. A) That a committee be appointed to implement these proposals by the Conference of 2012, comprising, as co-chairs, a former President and Vice- President, with 6 members elected by the conference, (3 men and 3 women), also
     i)the Assistant Secretary of Conference to be directed to indicate to the Conference the earliest opportunity for nominations.
    ii) The Committee to report its progress to all meetings of the Council and to report fully to the Conference of 2013.
   iii) All minutes of the committee for the sake of transparency should be published.
   iv) The committee should have the power to co-opt.      

B) That a connexional oversight committee for lay and ordained training be established by the Conference of 2014, to be chaired by a former President or Vice President and its membership, appropriately diverse, to include the academic and business expertise of our training institutions. We recommend that further work on this committee be done in the next year and proposals brought to the Conference of 2013.

The Rationale Behind the Above Suggestions:
FF has performed a valuable service in drawing to our attention the urgent need to review, consolidate and co-ordinate our training institutions and programmes. But it is deficient in the following respects:

1. It has no clear theological or ecclesiological foundation.    

2. Cliff College and Queen's alone will be an insufficient base for the enormous responsibilities envisaged for them - in particular, in resourcing academic work, scholarship and research throughout the Connexion.    

3.Cliff College should be allowed to continue to do what it does best - i.e. being a centre for evangelical excellence – and retaining its present independence. (We note that much of its work is self-funding). Its inability or reluctance to accommodate the theological diversity of the wider Church makes it less than suitable to be a connexional centre.    

4. Despite the addition of a second centre, the proposals as they stand are still too centralized and managerial.    

5. Making Queens a connexional centre
          i) affirms our ecumenical partnership especially with the Church of England
         ii) recognises the importance of being situated in a multi faith and multi-cultural city
        iii) affirms the work of the Selly Oak Centre for Mission Studies.      

Making Wesley House a connexional centre
i) affirms our ecumenical partnerships within the Cambridge Federation
ii) maintains our historic links with Methodist training
iii) strengthens and demonstrates our commitment to research.


  6 We propose that District Youth Officers. District Evangelism a nd mission enablers, Training and Development Officers and enablers be abolished except where the posts are funded by the Districts We propose that one and a half staff be appointed to each area centre to work in conjunction with the present posts to further lay programmes

7 Costing: We note that, of the 6.2 million pounds spent on training at present, around 3.3 million supports centres, colleges and ministerial development courses, whilst District evangelists, training officers etc cost around 2.3million.

We believe that our proposals would create savings but realise new monies need to be raised. Therefore we propose that

i) Three million from the sale of Bristol be invested, and the annual interest spent on training, 1 million to be spent on re-furbishing Wesley House, (which has been underfunded for years).  

ii) Approaches be made to students to contribute to their training, whilst continuing to fund those who cannot do so.

iii) Circuit and Districts be encouraged to contribute to the training of ‘their’ full-time students.

iv) The proposal already suggested to Cambridge to develop the site in conjunction with MIC be implemented. The money raised would further contribute to the refurbishment of the present buildings and generate monies for wider training.

8 Governance issues. This is one of our major concerns with Fruitful Field as mentioned earlier. As proposed in FF, control and power would reside in the centre. Although realising that in a church with decreasing membership this is a temptation, we believe this should be resisted and that the Church should embrace subsidiarity and affirm our rich tradition of creativity. Furthermore, we believe that some of the trusts could engage in legal battles which could delay proposals Unity with diversity should be our hallmark, not the tight centralization and uniformity which will be the inevitable outcome of Fruitful Field .

Wesley House

Dear Friends of Wesley House

Many of you have been in touch following the publication of the Fruitful Field report expressing your sadness at the recommendation that Wesley House should cease to function from 2014. Some have been asking whether there is anything constructive that you can do.

One thing which seems to be the case is that many Conference representatives know little about the work of Wesley House - and perhaps Wesley House needs to acknowledge some responsibility for that.

If you are in a position to do so, and would like to help inform Conference members about the work of Wesley House and the resources in Cambridge which already enrich and might further benefit the Methodist people I attach two leaflets: one addressed to issues raised in the report about Wesley House's work, and the other about our aspiration to work more closely with Districts and Circuits and how that might be achieved.

I also attach a press release to the Methodist Recorder about our recent inspection which was published last week, underlining the good practice at Cambridge and the need for investment in the future.

Finally there a list of Conference representatives. Personal contacts are best, so please do telephone your own district representatives and/or district chair and talk to them about the report, sharing as appropriate the information in the leaflets, or offering to forward them by email.

Please do what you can to help inform the Conference as it takes this crucial decision for the future of resourcing the leaders of the Methodist people, and please continue to pray for all those involved as we seek a sustainable future which makes best use of the best resources available for the faithful learning of the whole people of God.

with best wishes
Jane
The Revd Dr Jane Leach
Principal Wesley House,
Cambridge.


CB5 8BJ