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 .
No comments:
Post a Comment