Dear Moira,
We are writing as Directors of two Methodist institutions to express concerns about the recommendations contained in the Fruitful Field report. Inevitably our view reflects our particular context and disappointment that two pioneering expressions of theological education should be called upon to close. However, we believe that it is important to express our reservations on issues of substance.
In making a decision on Fruitful Field we would encourage the Conference to reflect carefully on the following:
- The question of process – although a period of consultation was built into the early stages of the formation of the report the detailed recommendations have not yet been discussed in governing bodies and training forums, except where hastily convened, let alone in individual churches, Circuits and Districts. Given that the recommendations in the report are radical and involve a significant departure from the way in which the Methodist Church has engaged with the university sector and with ecumenical partners, we believe that it is important that the Methodist people be given more time and opportunity to reflect on the wisdom of these proposals.
- We both recognise that Methodism cannot continue to resource our work in the same way in the future. However, there is a fixation in the report with particular ways of configuring Methodist resources at the expense of developed reflection upon the internal and external environment in which Methodism now operates and the partnerships necessary in which to form discipleship and ministries for the future. Despite the rhetoric of a ‘fruitful field’, it is surprising how little the report focuses upon the conditions and circumstances in which fruit might grow. The report, for example, contains no analysis of future mission and ministry needs, no reflection upon the nature of formation, nor of the particular pathways that full-time, part-time and practice based training might take in the future, or of the strategies for future resource provision in partner churches i.e. the resource question is answered without proper reference to many of its key determinants. Could it not be that a different set of questions might result in a different set of assumptions about the appropriate balance, types and location of Methodist resources in the future?
- Ecumenism – it needs to be recognised that the report envisages a significant step backwards from existing ecumenical provision especially in relationship with the Church of England. It is paradoxical that we should be stepping back from the possibility of more engaged regional partnership with the Church of England which we have worked so hard for over the years just at the point where the Common Awards will make that prize more achievable. Clearly there are limits to the resources that Methodism can expend but our institutional and resource solutions need to show the imagination at this point to enable new depths of partnership between different churches where it matters on the ground.
- Research and scholarship – both of our institutions, like other Methodist institutions, have close connections with research undertaken by HE partners. Yet we both recognise that Durham and Cambridge have particular reputations as world class research institutions. It is a surprise, therefore, that the report does not reflect in more detail upon the potential losses of an integrated research relationship with one or both of these universities. We would encourage Conference to reflect carefully on the wisdom of uncoupling ourselves from such relationships.
- We write from the experience of a region where there has been close co-operation between training institutions, Districts and Circuits. Whilst we welcome the proposals for a common staff network and single governance structure (especially if flexible enough to allow a degree of local management) there are real dangers that what has been gained in the past few years will be lost or will have to be re-invented unless the proposals are implemented with imagination and an awareness of the need for contextual flexibility and different institutional shapes to meet different needs. This is especially important if we are to maximise the benefits not only of working within the context of Methodism but of working in partnership more broadly.
There is much to commend in the Fruitful Field report. However, there are some significant areas about which we have concerns and believe that the recommendations as currently conceived require further deliberation. We recognise that the future, if we are to be faithful and fruitful, is likely to demand significant change of us and of colleagues elsewhere. However, we believe that Conference must be careful about how it prunes the vine if it is genuinely concerned to bring forth a fruitful field.
Yours in Christ,
Revd. Richard Andrew Revd. Dr Calvin T. Samuel
Director Director
York Institute for Community Theology Wesley Study Centre, Durham
No comments:
Post a Comment