REPORT OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT GROUP 2
TERMS OF REFERENCE: RE-VISIT TEAM SUPPORT FOR AND INVOLVEMENT IN A RANGE OF LOCAL CHURCH, CIRCUIT AND DISTRICT MINISTRIES (INCLUDING LOCAL PREACHERS, CHAPLAINCIES, TDOs, CHILDREN’S AND YOUTH WORKERS).
1Background
1.1This report cannot do adequate justice to the wide and valuable areas of ministry in districts, circuits and local churches that our research has discovered. Much good and imaginative gospel ministry is being carried out. Our purpose was not primarily to illustrate, comment on or evaluate the work in itself. Our task has been one of looking at the question of Connexional Team (CT) support and the relationship between the CT and how these ministries are exercised, supported and managed.
1.2We aim to build on the work that is currently being carried out throughout the Methodist Church, as we recognise its importance. The changes proposed are not a denial of the value of current work in districts, circuits and local churches, or a denial of the dedication and commitment of the current CT. In particular we could not make the recommendations in this Report if it had not been for the experience of the work (in particular) done by Training and Development Officers (TDOs).
1.3While we are aware that our recommendations may cause concern and dislocation for some people, we believe that they will better assist the Church as it seeks to address the Priorities of the Methodist Church and Our Calling (POC) in the Connexion and in the districts.
2Main Recommendations
2.1There should be at least one person employed by the Connexion in each District, complementary to the role of District Chair.
2.2To implement this there should be established in each District a connexional post of a Priorities Officer (PO) charged with two tasks:
2.2.1To be responsible for ensuring that the POC (Connexional and District) are implemented in the District;
2.2.2To be responsible connexionally for the development and oversight of one of the areas of ministry currently carried out by the CT.
2.3 The current TDO scheme comes to an end.
3Additional areas covered
3.1As will be apparent, the Project Management Group (PMG) widened its given area of reference to include areas of ministry additional to the examples set out in its brief. This was because we were aware of areas of ministry (such as District Evangelism Enablers and District, Church and Circuit Reviews Co-ordinators) whose work clearly comes within the brief of this Project.
4Methods of Working
4.1The PMG used a variety of different methods of research and fact-finding. These included: detailed questionnaires to all those exercising a particular ministry; discussions with team members responsible for particular areas; consultations and conferences involving circuit and district office-holders; and personal research by Group members.
4.2We are grateful to all who have provided us with a wealth of information and insight on which we have based both the principles, which have guided us, and our recommendations. Summaries of questionnaires etc, notes of meetings and discussions and other detailed material on which we have based our recommendations is held in a file in the PSRU and is available there on request.
5Principles
5.1The role of the CT is one of offering information, inspiration, support, advice and encouragement to the districts, circuits and churches.
5.2The CT should be helped to reshape its ‘culture’ so that districts are better able to find that the CT exists to fulfil this role, and that it has a ‘can do’ approach to addressing the POC.
5.3The proposed Secretary for Internal Relationships (SIR) will hold a key responsibility for ensuring this culture change.
5.4Wherever practical, there should be a presumption of a move from CT to the districts/regions for decision-making, resources, personnel and responsibilities, so that the CT is focussed on what it can best and uniquely do in support of the POC.
5.5The districts (and their constituent circuits and local churches) should be helped to discover that they own and are responsible for the implementation of the POC. The role of the PO is to enable districts to carry out the implementation of the POC in its area.
5.6The CT should encourage and enable meetings and communication between people with similar roles (and ecumenically) to stimulate new ideas and develop good practice.
6The Current TDO Scheme
6.1Our research has overwhelmingly pointed to the appreciation in the districts for the work of TDOs, for two main reasons:
6.1.1The capacity to do vital work that having a TDO provides and;
6.1.2The way in which the TDOs strengthen a sense of connexionalism within the Church.
6.2It is clear that the loss of such a resource would be detrimental to the ability of districts to exercise their mission and therefore regrettable.
6.3However, we have become aware of a widely held view, with which we concur, that the current TDO scheme is unnecessarily complex in its management structure. We also observe that there is widespread variation amongst the detailed work plans of different TDOs, as districts adopt different priorities.
7Expansion of the Main Recommendations
7.1Our research also highlighted that, whereas the support offered by the CT in some specialised areas (such as property and employment issues) was regarded as highly desirable and even essential, much of the rest was regarded as less necessary, to be used on an optional basis.
7.2We set out in the following sections (8-10) details of our recommendations, which we repeat here, in particular, on the dual role of the POs.
Main Recommendations:
1There should be at least one person employed by the Connexion in each District, complementary to the role of District Chair.
2To implement this there should be established in each District a connexional post of a Priorities Officer (PO) charged with two tasks:
2.1To be responsible for ensuring that the POC (Connexional and District) are implemented in the District
2.2To be responsible connexionally for the development and oversight of one of the areas of ministry currently carried out by the CT.
3The current TDO scheme comes to an end.
8Role of the PO in the District
8.1The PO will be employed by the Methodist Council and line-managed by the District Chair. The PO may or may not be full-time and may serve in more than one District. Whilst the District Policy Committee (or equivalent) is responsible for determining how the POC are to be implemented at a district policy level, it is the primary task of the PO to ensure the POC are implemented, monitored and evaluated. This means that the PO is responsible for seeing that the District focuses on them. The PO will, in practice, both ensure District policy reflects the POC and that it is implemented, resourced and evaluated.
8.2This would involve:
Membership of the District Leadership Team / DPC / Synod (depending on the District/Regional structure);
Discussing and agreeing the implementation of the POC with the DPC;
Work with the DPC to review District structures, so that the District is better able to carry out the POC;
Responsibility for seeing that appropriate training is carried out in the District or Region to enable ministry and the implementation of the POC;
Support for District Officers, including recruitment, induction and training;
Regular quarterly meetings with other POs for briefings and monitoring. The SIR will have strategic responsibility for this aspect of the work of POs.
9Role of the PO connexionally
9.1POs will be expected to specialise in one particular aspect of the work of the CT. They will be the connexional specialist in that area. A PO will be responsible for networking with other people in the connexion who have an interest or expertise in that field so that these networks resource the whole connexion. We envisage many CT roles that are currently or potentially carried out from home, to be taken up by POs. Integration of this work into the District will provide these roles with additional support through the District.
9.2In their specialist role a PO would be expected to network with other people in the connexion doing a particular job (eg rural chaplaincy), with anyone in the connexional team dealing with aspects of it (eg Public Issues), and with other POs (for exchange of information and communication between districts about this area of work). In their District, the PO will network with people covering this area of work. The PO would thus have oversight of effective two-way communication between the districts and the appropriate specialist (if there is one) in the CT regarding this area of the work. This will ensure that connexional policy-making is well-informed from the districts to the CT and visa-versa.
9.3Each (or the majority) of the POs will be responsible for oversight and/or co-ordination of many of the chaplaincies etc as set out in section 11 below. The SIR will have oversight with regard to the allocation of responsibilities.
10Practicalities of the PO proposal
10.1We are aware of the financial constraints on the Connexion and recommend that the Joint Secretaries Group (JSG) carry out a detailed analysis of the cost of our proposal. We envisage considerable flexibility, but suggest that a PO would be contracted by the Connexion for, say, three days a week. This would cover their connexion-wide responsibilities and part of their District work. In addition a District would have the option of contributing up to two days a week, using funds available in the District and perhaps CAPF funding. We are aware that a more detailed study will be possible as other aspects of the CT reorganisation make themselves clearer.
10.2The PO would be employed by the Methodist Council, which would be responsible for the Job Description, and Terms and Conditions. The District Chair would be line manager (with a single Chair doing this where a PO served more than one District). The PO could have an advisory panel such as the DPC etc.
10.3The role of the PO would be linked with the emerging Regional Training Networks (RTNs), with the aim of enabling the equipping of people for all aspects of ministry. How this will develop depends on the ways the RTNs and the POs develop.
10.4The scheme should run initially for five years and be reviewed after one and four years.
10.5As far as training is concerned, POs would be able to play a capacity building role but would not be expected to be providers of all training needs themselves.
11Co-ordinating other ministries
11.1The proposals we have made will affect the ways in which many other ministries are currently managed, as management is devolved to a District level and POs fulfil both a connexional and District responsibility. We recommend the following pattern:
Ministry / Co-ordinated byEducation chaplaincies (Schools, Further and Higher) / One of the POs or an existing chaplain
Forces / This is a Ministry of Defence responsibilities, but co-ordinated by one of the POs.
Healthcare / This is managed by the Free Churches Group of Churches Together in England. We recommend no change.
Prisons / Present arrangements with the Home Office continues, but co-ordinated by one of the POs.
Rural and Urban ministries / Co-ordinated by one of the POs each.
Workplace chaplaincies / Co-ordinated by one of the POs.
District Lay Employment Secretaries and Lay Workers / Continue to be supported from Personnel. It is important that Lay Employment Secretaries are more strongly linked with and resourced by Personnel. It might be possible for a PO to co-ordinate this service as a member of the Personnel team.
Children’s and Youth Workers / Co-ordinated by one of the POs, or whatever emerges from the current review of this area of work.
District, Church and Circuit Review Co-ordinators / Co-ordinated by one of the POs.
District Evangelism/Mission Enablers / Co-ordinated by one of the POs.
Local Preachers / We do not recommend any change in the current arrangements of a half-time officer.
11.2This is not a definitive list of all possible ministries within the Church. We would encourage JSG to look at the whole of the Indicative Diagram to see if there are other areas of work which could be developed within this model (such as local ecumenical relations and Ministry and Mission grants).
12Conclusion
12.1 We believe our proposals suggest an innovative way to strengthen the effectiveness of the CT and the districts, and to focus the life of the Church on the POCs. They build on the strength of past practice between the CT and the districts and will help lay the groundwork for further changes following Team Focus. We believe the recommendations we make advocate the following changes of emphasis, all of which are part of Team Focus:
- The focus on development of lay and ordained ministry is the key to enabling mission through District policy and POC
- There is a greater emphasis on management of the District, including District officers (mostly voluntary roles). This will free the District Chairs for pastoral and strategic purposes. The exact way this will be done would depend on local circumstances.
- There is a focus on strategic deployment of resources for mission, including the reorganisation of circuits and a looking towards the possibility of fewer districts.
- An integration of connexional and district policies (side by side, not top down or bottom up).
- The measure of success would be an increased capacity within the District for mission.[CS1]
January 2007
Note from Joint Secretaries Group: -
The Report of Ground-clearing Project 3 follows, with thanks to the members of the Project Management Group. JSG have considered the report and its recommendations carefully, alongside the reports of the filter panels on these areas of work and further reflection upon the challenges facing the Church. The recommendations of JSG in relation to this work are to be found in Chapter 6 above.
Team Focus: Ground-clearing Project 3
Children and Young People
1.1 TASK
Work with the wider Church to re-vision work with children and young people (both those still linked to the Church and the vast majority outside the Church).
WHO ARE WE?
- Jonathan Kerry (Coordinating Secretary)
- Wesley Blakey (District Chair)
- Susan McIvor (Circuit minister, former District Children’s Secretary and Safeguarding Officer)
- Rachel Shackleton (NCH)
- Anthony Malcolm (Circuit Minister)
- Jonathan Melville-Thomas (YMCA)
Assisted by John Nelson, Peter Relf and William Swires of the Policy Support and Research Unit.
1.2 HOW DID WE WORK?
1.3 We reminded ourselves of the need to work within the frameworks of “Our Calling” and “Priorities of the Methodist Church”
1.4 We looked at the statistics and discovered that decline in children and young people in worship or in church sponsored groups is proportionately greater than the decline in church membership, and the rate of decline is increasing.
In 1986 church membership was 450,000, there were 390,000 children in church sponsored groups, and 136,000 in Sunday School/worship
In 2001 church membership was 335,000 (26% lower), there were 250,000 (36% fewer) children in church sponsored groups and 50,000 (63% fewer) in Sunday School/worship.
In 2005 the total number of children and young people in Church sponsored groups across all districts was:
Male and female under 5’s 17,425
Male and female 5-13’s119,856
Male and female 13-19’s 34,131
Male and female 20-25’s 4,384
Total 175,796 (ie 55% fewer than 1986, 30% fewer than 2001)
1.5We listened to:
AThe Connexional Team which at present comprises – four MAYC staff (plus two vacancies), four Methodist Children staff plus the Education Officer. The PMG were impressed by the professionalism, insight and commitment (often involving long and unsocial working hours) to children and young people demonstrated by the current staff of the Connexional Team working in these areas. These things have been particularly apparent during the extended period of uncertainty caused by the Team Focus process and awaiting the outcomes of this project in particular.
BAnybody who wanted to have a say! The PMG prepared a paper, FuturePresent which was published in time for Conference 2006 and formed the basis for Conference forum on Children and Young People. The document was placed on the Methodist Church web site asking for feedback from: children, young people, workers with children and young people, churches that work with children and young people and those that do not have any and parent(s) with children and/or young people. We have analysed the responses received. Through this we heard about work that is being done in churches and circuits across the Connexion and how that work is supported by circuits, districts and the Connexional Team.
CEach other! Recognising the experience we brought to group from Christian organisations working with young people (NCH [formerly National Children’s Home] and YMCA) and also anecdotal evidence from involvement in local churches, circuits and districts.
1.6We looked at further statistical analysis; Methodist Children Online Audit, Christian Research (which enables comparisons with other denominations and shows we are roughly in line with national trends).
1.7We noted changes in society: e.g. 22% of children live in lone parent families, more than 10% of children live in step families. Contact time with absent parents is often at the weekend. Geographical mobility has led to the loss of the extended family in the neighbourhood.
1.8 We read Government reports: From “Every Child Matters” we learned that Government initiatives affecting the lives of children and young people will reinforce:
- Being healthy: enjoying good physical and mental health and living a healthy lifestyle.
- Staying safe: being protected from harm and neglect.
- Enjoying and achieving: getting the most out of life and developing the skills for adulthood.
- Making a positive contribution: being involved with the community and society and not engaging in anti-social or offending behaviour.
- Economic well-being: not being prevented by economic disadvantage from achieving their full potential in life.
Though excited by this report for what it might achieve for children and young people we were disappointed to note that it did not recognise spiritual development and the positive outcomes for children and young people who are aware of their own spirituality and have a faith community to sustain them (as evidenced by research conducted by the Commission on Urban Life and Faith).