7. What Is a District Chair?

7. What is a District Chair?

7. What is a District Chair?

WHAT IS A DISTRICT CHAIR?

1.The starting points for this report are:

the report What is a Presbyter? adopted by the Conference in 2002 together with the related report Releasing Ministers for Ministry[1] (n.b. also the companion report What is a Deacon adopted by the Conference in 2004[2])

the report What is a Circuit Superintendent? adopted by the Conference in 2005[3]

the material concerning Chairs of District in the Deed of Union and Standing Orders[4]

the report Called to Love and Praise: The Nature of the Christian Church in Methodist Experience and Practice adopted by the Conference in 1999[5]

2.This report is one of several related pieces of work which seek to outline the general nature of various ministerial roles in the Methodist Church. Included in that is the part that they each play in exercising oversight in the Church. This report therefore also relates to some other pieces of work which are seeking to address the ways in which oversight is shared between corporate bodies, lay-office holders and those exercising particular ministerial roles in Methodism.[6]

3.As with What is a Presbyter?,What is a Deacon? and What is a Circuit Superintendent?, this report seeks to discern the intention underlying the role of District Chairs as it has variously been expressed through Methodist history and in current practice. In so doing, it looks to describe a model of best practice which can be reflected upon and re-embodied in a variety of situations in the future.[7] It therefore seeks to help shape future practice by describing what is currently good practice. As such, its intention is to encourage, stimulate and assist District Chairs, Districts and the wider connexion.

District Chairs, Circuit Superintendents and presbyters: introduction and historical background[8]

4.First and foremost, District Chairs are presbyters who in exercising their ministry undertake particular responsibilities on behalf of the Conference in particular situations to which they are appointed. There is a central and common core to the role of presbyters[9], but they express it in a variety of ways, depending on their situation, personality type and on how the fruits and gifts of the Spirit are manifested in and released through them. In this way District Chairs, like other presbyters, are potentially a means of grace in that they are part of God’s gift to the Church and the world.

5.At the same time there has been a long tradition of “leading” presbyters (often identified by their seniority in terms of years of service) taking on particular types of appointment in the connexion, such as being Circuit Superintendents and District Chairs.[10] The appointment of District Chairs goes back to those years immediately following the death of John Wesley when Methodism was developing its own structures and ecclesiastical organisation. The companion report What is a Circuit Superintendent?[11], outlines how Methodism began as both a holiness movement and a mission movement within the Church of England, and developed forms of leadership which were appropriate to both. Some of these leaders were what we would now recognise as lay officers, whilst others were Preachers (whom Wesley describes as ‘extraordinary messengers’ calling people to discern and respond to the dynamics of the Kingdom of God as it continually broke out in new ways[12]). Those Preachers who were itinerant (i.e. not locally based, but available from time to time to make a ‘circuit’ round a particular part of the country to preach and to visit and oversee the Methodist movement) and recognised as “Mr. Wesley’s Assistants” gradually evolved into what we now know as the ordained ministers (presbyters) of the Methodist Church, and the leading one sent to each circuit began to be known as the “Superintendent”.[13] Moreover, as separation gradually took place from the Church of England, the societies which made up the Methodist movement began to take on some aspects of churches. The ‘extraordinary messengers’ therefore began to take on some of the characteristics of parochial clergy, and the Superintendents began to develop from being leaders of a movement within the Church into being leaders among what became the ordained ministers (presbyters) of a Church and later, as fragmentation occurred, of a number of Churches or denominations.

6.Superintendents had an important role of leadership amongst the ordained ministers (presbyters) of the Church because the Circuit was the primary unit for organising worship and mission and the nurturing of discipleship in the connexion. Yet after Wesley’s death an additional role was also developed. Although it was possible for a corporate body, the Conference, to fulfil some of the functions of oversight which Wesley had exercised, a means had to be identified for the fulfilling of others, such as dealing with problems and disputes or offering support and advice to the Circuits between meetings of the Conference. The 1791 Conference decided that since there was to be no single successor to Mr. Wesley this could best be achieved by dividing “the three kingdoms” into 27 Districts “for the preservation of our whole economy as the Revd. Mr. Wesley left it”[14]. However, the Districts were to have few functions of their own, and it was the role of the Chairman which was to be important. At the 1792 Conference the preachers appointed to serve in the Circuits which now made up each District were asked to choose a Chairman[15] from among their number. Those elected were ministers considered to be “senior figures” in the Connexion. During the 1790’s it gradually became established that the Chairmen should deal with any cases of discipline affecting the preachers in each District which needed to be addressed before the ensuing Conference; and that the Chairmen were to act as arbitrators in any dispute involvingpreachers, stewards and societies. From 1797 the Chairmen were listed on the stations (although the role of Chairman was not separated from that of a circuit minister and, like Superintendents, they continued to be appointed to Circuits on the stations). From 1798 the Districts were named after the chief town or city in that locality.

7.This development amongst what we would now call the ordained ministers (presbyters) of a particular role for a District Chairman alongside that of a Circuit Superintendent paralleled developments which had already occurred amongst Methodists in America.[16] In both British and American Methodism two complementary expressions of what we might term “superintendency” have emerged which differ from one another only in the areas of jurisdiction in which the superintendents’ oversight is exercised and the ways in which those particular contexts make them develop their presbyteral ministry. For historical reasons, however, the two complementary roles emerged in slightly different ways in America and Britain. In America, the development was from General Superintendents (later Bishops)[17] exercising oversight over wide areas of the whole connexion to District Superintendents (originally known as “presiding Elders”) exercising oversight over particular Districts that made up those wide areas.[18] In Britain the development was from Circuit Superintendents who each exercised oversight in a particular Circuit to District Chairs who each exercised oversight on behalf of the Conference over a number of Circuits grouped together in a District as a sub-division of the whole connexion.

8.In Britain the process of evolution begun after Wesley’s death in 1791 continued in the various Methodist traditions and then in the Methodist Church which united around the Deed of Union in 1932. So far as the role of District Chair was concerned, from 1810 the Wesleyan Chairmen presided over the District examination of those proposed for the itinerancy. From 1815 the Chairmen presided over the examination of preachers for reception into Full Connexion. From 1842 they had to visit single minister stations twice a year. From 1844 they could make an official visit to any Circuit ‘by invitation or consultation’ with the Superintendent. From 1892 District Meetings became Synods. In the other traditions, the Primitive Methodists and Bible Christians had District Meetings from the 1820s and ordinations in the Primitive Methodist Church took place at District Meetings.

9.The process of evolution in the role of District Chair continued after Methodist union in 1932. Major reviews of the role were undertaken in the 1950’s as the Church sought to respond to the changes in both Church and society in the aftermath of the Second World War. Reports to the Conferences of 1955 and 1956 reviewed recent history and argued that

“In spite of the fact that we have in our Connexional system a God-given instrument of co-ordination and united effort, there was too little continuity of policy or of leadership, and this at a time when the population of the country was on the move and it was obvious that the distribution of our resources was hopelessly out of keeping with the shape of society, as it now is and as it will be when the present shift of the population is complete in about ten years’ time”.[19]

As one consequence of this it was therefore judged that

“The days are now passed when the responsibilities of a District Chairman can be limited to presiding over the District Synod and dealing with matters of discipline and stationing. Without any decision being made at any particular time, it has gradually been assumed that the Chairman of the District will be the officer responsible for the general policy of advance within the borders of his District……. In the opinion of the Committee, the needs of the future are such that it is essential that throughout the country there should be officers exercising responsibility of this kind who are in a position to survey each District as a whole, and to devote a great deal of time, where necessary, to the special area and local problems and opportunities thrust upon the Church by the shifting of population and other changes in the social scene.”[20]

It is noteworthy that this emphasis on “advance” and “mission” in the role of District Chairman was reflected in the fact that the title of both reports referred to “District Missionaries”.

“It was understood that these leaders, in their capacity as District Missionaries, would be fully committed to encouraging evangelism in all Circuits where it is being undertaken and initiating it where it is not.”[21]

But this was not to be the only emphasis of their ministry:

“They should also exercise a pastoral ministry among the ministers of their own Districts, especially those in lonely and difficult stations”.[22]

Furthermore those making the report came to the conclusion that

“… to meet the present urgent situation Methodism needed a body of men who had full knowledge of what was happening in the Circuits and Districts, who could frequently confer and who, when policy was formulated, could see that it was carried through over a period of time by sustained effort……. Such men would have to speak for the Districts and Circuits at a Connexional level and speak to the Districts and Circuits on behalf of the Church as a whole”.[23]

These urgent needs and the pressures on circuit ministers led to the judgement that

“… it is no longer possible for a minister with Circuit responsibilities to discharge effectively those duties which in these days devolve upon the Chairman of a District”[24], and therefore that “this called for men free from heavy Circuit responsibilities who could exercise a ministry of leadership in the Church”.[25]

This led to a decision that from 1957-8 the role of Chair of District would become a specific (and normally full-time) appointment in its own right, and that those who exercised it would therefore generally be “separated” from circuit appointments on the stations. However, in order to lessen the cost of providing additional stipends for “separated” Chairs, it was also decided to reduce the number of mainland districts from the previous forty:

“in the light of the experience we have in certain Districts at present, the Committee has come to the conclusion that approximately 30,000 members is the most workable size for a District with a separated Chairman, and suggests that the division of the Connexion into about twenty-eight Districts (not including the island districts) would be the best solution”.[26]

10.From 2006 there will be thirty-two Districts. Twenty-seven of these will each have a single “separated” full-time Chair. The large new London District will have three “separated” full-time Chairs (one Lead Chair and two Co-Chairs). Four Districts (the Channel Islands; the Isle of Man; Shetland; North Wales) will have “non-separated” Chairs who will exercise the role of Chair part-time and normally simultaneously fulfil another part-time role as a Superintendent or other presbyter.

11.In recent years the role of the District Chair has continued to evolve.

(a)Ecumenical commitments, secular organisations and wider society have all provided contexts in which the Chair is increasingly required to function as the representative of the Methodist Church in a particular region.

(b)Connexional issues have increasingly meant that Chairs collectively and individually have had tasks to perform beyond their work in their Districts. For example, all the Chairs are members of the Connexional Leadership Team (together with the General Secretary/Secretary of Conference and the Co-ordinating Secretaries; the past, present and designated President and Vice-President; the Warden of the Diaconal Order; and the Chair of the Strategy and Resources Committee) which meets to confer, articulate vision and thereby offer leadership to the Church, and which from September 2006 will offer a report on their conferring to the Methodist Council.[27] They have also belonged to a Chairs’ Meeting, in which they have dealt with matters of common concern and which, because of the particular knowledge and experience which they bring to it, has been consulted from time to time by the Conference or the Methodist Council about matters of connexional policy and practice[28]. Furthermore, together with a few connexional officers they constitute the Stationing Matching Group which plays a key role in the stationing matching processes[29].

(c)Districts have been asked to undertake an increasing number of tasks on behalf of the Connexion that were previously carried out centrally: for example, the approval of applicants for Foundation Training; the allocation of monies from District Advance Funds; and the approval of minor property schemes. This has added to the work-load of the Chairs, since they have a responsibility for ensuring that the Districts carry out these tasks.

12.These developments have led to some reshaping of the role described in the 1955 and 1956 reports. This has been accompanied by the title of the office reverting from that of “District Missionary” to that of “Chair of District”. The emphases in the 1955 and 1956 reports had been on being responsible for stationing, governance and administration; on being the ministers’ minister; and on being a leader in mission and evangelism. How these aspects related to each other was not defined, but it was clear that the authors of the reports had discerned the priorities of the gospel for the Church in the changing society of the 1950’s in a way that led to them placing the greatest weight on the post-holders being “District Missionaries”, as was reflected in the title of the reports. That aspect of the role is still important, as will be noted below[30]. However, although many of the emphases in the 1955 and 1956 reports have continued to be major themes, the expectations of wider society, the Connexion, Circuits and churches have all played a part in determining what is an evolving and developing ministry exercised by District Chairs, as has the experience and practice of individual Chairs. In the light of all that the particular role of District Chair has been shaped over time by decisions of Conference and Standing Orders, to which we turn below.

13.As is the case with Circuit Superintendents, Standing Orders require a District Chair to be a presbyter[31]. But, again like Circuit Superintendents, District Chairs are also primarily presbyters who are expressing that ministry through exercising a particular role in a particular context. At the root of everything they are, do and undergo, and not just in their exercise of that particular role, they are expected like all presbyters to be someone who is:[32]

a person of faith, committed to living as a disciple of Jesus Christ

possessed of a strong sense of God's calling to ministry, which is tested and affirmed by the Church

of good character, committed to the pursuit of holiness and life-long learning, and faithful to apostolic doctrine

obedient, accepting Connexional discipline, "our doctrines" and the principle of stationing

firmly rooted within Methodist tradition, but draws on and is enriched by other ecclesiastical traditions

a ‘whole’ person, interconnected with others through family, friendship or other close relationships

14.As with other presbyters, the whole ministry of District Chairs is essentially a ministry of the word, of sacrament and of pastoral responsibility.[33] Virtually none of the individual activities which they undertake under these headings is therefore exclusive to them alone. To some extent or other lay people and deacons share and participate in each of them.[34] All presbyters represent and embody the oversight of the primary body in the Church, namely the Conference, in a particular way, yet have to share that oversight and authority with deacons and with the proper officers and formal bodies of the place to which they are sent.[35] Nevertheless, even if each of the ministries of word, sacrament and pastoral responsibility is shared to some extent or another with lay-people and deacons, presbyters play a distinctive role in each of them, and it is the combination of these roles which is exclusive to and definitive of the presbyter.[36]Moreover the fact that they are combined means that each of the emphases influences the others in a way that creates a distinctive expression of each of them. Thus, for example, the fact that a presbyter exercises pastoral responsibility on behalf of the Conference in a particular situation means that she or he has a guiding or presiding role in the exercising of the ministry of the word and ministry of sacrament in that community. Similarly, the fact that he or she exercises a ministry of the word and a ministry of sacrament means that he or she exercises pastoral responsibility through