Memorandum 35
Submission from the Cambridge Theological
Federation
SUMMARY
— The HEFCE funding cuts for ELQs threatens
the existence of the BA and BTh training route from the University
of Cambridge, and therefore the connection with that University,
for those training for ordained and lay ministry in the institutions
of the Cambridge Theological Federation.
— The cuts threaten the BA course in
Christian Theology validated by Anglia Ruskin University, and
so the relationship with that University.
— The cuts will therefore drastically
reduce the range and quality of the courses the Federation is
able to offer and this will deter students.
— In turn we anticipate this will result
in the closure of some of the training institutions and this will
be the result elsewhere in the country too and will lead to more
inward looking and less publicly accountable ministry training.
— This is happening at a time when
the range and quality of training for ministry is crucial for
clergy and lay ministers to meet the expectations of local communities
and Government for leading churches in serving the public good
through the building of social cohesion, neighbourhood regeneration,
protection of the vulnerable and, increasingly, welfare provision.
ABOUT US
1. The Cambridge Theological Federation
comprises seven full member institutions and four associate member
institutions providing clergy and lay ministry training, both
full-time and part-time. Together there are a total of about 450
students, about 200 of whom are members of residential training
institutions in Cambridge and 250 are members of non-residential
part-time training courses across East Anglia and independent
students doing post-graduate courses.
2. The member institutions represent a range
of Christian denominations and faiths. The full Members are Ridley
Hall and Westcott House (Church of England residential training
colleges), Wesley House (Methodist residential training college),
Westminster College (United Reformed Church residential training
college), Institute for Orthodox Christian Studies (residential
and non-residential Orthodox programme), the Margaret Beaufort
Institute of Theology (residential Roman Catholic institute for
lay women) and the Eastern Region Ministry Course (part-time Church
of England, Methodist and United Reformed Church non-residential
training course serving East Anglia). The Associate Members are
the Norwich Diocesan Ministry Course and the St Edmundsbury and
Ipswich Diocesan Ministry Course (part-time, non-residential Church
of England training courses for ordained and lay ministry in Norfolk
and Suffolk), The Woolf Institute for the Study of Abrahamic Religions
(providing Christian-Jewish and Jewish-Muslim interfaith programmes)
and The Henry Martyn Centre for the Study of Mission and World
Christianity (providing courses with mission and global dimensions).
3. While ordinands and lay ministry students
belong to specific institutions, much of the teaching, particularly
for the residential students, is provided centrally, drawing on
a combined teaching faculty of nearly 40 full and part-time staff,
as well as on the Divinity Faculty at the University of Cambridge.
This enables the Federation to provide a particularly high quality
and breadth of training for ministry.
4. The Federation has partnerships with
both Cambridge University and Anglia Ruskin University. These
two relationships enable students to study for a number of different
theology and theology for ministry degree programmes to prepare
them for ordained or lay ministry.
IMPACT OF
FUNDING CHANGES
5. Across the Federation about 60% of students
have first or higher degrees in a subject other than theology
and a further 20% have a degree in theology (a total of nearly
80% with first degrees). This second group generally study for
a higher degree. Just 20% of our students do not have a first
degree. While neither of these last two groups (those with a theology
degree and those with no first degree) is directly affected by
the cuts, the institutions they belong to are, in terms of both
educational and financial viability.
6. Within the residential theological colleges
about 25% take the Cambridge University Theology Tripos (BA) or
the Cambridge University Bachelor in Theology for Ministry (BTh)
degrees. All Tripos students and the majority of the BTh students
have good or very good first degrees in another subject and complete
the Cambridge programmes in two years. The removal of HEFCE funding
for these students will more than double the course fee payable
to Cambridge University, from £3,070 per head to a figure
to be decided likely to be between £6,300 and £9,000.
On the funding the different Churches are able to provide for
these courses this would reduce the cohorts from the current 60
to 20-30, which spread across the different church colleges will
produce educationally unviable groups. The effect will also be
drastically to reduce access to these academic courses, having
a further impact on the range of leadership for which the Churches
are able to train.
7. We believe there are two further impacts
consequent upon the loss of HEFCE funding for these Cambridge
courses. First, the numbers are likely to reduce to a point that
the BTh becomes unviable. The loss of this course could so reduce
the connection with the Divinity Faculty as to end it, thus terminating
a training relationship that has been vital for churches for the
past 100 years. Secondly, if the churches cannot offer this level
of academic theology programmes for those able to benefit from
them, then we anticipate a downturn (while there is currently
an upturn) in the numbers of such people offering for ordination
training.
8. The second relationship, that with Anglia
Ruskin University, is as drastically affected. The Federation
teaches a BA in Christian Theology validated by Anglia Ruskin.
This is available full-time and part-time (and so it is the course
taken across the East Anglia region) and is suited to those without
a first degree but also for substantial numbers with a first degree.
The Federation receives HEFCE money indirectly from Anglia Ruskin
according to a formula negotiated between the Federation and Anglia
Ruskin. The loss of HEFCE funding for those with first degrees
will result in a direct loss of income to the Federation of £120,000
pa as well as of the use of facilities. This will result in a
substantial reduction in teaching provision and services that
will seriously damage the breadth and quality of the course.
9. The overall impact of the changes in
funding will be to reduce the range and quality of courses which
in turn will threaten HEI partnerships and individual theological
training institution viability. This could result in the complete
collapse of residential ministry training in Cambridge, the loss
of nearly 40 theological educators not just to Cambridge but nationally.
This would come at a time when the possibility of a Muslim training
college is about to be realised, and students from the Christian
colleges and courses would be deprived of benefiting for their
future ministries from this invaluable opportunity.
FURTHER AND
SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS
AGAINST CUTTING
FUNDS TO
THEOLOGICAL TRAINING
10. The implications for theological training
of the planned funding changes do not seem to have been realised
or thought through. When we contacted HEFCE in September to see
if this impact had been considered, the HEFCE staff member wrote
back, "I'm afraid that I am ignorant about the training routes
followed by people entering the church". Similarly, following
the House of Lords debate on December 3rd, we contacted Lord Triesman
who indicated in the debate that he would follow up on the matter
of clergy training. He responded by asking us to submit information
on how the cuts would affect such training.
11. We recognise that the funding changes,
while a cut for ELQs, enable a reallocation to other areas of
higher education, and that HEIs who suffer from the cuts are likely
also to benefit from the reallocation. However this will not apply
to theological colleges and courses. We are independent, small
institutions or, in our case, a group of institutions, with a
necessarily specific and limited purpose that will not attract
reallocated funds. While those funds may benefit our partner universities
we will not be able to benefit in turn, because of the nature
of our remit.
12. Clergy and lay ministers of the main
churches have traditionally performed a public service role in
a variety of ways, both in the pastoral care of individuals regardless
of faith, and in the care of communities. In recent years this
public role has been particularly identified by the Government
as a crucial element of the development of the Third Sector. Clergy
and other faith leaders—appropriately trained—contribute
to the building of social cohesion, neighbourhood regeneration,
protection of the vulnerable and, increasingly, welfare provision.
This view of the role of faith communities, and implicitly or
explicitly their leaders, has been expressed in documents from
the former DETR, the DWP, DCLG, and the Treasury.
13. We believe it is vital that clergy and
lay ministers receive the best training possible for their public
community role and exercise it with breadth and skill in a non-sectarian
or divisive way. The HEFCE cuts could well push training back
from the publicly accredited university trained routes into narrowly
faith-based programmes. The current support through the provision
of HEFCE funds towards the training ministry, including for those
with first degrees, implies an expectation that such training
will be for the public good. It is important that that expectation
is retained, through this limited provision of public funds.
14. The Church of England, as an example,
currently pays a total of £14.5 million per annum to train
its clergy, and these funds now are provided through the giving
of congregations. The HEFCE cuts would add about £1.5 million
to that sum in increased university course and validation fees.
This is an unsustainable increase in congregational giving, already
challenged by the demands of pension and other rising costs.
RECOMMENDATION
15. We recommend that theology and theology
for ministry courses be added to those exempted from the ELQ cuts.
We believe this will involve a relatively modest cost in public
funds for a considerable return for the public and community good.
January 2008
| 
