QEII, Retirement & Nazarene Leadership

[Steve Walsh]

Queen Elizabeth II, queen regnant of 16 independent states and their dependent territories, has become the oldest British monarch at the age of 81 years and 244 days.(http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=338904)

According to wikipedia, "In addition to the United Kingdom, Elizabeth II is also Queen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, and Saint Kitts and Nevis, in each of which she is represented by a Governor-General. The 16 countries of which she is Queen are known as Commonwealth Realms, and their combined population, including dependencies is over 129 million." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom)

While I support Australia becoming a republic, it is a rather remarkable achievement that she is still so active in her leadership role. "Despite her age, the Queen shows few signs of slowing down....According to AFP news agency, the Queen carried out 425 official engagements last year alone." (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071220/Queen_Elizabeth_071220/20071220?hub=World) I seriously doubt I could do 425 engagements a year.

This got me thinking about our denomination's retirement policies. We have a mandatory retirement age for our general superintendents (can't be elected if 68 or older) (Manual 305.2) and certain headquarters executives must retire at the General Board meeting after they turn 70 (Manual 335). I seem to recall that district superintendents had to retire at age 70 (but can find no reference in the current Manual).

Is it appropriate to have a mandatory retirement age? There is no such upper limit for US presidents or supreme court justices.

Should there be term limitation for General Superintendents and District superintendents? The US sets it at two 4 year terms maximum. There is no such restriction for our prime minister.

BTW, I noticed in the ninemsn article a reference to King Sobhuza II of Swaziland, a long-time friend of the Church of the Nazarene, who became king of that state in "1899, at the age of four months. He lived to see his country become independent of Britain, dying in 1982 after over 82 years as king."

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

There should be a mandatory age for presidents, supreme court justices, and those in the house and senate. I liked Reagon, but I realy believe he did not remember all of those things, that he said he did not remember. Don't ask me how I know!

[Edith K. Thurmond]

Queen Elizabeth II, queen regnant of 16 independent states and their dependent territories, has become the oldest British monarch at the age of 81 years and 244 days.(http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=338904)

According to wikipedia, "In addition to the United Kingdom, Elizabeth II is also Queen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, and Saint Kitts and Nevis, in each of which she is represented by a Governor-General. The 16 countries of which she is Queen are known as Commonwealth Realms, and their combined population, including dependencies is over 129 million." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom)

While I support Australia becoming a republic, it is a rather remarkable achievement that she is still so active in her leadership role. "Despite her age, the Queen shows few signs of slowing down....According to AFP news agency, the Queen carried out 425 official engagements last year alone." (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071220/Queen_Elizabeth_071220/20071220?hub=World) I seriously doubt I could do 425 engagements a year.

Congratulations to Her Majesty for such a long reign and the ability to carry out her duties effectively at age 81.

This got me thinking about our denomination's retirement policies. We have a mandatory retirement age for our general superintendents (can't be elected if 68 or older) (Manual 305.2) and certain headquarters executives must retire at the General Board meeting after they turn 70 (Manual 335). I seem to recall that district superintendents had to retire at age 70 (but can find no reference in the current Manual).

If that is true, how is :bishopDr. Johnson serving as a D.S. now for the SW OK District? Perhaps someone can clarify.

Is it appropriate to have a mandatory retirement age? There is no such upper limit for US presidents or supreme court justices.

Is retirement even a biblical concept? As long as one can do the job well?

Should there be term limitation for General Superintendents and District superintendents? The US sets it at two 4 year terms maximum. There is no such restriction for our prime minister.

BTW, I noticed in the ninemsn article a reference to King Sobhuza II of Swaziland, a long-time friend of the Church of the Nazarene, who became king of that state in "1899, at the age of four months. He lived to see his country become independent of Britain, dying in 1982 after over 82 years as king."

Yea and :amen


Finally, the U.S., just last week, raised the retirement age from 60 to 65 for airline pilots and it was effective immediately. They still have to pass regular proficiency tests as usual. It seems that your country has had no age limits for airline pilots as long as they pass continual proficiency tests. Good for Australia!

[Hans Deventer]

Should there be term limitation for General Superintendents and District superintendents?

Yes/no. We should set limits to those that aren't able to adapt to the changing times, and should instead allow those that can to remain on duty.

Try to legislate that :laughing

[Bob Evans]

At the best we have new sources of insight and direction which is usually good.

At worst we have the loss of experienced leadership. I am not sure we can afford to loose experience.

[Ian Gentles]

My mission insists we retire at 65, and their right as older folks cant continue to carry out an exhausting ministry! Mission feels also, that the laborer deserves respite from all their labors, and some easier time to themself. Course many still minister in their own right in filling in pulpits!
As for the Queen the lady does have a presence about her that wins over many. As to her age, I mean does anyone want Charles, poor guy, on the throne?

http://iangentles.livejournal.com

[Steve Walsh]

As for the Queen the lady does have a presence about her that wins over many. As to her age, I mean does anyone want Charles, poor guy, on the throne? http://iangentles.livejournal.com

As an avowed advocate for an Australian republic, I certainly don't want him (or anyone) on an Australian throne.

[Steve Walsh]

Yes/no. We should set limits to those that aren't able to adapt to the changing times, and should instead allow those that can to remain on duty. Try to legislate that :laughing

We do have term limitations in the sense that our church board members, pastors, district superintendents, general superintendents need to be voted upon after a certain term of office.

Interestingly, Bresee was originally elected General Superintendent for life (along with Joseph Pomeroy Widney) in 1895 when they founded Church of the Nazarene 1.0. Essentially this was similar to the bishop in the Methodist Episcopal Church.

After Widney's departure in 1898, Bresee continued as sole GS. In the 1907 version, Bresee and Reynolds were elected General Superintendents for a fixed term (one year). Both were re-elected the following year at Pilot Point, Texas, along with E.P. Ellyson, to three year terms.

Interestingly, Bresee was first elected GS at age 56 and died as GS in 1915 not long before his 77th birthday. He pastored until he was 72. Had the current rules be in effect, Bresee would have retired as GS at the 1907 General Assembly in Chicago.

Reynolds, was elected GS at the age of 52, and retired as GS at the age of 77. He was the secretary of the foreign mission department in those 25 years, was the first GS to travel internationally as GS (at age 60). Had the current rules been in operation, Reynolds would have had to retire in 1915 (at the age of 72), at a time when just weeks after the 1915 General Assembly Bresee died and the newly elected William C Wilson died. It was Reynold's experience that steered the embryonic denomination through the next few critical years.

FDR served as US President for over 12 years, and would have served 16 had he not died in April 1945.

I guess my point is that there ought not to be mandatory retirement age, but there ought to be frequent reviews and opportunities for change (eg every two years or so). As long as a person is doing a good job, they ought to be allowed to serve as long as they and the organisation chooses.

Of course, good leadership looks to train and transition the next generation of leaders. Failure to do that effectively is crippling to any organisation.

[Hans Deventer]

Steve, this looks like a Naz-Talk post! You bring back great memories!

Reynolds, was elected GS at the age of 52, and retired as GS at the age of 77. He was the secretary of the foreign mission department in those 25 years, was the first GS to travel internationally as GS (at age 60). Had the current rules been in operation, Reynolds would have had to retire in 1915 (at the age of 72), at a time when just weeks after the 1915 General Assembly Bresee died and the newly elected William C Wilson died. It was Reynold's experience that steered the embryonic denomination through the next few critical years.

Dear brother, Reynolds was born in 1854. In my calculations, his 68th birthday would have been in 1924, so he would have had to retire according to the current regulations at the GA in 1928, not in 1915.

I guess my point is that there ought not to be mandatory retirement age, but there ought to be frequent reviews and opportunities for change (eg every two years or so). As long as a person is doing a good job, they ought to be allowed to serve as long as they and the organisation chooses.

Point well taken. However, I think these rules come from situations where apparently the organisation isn't all that good in "choosing". Take the General Assembly. The incumbent generals get re-election votes in percentages that would have pleased the old Sovjet leaders. And let's face it, are the delegates able to judge if they should continue or not? My answer would be no. I don't know who could anyway.

[Jim Franklin]

Steve, I have asked Ian on this forum before about the possibility of the Queen passing the throne directly to William for he is about the age she was when her father died and would by pass Bonnie Prince Charlie.

Some of our GSs have lived long after they have served in that capacity, ie. Eugene Stowe, Don Owens, Jerry Johnson and all have served the Kingdom well in their emeritis status. The last time I saw Don Owens he looked no older than when I first met him on the BNC faculty 30 years earlier. Their wives and children have been taking very good care of them.

[Steve Walsh]

Steve, I have asked Ian on this forum before about the possibility of the Queen passing the throne directly to William for he is about the age she was when her father died and would by pass Bonnie Prince Charlie.

Some of our GSs have lived long after they have served in that capacity, ie. Eugene Stowe, Don Owens, Jerry Johnson and all have served the Kingdom well in their emeritis status. The last time I saw Don Owens he looked no older than when I first met him on the BNC faculty 30 years earlier. Their wives and children have been taking very good care of them.

The queen will never abdicate as she believes her coronation was a covenant to serve as long as she lived. Additionally, the queen respects the laws of succession. The queen is monarch because her father had the crown thrust upon him when his older brother (Edward VIII) put personal happiness above his duty to his nation. The queen believes the abdication forced her under-prepared father into an early grave.

Consequently, Charles is the next monarch (unless he dies before his mother or the monarchy is abolished), in which case it would be Andrew (not Anne the next oldest child). William can only become king if Charles becomes king first. Further, Charles (despite his personal failures) is better-prepared for the role than William. (BTW Bonnie Prince Charlie refers to the grandson of James II of England rather than to the current Prince of Wales).

You make my point for me regarding Nazarene GSes. Many are "hale and hearty" and could continue to serve beyond their enforced retirement from office. Of course they can serve the Lord and the church beyond retirement, but why arbitrarily restrict the option to retain them. In an age when people are living longer, why not benefit from their expertise should they and we desire it?

I am pleased to hear Dr Owens is well. I've always appreciated his encouragement, intellect and missiological spirit and passion. While Chairman of the Board of Asia-Pacific Nazarene Theological Seminary, I proposed that we inaugurate the Donald Owens School of World Mission at APNTS in 2004. It has since commenced and (among other things) sponsors an annual Owens Lecture. Dr Owens gave the second series of lectures in 2006. His mind is still sharp and insightful. He would still make an excellent GS.

[Ian Gentles]

Law says Charles is next, unless he abdicates that privalage!

http://iangentles.livejournal.com

[Steve Walsh]

Law says Charles is next, unless he abdicates that privalage! http://iangentles.livejournal.com

For William to become king, Charles would have to become king (even long enough to abdicate). Charles has waited too long to ever abdicate when his chance comes.

[Edith K. Thurmond]

The queen will never abdicate as she believes her coronation was a covenant to serve as long as she lived. Additionally, the queen respects the laws of succession.....



Well said, Steve. For those interested, here is her Coronation Ceremony and special attention to the Oath section is interesting. The entire service is very informative and does show that it is a covenant with her, her realm, and God.
http://www.oremus.org/liturgy/coronation/cor1953b.html

Blessings and thanks,

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

How do we know if the Generals can compete with the changing times?
I feel certain that they can, if they want to. Maybe these things are not as important as some of the younger people think they are. Maybe, our leaders pray over and discuss things, and follow he Lord's leadings, in their decisions.

[Steve Walsh]

Steve, this looks like a Naz-Talk post! You bring back great memories! .

Thanks for remembering. I guess we all have our pet subjects and hobby horses. I'm a student of the general superintendency (and US presidencies).


Dear brother, Reynolds was born in 1854. In my calculations, his 68th birthday would have been in 1924, so he would have had to retire according to the current regulations at the GA in 1928, not in 1915.

Hans, Reynolds was born in 1854. I knew that part. My problem was getting the simple arithmetic wrong in my head before posting. Reynolds would have turned 68 in 1922, so would have had to retire in the 1923 General Assembly (a very significant event that saw the consolidation of many general boards that worked autononmously and in competition for funds into the one General Board and the one General Budget).

Point well taken. However, I think these rules come from situations where apparently the organisation isn't all that good in "choosing". Take the General Assembly. The incumbent generals get re-election votes in percentages that would have pleased the old Sovjet leaders. And let's face it, are the delegates able to judge if they should continue or not? My answer would be no. I don't know who could anyway.

Of course, the delegates did not re-elect Orval J Nease in 1944 originally because he treated the moral failure of his own ministerial son as a family matter rather than a matter of church discipline, but primarily because he refused to accept the collective judgement of his superintendent colleagues who had unanimously asked him to resign and he had refused. Until then there was no mechanism to impeach a GS. The existing GSes refused to accept election if Nease was re-elected in 1944 and he stood down after the first ballot in which he failed to receive even 50% support. His resignation speech in which he indicated that he needed the church more than it needed him probably became the springboard for his successful re-election in 1948.

I say all of this to say, while not used frequently, there is an effective mechanism to remove GSes who have past their use by date:
1. "The office of any general superintendent may be declared vacant, for cause, by the unanimous vote of the remaining members of the Board of General Superintendents, supported by a majority vote of all the district superintendents of Phase 3 and Phase 2 districts." (Manual 307.13)
2. Action of the General Assembly.
3. Action of the incumbent. In 1911 Ellyson refused re-election after only one three-year term (primarily for financial reasons). GSes can resign or even retire before the compulsory age.

Perhaps there ought to be a performance evaluation every year or two years by a committee of the General Board, and a recommendation to re-elect (or not) prior to General Assembly.(BTW I beklieve we ought to do the same for DSes - it brings it into line with what we do for pastors).

The difficulty is that there are those we may perceive as conservative (reactionary) while our own proclivities may be to support those who are progressive (liberal). By having an increasingly diverse group of leaders who need to act in concert it probably makes for a stable group, but not necessarily a group that can respond and react flexibly and rapidly.

I agree with your analysis elsewhere that because of the changing demography of the church (rapid growth in Africa and South America), like the Anglicans globally, we will see increasingly conservative delegates and increasingly conservative leadership elected. This will be good for those who believe there is little wrong with our church - not so good for those who advocate changes in structures, policies and strategies.

[Roland Hearn]

And of course the other point is most of these guys are fairly able to assess what is good and what isn't. The job must be enormously tiring. I can't imagine someone in their late 70's holding on to the job out of ego needs, although it could happen. I think there would be a very natural (mortal) process that would deal with most of the problems that may arise. I'm with you on this Steve, I think we have way too many rules and systems to govern against potential problems when we should see the problems as the exception and handle them as they arise.

And while we are at it, why don't we have 8 or 10 GS? The church has grown extensively in comparison to the growth that seemed to dictate the need to go from 4-6.

[Steve Walsh]

And of course the other point is most of these guys are fairly able to assess what is good and what isn't. The job must be enormously tiring. I can't imagine someone in their late 70's holding on to the job out of ego needs, although it could happen. I think there would be a very natural (mortal) process that would deal with most of the problems that may arise. I'm with you on this Steve, I think we have way too many rules and systems to govern against potential problems when we should see the problems as the exception and handle them as they arise.

And while we are at it, why don't we have 8 or 10 GS? The church has grown extensively in comparison to the growth that seemed to dictate the need to go from 4-6.

Conversely, I don't think there ought to be a minimum age either. RT Williams was 32 when chosen (3 years short of current policies).

There were 3 GSes when there was only 10,000 members; 4 when there were fewer than 100,000 members; 5 with less than 250,000; 6 with less than 500,000. With the multiplication of districts globally (over 450), there is a compelling reason to have more GSes to share the work load.

I think that each region should elect their own General Superintendent. We have 6 GSes now plus 6 Regional Director. Almost immediately that would result in a change in both the composition and complexion of the BGS. While each region would elect their own GS, the GSes would have authority in their own area but also collectively and globally. A region could elect someone from outside of their region. GSEs could still do assemblies in other regions. In practical terms each GS has jurisdictional responsibilities for one non-North American region, various HQ departments, various colleges and universities and other entities.

The forum for election would be through regional assemblies held quadrennially two years before and after general assembly. Regional assemblies would also elect regional delegates to the General Assembly, deal with resolutions for their own region, and submit memorials to the General Assembly.

[Roland Hearn]

That is a pretty good suggestion. I'm not sure I want to completely remove the election process from the GA as it currently is. I wonder if there might be a median position between what is and what you are proposing. I've just got some hesitancy about the idea of too much regionalisation.

[Steve Walsh]

The GA could be a ratifying body in the same way that regional caucuses at GA elect their General Board members and then the GA confirms thaeir decision.

The danger of regionalisation is fragmentation. I don't want our denomination to be a federation of national or regional churches. I prefer the one organic body model but with increased flexibility at the regional, district and local levels.

There needs to be agreed beliefs and values but freedom at how they are implemented to contextualise to local situations. NYI is further advanced in this regard than the rest of the denomination with their ministry charter which grants much more autonomy to entities at each level to structure how they see best.

[Hans Deventer]

The GA could be a ratifying body in the same way that regional caucuses at GA elect their General Board members and then the GA confirms their decision.

The danger of regionalisation is fragmentation. I don't want our denomination to be a federation of national or regional churches. I prefer the one organic body model but with increased flexibility at the regional, district and local levels.

There needs to be agreed beliefs and values but freedom at how they are implemented to contextualise to local situations. NYI is further advanced in this regard than the rest of the denomination with their ministry charter which grants much more autonomy to entities at each level to structure how they see best.

Steve, like you describe it, we don't need a GA. I think the General Board can do it.

[Steve Walsh]

Steve, like you describe it, we don't need a GA. I think the General Board can do it.

I am not convinced yet of the need to abolish the GA. There are both utilitarian and symbolic reasons for maintaining a GA but at a more workable size.

The reasons are that it provides a global gathering for the Nazarene family, provides a better forum for action than the GB, and is a more open and transparent group than the GB.

My model would see a much smaller GA. More than 1,000 delegates is impractical with GA committees too large to work well. A smaller GA would allow better economies of scale and allow better funding for less affluent areas of the world.

I would recommend say 1 lay and 1 ordained delegate for each 10,000 members in the church. If we have 1.6 million members we would have 320 elected members representing the church's regions. Each region would have proportional representation. Canada (at just over 13,000 members) is the smallest region and would have 2 delegates. Africa with 380,000 members would have 76. The USA would have 128 delegates for its 640,00 members. Perhaps Districts with 10,000 members would have an automatic quota in their regional allocation. Conceivably, local churches with 10,000 members would have delegates as part of the regional quota.

There would be a certain minimum number of ex officio delegates - the GS of each region (elected by the region), the heads of NYI, NMI & SSM (elected heads not exec heads), the heads of Nazarene colleges and universities (but as part of their regional total).

I am open to increasing the number and redefining the boundaries of regions. For historic (and practical reasons) we would retain the existing 8 US and possibly the 1 Canadian region. A possible re-configuration might be:
USA - 640,000 members - 8 regions
Canada - 13,000 members - 1 region*
Africa - 360,000 members - 4 regions (could be divided by language eg English, Francophone & Lusophone or better georgraphically - Supra Sahara, Sub Sahara, Central and Southern). The Lusophone field has 100,000 members and ought to have regional status.
Asia-Pacific -100,000 members - 1 region
Caribbean - 140,000 members - 2 regions (The French speaking field has over 100.000 members and could be a region. Haiti is the bulk of this with over 90,000 members in 11 districts)
Eurasia - 92,000 members - 1 region
Mexico & Central America - 140,000 members - 2 regions. 80,000 members are in the existing Central field (comprising the nations of Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras). It could be a new region.
South America Regions - 175,000 members - 2 regions. Brazil has 80,000 members so could be the core of a new region.

This gives a total of 21 regions.

*The most problematic is Canada with only 10,000 members. The average for the US regions is 80,000. Rationally, Canada's 5 districts ought to be aggregated into US regions. Emotionally, it would be difficult for Canadians to accept.

There may be better ways to divide the world for geographic reasons. The number of members in the Indian sub-continent would give good reason to consider them for regional status, so there would be benefit in taking these from Eurasia region and creating a new region with the other sub-comntinent nations.

20 regions would be good. 20 Regionally-elected and based general superintendents would comprise the BGS. They would be amenable to a General Board of say 1 elder and 1 lay person from each of the 20 regions plus NYI, NMI and SSM and IBOE head - making a total of 44 members. The GSes would not be on the Gen Board, but accountable to it.

[Hans Deventer]

I am not convinced yet of the need to abolish the GA. There are both utilitarian and symbolic reasons for maintaining a GA but at a more workable size.

The reasons are that it provides a global gathering for the Nazarene family, provides a better forum for action than the GB, and is a more open and transparent group than the GB.

My take is that they don't dare to make decisions that are important, and do dare to make too many ruled by fear decisions we don't need, thus making themselves superfluous. Symbolism becomes very expensive that way.

I'm not so sure about the global gathering of the Nazarene family either. Last GA and Conventions only showed it's getting harder and harder to create a global gathering at all. We missed way too many delegates.

It's a nice idea, but there were only very few who could attend from the global family. Of 40.000 people sitting in the Dome on a Sunday morning, how many from outside the USA you think there are? Less than 10% would be my guess.

I'm sorry Steve, after 3 GA's, I see very little use of the way our money is spent on a GA. Not so sure we need regional assemblies either. Our region extends from Ireland to India. What do we have in common we would need to talk about?

Have regional conferences, they seem to work.

[Dave McClung]

Yes/no. We should set limits to those that aren't able to adapt to the changing times, and should instead allow those that can to remain on duty.

Try to legislate that :laughing

How about this approach. District Superintendents and General Superintendents would have no maximum age limits, but they would be required to return to the pastorate for four years after each eight years as a superintendent.

I don't think the problem with long tenures comes from chronological age, It comes from being out of the "trenches" for too long.

[Hans Deventer]

How about this approach. District Superintendents and General Superintendents would have no maximum age limits, but they would be required to return to the pastorate for four years after each eight years as a superintendent.

Excluding bivocational superintendents, I would agree with your suggestion.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

I know that my opinion is not important, at all, in this discussion. I think we should continue having a GA. And, I don't want a General board making decisions for us.
If I could make a decision, I would come nearer setting an age at which, one could be elected as a General. I would probably want it to be fifty. It takes years of maturity in the Lord, for one to even begin to be in a position, such as that. And, I know all of the things that could be said about ages of world leaders. Leave the age of retirement the same, as it is. Through experience, and too many knocks on my head, I know what the mind and body of many 68 year old people is like.
On the other hand, I don't know of any dangerous rules that we have, in the COTN. To me, this part adds up to being the "pet peeves" some want to hold on to.
None of you have to feel obligated to respond. But, also remember, that the older members have helped hold the church together for MANY years. Otherwise, in my opinion, we would need to discard our Cardinal belief, and just let everyone do as they please, and call themselves holy.
Personally, in the more recent years, we have not had what some think of as "old fogey, fanatical" leaders leading the COTN.
Mother always told me to not let the blood stained banner of Jesus drag in the dust. In other words, hold high His banner, and live and proclaim holiness unto the Lord.
NO, I am not mad. I remember when the Holy spirit came and filled my heart with His perfect love. I have never known what is spoken of as "out broken sin" as some have, so I feel the many things that has been allowed to touch me me physically, emotionally, etc. have been His way, of showing me what He has done for me.

[Bruce Carriker]

Yes/no. We should set limits to those that aren't able to adapt to the changing times, and should instead allow those that can to remain on duty.

Try to legislate that :laughing

We do regulate that, Hans. It's called ELECTIONS. Unfortunately, the regulators AKA voters are generally too ill-informed to know who needs to be retired.:laughing:laughing:laughing:laughing

[Bruce Carriker]

How about this approach. District Superintendents and General Superintendents would have no maximum age limits, but they would be required to return to the pastorate for four years after each eight years as a superintendent.

I have long felt this should be required for ALL ordained elders serving in denominational leadership and administratitve positions, NHQ, NPH, and educational institutions. I would think a 2-year return to pastoral ministry would probably suffice, but the principle remains the same, and I fully agree.

I don't think it was coincidence that the NTS profs I thought did their jobs best were those who were preaching every Sunday in a local church. Academia can be isolating from the real world.

[Hans Deventer]

I know that my opinion is not important, at all, in this discussion. I think we should continue having a GA. And, I don't want a General board making decisions for us.

Well, if you provide any reason for your opinion, it just might count after all. I haven't found it in this post, however.

[Ian Gentles]

I agree with Hans about the global family angle of the GA's. OK would be difficult to have one outside USA but GA's are still seen by many as an American thing and not a global church thing.

http://iangentles.livejournal.com