Key Strategies for USA/Canada Region

[Mike Schutz]

Posted today on the NMI Prayer Mobilization Line:

Please pray for the five “key strategies” for the USA/Canada Region:
· Key Strategy Number 1: Intentional Leadership Development - To develop, train, and release passionate leaders with a Wesleyan-Arminian focus.
· Key Strategy Number 2: Vibrant Church Renewal - To help each local church discover new life.
· Key Strategy Number 3: Clear and Coherent Theological Identity - To facilitate communication and collaboration between the Global Ministry Center, educational regions, educational institutions, ministers, and laity through print, electronic media, civil conversation, and clear preaching.
· Key Strategy Number 4: Passionate Missional Outreach – To release and encourage our people to embrace with open arms and hearts both the needy and new people groups among us.
· Key Strategy Number 5: Multi-faceted New Church Development – To continually foster an environment and enthusiasm for starting new churches through our districts and local churches.

Which would you say is the most important? The one demanding the greatest amount of resources? The most likely to cause conflict? The one most likely to be driven by ministry fads? The one of the most importance to the work of the local church?

[Hans Deventer]

Most important #1, because we need leaders who can lead a church in #2-#5
Most demanding #4, because that requires all of the church and leads us out of our comfort zones.
Most conflicts #4, obviously.
Most faddish #2, because renewal can mean so many things and is in big danger of chasing after the latest fad.

[Ryan Scott]

I feel like "strategies" should be more specific. I suppose these are fine goals or visions, but if they're strategies they seem a bit weak.

[Billy Cox]

I feel like "strategies" should be more specific. I suppose these are fine goals or visions, but if they're strategies they seem a bit weak.

Sure, but it's a prayer request and nobody wants pray in bullet points. ;)

[David Pettigrew]

I would say #3 is the need of the hour.

[Gene Tatsch]

Until any of these are implemented in some tangible way down to/through district leadership to local leadership, they all sound good and change nothing. And it's SO spiritual to pray ... hmmm, I wonder if its dangerous?
For example, the "new" mission statement is scriptural ... but I see business as usual at the local level :smilies1390:

[Doug Kitchen]

Posted today on the NMI Prayer Mobilization Line:

Please pray for the five “key strategies” for the USA/Canada Region:
· Key Strategy Number 1: Intentional Leadership Development - To develop, train, and release passionate leaders with a Wesleyan-Arminian focus.


[middle-aged curmudgeon warning]
I don't think we need any more leadership training (we probably don't need any less either). I have not met a pastor (or even board members) that have not had plenty of training already. It's time for leaders to lead.

The more serious problem with this strategy is that it indicates that our leaders are somehow not already "released". Since this is coming from "headquarters", I see this as a statement that our leaders are trapped somewhere. This is a very top-down view. Headquarters doesn't need to "release passionate leaders". it's as if our leaders have to ask permission to lead. How about inspire and support instead of release?

[/[middle-aged curmudgeon warning]

Strategy Number 1: most likely to create new fads or revisit old ones.



· Key Strategy Number 2: Vibrant Church Renewal - To help each local church discover new life.
· Key Strategy Number 3: Clear and Coherent Theological Identity - To facilitate communication and collaboration between the Global Ministry Center, educational regions, educational institutions, ministers, and laity through print, electronic media, civil conversation, and clear preaching.
· Key Strategy Number 4: Passionate Missional Outreach – To release and encourage our people to embrace with open arms and hearts both the needy and new people groups among us.
· Key Strategy Number 5: Multi-faceted New Church Development – To continually foster an environment and enthusiasm for starting new churches through our districts and local churches.

Which would you say is the most important? The one demanding the greatest amount of resources? The most likely to cause conflict? The one most likely to be driven by ministry fads? The one of the most importance to the work of the local church?
Number 2: half our churches have less than 70 members - slow agonizing deaths of our churches are a major problem.
Number 3 is most important - and most likely to cause conflict. The clear definition of our essence will raise us well beyond our existence as a church. And defining who we are and who we are not will likely help people see new life in their churches.

Number 4: [pet peeve]Missional is spiritual/organizational jargon - should not be used outside of Lenexa[/pet peeve] There's that word "release" again. Who's keeping us from opening our arms to the needy? Nevertheless, success in (3) will lead to success in (4). If (4) comes first we will just become another charitable organization.

(5) most resources - huge financial implications unless someone comes up with a low-cost model for starting a church. strategy 2 will make this one much more likely.

Doug

[David Troxler]

Doug,
Very good analysis. Thank you.
Just not sure about the middle-aged curmudgeon perspective. We are too close in age for me to think that way!
dave t

[Susan Unger]

#1 and #3 IMHO.

#1 wouldn't have to mean training pastors to lead, but also training laypersons in the church to lead.

#4 & #5 seem to flow from #1.

[Todd Erickson]

Let me suggestion some alternative priorities:

1. Outreach with the objective of reaching people where they are in the image and manner of Christ, without the objective of bringing them back to grow our churches.

2. Discipleship whose aim is to actually produce individuals instilled in the character and manner of Christ and agape, who are both discipling and being discipled, and who are active on more than Sundays.

3. Congregations based more around incarnating Christ than on debating what it is to be Nazarene.

4. Christ informs mission, which informs eclessiology.

[Paul DeBaufer]

[middle-aged curmudgeon warning]
I don't think we need any more leadership training (we probably don't need any less either). I have not met a pastor (or even board members) that have not had plenty of training already. It's time for leaders to lead.



Doug, I have met pastors who have learned some wrong things about HOW things are done and what to focus on. Therefore I would say that there is a need for maybe not more but enhanced leadership training.

Unfortunately, many pastors mistake management with leadership. There is a real need, IMHO, for training that makes clear that there is a difference betwixt leadership and management. I've heard it said that management is to maintain the status quo and leadership goes into new ground. I also see management as controlling and subjecting of others, while leadership asks people to follow, asks for voluntary submission. I feel that this is a real need in the church today.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Posted today on the NMI Prayer Mobilization Line:

Please pray for the five “key strategies” for the USA/Canada Region:
· Key Strategy Number 1: Intentional Leadership Development - To develop, train, and release passionate leaders with a Wesleyan-Arminian focus.
· Key Strategy Number 2: Vibrant Church Renewal - To help each local church discover new life.
· Key Strategy Number 3: Clear and Coherent Theological Identity - To facilitate communication and collaboration between the Global Ministry Center, educational regions, educational institutions, ministers, and laity through print, electronic media, civil conversation, and clear preaching.
· Key Strategy Number 4: Passionate Missional Outreach – To release and encourage our people to embrace with open arms and hearts both the needy and new people groups among us.
· Key Strategy Number 5: Multi-faceted New Church Development – To continually foster an environment and enthusiasm for starting new churches through our districts and local churches.

Which would you say is the most important? The one demanding the greatest amount of resources? The most likely to cause conflict? The one most likely to be driven by ministry fads? The one of the most importance to the work of the local church?

I think #1 is the most important, as I stated in another reply I see far too much confusion of management and control for leadership, they are not the same we need to learn that IF we are to effectively take the church into the 21 century.

Personally as far as the most resources I am conflicted between #3 & #5. I feel that there has been quite a bit of Reformed theology that has been adopted by our churches and, for me, it is important to maintain our Arminian/Wesleyan heritage and our Holiness distinctive. These do need to be communicated. Our theological tradition has much to offer. But on the other hand I am with Jerry Porter in that we need new churches with individual personalities which reflect the community that they serve.

I think #3 has the potential to cause the most conflict. There has become so ingrained in our congregants ideas that have their roots in reformed/calvinist theology that to try to bring Wesleyan theology back in earnest might just meet with opposition. I have a friend who pastors a rural church that was told not to teach the Articles of Faith by his congregation. In a Nazarene church.

#2 & #5 could both be driven by fads and trends-consumerist methods.

#4 most important to local churches IMHO

Thank you for listening.

Paul

[Billy Cox]

Unfortunately, many pastors mistake management with leadership. There is a real need, IMHO, for training that makes clear that there is a difference betwixt leadership and management. I've heard it said that management is to maintain the status quo and leadership goes into new ground. I also see management as controlling and subjecting of others, while leadership asks people to follow, asks for voluntary submission. I feel that this is a real need in the church today.

I have yet to encounter someone singing the praises of leadership and poo-pooing management who did not fancy themselves as a leader. Go figure. ;)

I've been rethinking the manager vs. leader question and I increasingly find it to be a false dichotomy. There is a time and a place for both. To say otherwise requires that one have a truncated or jaundiced view of management.

I am convinced that a capable manager can be a very effective pastor. Conversely, I have observed plenty of would-be visionary leaders who are a flash in the pan who either become assimilated into the religious collective or they move on to less oppressive venues.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I have yet to encounter someone singing the praises of leadership and poo-pooing management who did not fancy themselves as a leader. Go figure. ;)

I've been rethinking the manager vs. leader question and I increasingly find it to be a false dichotomy. There is a time and a place for both. To say otherwise requires that one have a truncated or jaundiced view of management.

I am convinced that a capable manager can be a very effective pastor. Conversely, I have observed plenty of would-be visionary leaders who are a flash in the pan who either become assimilated into the religious collective or they move on to less oppressive venues.

I would certainly like to think of myself as a leader, but, alas, the ugly truth is I more oft than not fall into management.

I absolutely believe that churches need management, and not only for the business end of things. Running a successful church requires keeping track of many ministries and personalities and to do that well requires a degree of management.

Would be visionary leaders are not all leaders, though I'd think they fancy themselves such. The model I look to is Jesus. Jesus is a leader. Tiberius was a manager. Sometimes leaders manage, but how often to managers truly lead?

[Billy Cox]

· Key Strategy Number 5: Multi-faceted New Church Development – To continually foster an environment and enthusiasm for starting new churches through our districts and local churches.

I think that this one is the most contentious. The denomination needs visionary leaders who can start something from nothing while not forgetting to be a company-man when all is said and done.

[Todd Erickson]

I think that this one is the most contentious. The denomination needs visionary leaders who can start something from nothing while not forgetting to be a company-man when all is said and done.

The CotN was started at the turn of the 20th century in order to meet needs that the Methodist Church was no longer meeting.

Can we actually say that the CotN is addressing those needs now, at least in America?

Does the CotN need to be maintained in America? Are we doing it any favors by attempting to maintain it when it appears to mostly (in many areas) be growing older and passing away?

What are we trying to accomplish at this point, other than maintaining what we have?

[Oliver Phillips]

I believe Lovett Weems clarified this dilemma cogently:

"Administration is doing things right. If there is a deadline, one meets it. If there is a prescribed structure, one has it. If there are stated policies, one keeps them.

Management is doing the right things. Management includes such things as long-range planning, goal-setting, selecting priorities, time management, and budgeting.

Leadership is the development and articulation of a shared vision, motivation of those key people without whom that vision could not become a reality, and gaining the cooperation of most of the people involved.

Both administration and management are required for effective leadership. However, administration and management alone do not equal leadership. One can administer and manage without vision and values. It is impossible to lead without vision and values. Leadership is a moral act. Genuine leadership is always values-driven leadership."

[Billy Cox]

I believe Lovett Weems clarified this dilemma cogently:

"Administration is doing things right. If there is a deadline, one meets it. If there is a prescribed structure, one has it. If there are stated policies, one keeps them.

Management is doing the right things. Management includes such things as long-range planning, goal-setting, selecting priorities, time management, and budgeting.

Leadership is the development and articulation of a shared vision, motivation of those key people without whom that vision could not become a reality, and gaining the cooperation of most of the people involved.

Both administration and management are required for effective leadership. However, administration and management alone do not equal leadership. One can administer and manage without vision and values. It is impossible to lead without vision and values. Leadership is a moral act. Genuine leadership is always values-driven leadership."

I have observed that the denomination talks about leadership but rewards management. Pastors who take leadership to its logical end tend to find themselves cross-grain with the denomination.

[Susan Unger]

I have observed that the denomination talks about leadership but rewards management. Pastors who take leadership to its logical end tend to find themselves cross-grain with the denomination.

I would think though that that is a sign of a good leader - one who has the vision to keep going inspite of a cross-grain. Gotta start someplace, and a good leader will do that.

[Billy Cox]

I would think though that that is a sign of a good leader - one who has the vision to keep going inspite of a cross-grain. Gotta start someplace, and a good leader will do that.

Yes, that's what I'm getting at with the observation that the denomination rewards good managers, because true leaders won't carry water for a cause merely to keep up appearances.

[Susan Unger]

Yes, that's what I'm getting at with the observation that the denomination rewards good managers, because true leaders won't carry water for a cause merely to keep up appearances.

Sorry, I didn't catch that the first time around. :)

[Rich Schmidt]

I have observed that the denomination talks about leadership but rewards management. Pastors who take leadership to its logical end tend to find themselves cross-grain with the denomination.

Leaders (especially in strategy 5 listed above) used to get celebrated all the time in GROW magazine! :) And those who lead their churches to grow in numbers (through evangelism) tend to be elevated and celebrated as well. I think it takes excellent leadership (as well as excellent management) to grow a large church. (Wow, I'm using lots of parenthetical phrases!)

In what ways do you see the denomination "rewarding" management while not "rewarding" leadership?

[Billy Cox]

Leaders (especially in strategy 5 listed above) used to get celebrated all the time in GROW magazine! :) And those who lead their churches to grow in numbers (through evangelism) tend to be elevated and celebrated as well. I think it takes excellent leadership (as well as excellent management) to grow a large church. (Wow, I'm using lots of parenthetical phrases!)

I absolutely agree that starting something from nothing is the domain of a leader. Receiving accolades is nice, but nobody orients their entire approach to ministry in order to receive them.


In what ways do you see the denomination "rewarding" management while not "rewarding" leadership?

Pastors who maintain the status quo, who are very slow to take risks, who keep the budgets paid, who keep their church's name free of scandal, and who make reasonable attempts to grow the church and love the people are rewarded with security.

Accolades are nice at the time for the pastor individually, but they don't even hold a candle to the benefits the pastor and his family receive from a long-term relationship with a given community. This isn't to say that a leader has to be a short-termer or a 'utility player', just that the incentives are weighted toward those who are content to 'man the lighthouse' versus those who have the wanderlust to 'navigate the high seas.'

[Rich Schmidt]

Pastors who maintain the status quo, who are very slow to take risks, who keep the budgets paid, who keep their church's name free of scandal, and who make reasonable attempts to grow the church and love the people are rewarded with security.

Accolades are nice at the time for the pastor individually, but they don't even hold a candle to the benefits the pastor and his family receive from a long-term relationship with a given community. This isn't to say that a leader has to be a short-termer or a 'utility player', just that the incentives are weighted toward those who are content to 'man the lighthouse' versus those who have the wanderlust to 'navigate the high seas.'

OK. So managers are rewarded with longevity/security. I don't know that this is true uniquely of the church, though. I think that would be true of any organization.

I'm not sure about there being a correlation between leadership and wanderlust. The best leaders are willing to stick it out in a tough situation to lead a congregation to grow past their issues. Our denominational statistics on pastoral longevity seem to indicate that perhaps the incentives are weighted toward jumping ship when the waters get too rough.

Hmm... I think this means that great leaders and great managers would both be rewarded with longevity/security. Poor leaders and poor managers would find themselves hopping around.

Sorry if I've taken us off the topic of the thread...

[Doug Kitchen]

I would certainly like to think of myself as a leader, but, alas, the ugly truth is I more oft than not fall into management.

I absolutely believe that churches need management, and not only for the business end of things. Running a successful church requires keeping track of many ministries and personalities and to do that well requires a degree of management.

Would be visionary leaders are not all leaders, though I'd think they fancy themselves such. The model I look to is Jesus. Jesus is a leader. Tiberius was a manager. Sometimes leaders manage, but how often to managers truly lead?

At work we are told that everyone can be a leader. Managers, administrators and supervisors fill positions in an organization. They are promoted to be in charge of people, projects and things. Typically, managers function by review and pushing from behind. A leader leads from the front. People see the example and vision and then follow. A leader isn't given the position in the front; they take it. They take the lead not because they are on a power trip but because something needs to be done.

There is a 75 year old woman in our church who saw that I was struggling with our youth group (I was the NYI president). I play basketball with the guys but the girls typically don't have much to do with me. Well she arranged two different times to have the girls to her house to bake cookies and then for a taffy pull. They loved it. My daughter asked why this 75 year old woman couldn't be the NYI president. No one trained her to lead like that.

We have all been trained to manage and administer church functions and too often we settle for just being good managers. Leaders will always do good work and always do their job well but every once in a while a great leader will do or say something that changes the direction of an organization.

Doug

[Gene Tatsch]

I'm mystified that we speak of pastoral leadership ... and permit that person no trained/gifted managerial support (business manager, administrative assistant, etc) ...
I've always thought "the call" was to pastor (shepherd, teach) ... yet we divert that call to something totally different. Needed, but not in "the call"

[Mike Schutz]

We are currently having interesting conversations discussing these in staff meetings. A couple of points others have raised in that setting:
1. Everyone in the room (two ordained elders and three lay persons) have stated how transformative for leadership mentoring and theological education have been for them.
2. Two of the dynamics which get in the way of true renewal in the local church are individualization (no space in life for true community) and smothering institutionalism (a poor excuse for community). Renewal happens, to a large extent, in a healthy environment that fosters true Christian community.

[Mike Schutz]

Sorry - In the previous post I meant to say "individualism," rather than "individualization."

[Billy Cox]

2. Two of the dynamics which get in the way of true renewal in the local church are individualization (no space in life for true community)...

I think there is a more fundamental issue at work behind this particular dynamic. People live by a mantra that they are impossibly busy and could barely fit in even one more olbigation, but that in my opinion is a bunch of hooey. I have observed that all but the most disorganized, scattered people somehow find time to do the things that they *want* to find time for.

Community is messy and includes all kinds of risks. It takes a fair measure of faith to participate in a community, so maybe people are selfish, but the main issue is that they are afraid.

[Jim Franklin]

Pastor Mike, lately I have added to my prayer list the Minnekota, Rocky Mountain, Alaska and Canadian Districts where populations are realtively sparse and Nazarenes even more so that a great outpouring of God's Holy Spirit be experienced in these areas. I would challenge all NazNetters to join me in doing so for it gets discouraging sometimes when there aren't very many others nearby of like precious faitn. particularly, Norayr way up at his parish.