GA Resolution - turn around CotN structure

[David Pettigrew]

In answer to John Kennedy's question -

Methodist DSs must return to the pastorate (or retire) after six years.

If the Church of the Nazarene were a healthy denomination, then the DS could take on more of the role of shepherd/mentor/pastor. I think that we are in general agreement that we are unhealthy, or else this thread would not exist. You don't fix what ain't broke.

In an unhealthy local church, a pastor cannot pastor. You don't have the emotional energy to shepherd when you're constantly dealing with the latest crisis. Multiply that by 50, and you have yourself a DS. Go to yours and ask if he or she will show you their complaint letter file.

I think Eric and Charles are talking about the ideal. I think everyone else is talking about reality. I think Scott is right in that, hopefully, it will be a moot point after 2009.

[Dave McClung]

...If the Church of the Nazarene were a healthy denomination, then the DS could take on more of the role of shepherd/mentor/pastor. I think that we are in general agreement that we are unhealthy, or else this thread would not exist. You don't fix what ain't broke.



I am not sure that I would make the same argument -- because this thread exists the basic assumption of the thread must be true.

I guess the questionable word in your statement is "we." A lot of us agree that the Church of the Nazarene in the U.S. is unhealthy, but I am not prepared to say that "we" are in agreement.

Based on what I heard in the meetings in Kansas City, last week there are some significant groups that don't agree:

1. The Board of General Superintendents have not said anything publicly that indicates that they are in agreement.

2. While some of the leaders who work in Nazarene Headquarters have agreed in private, none of them have publicly agreed.

3. A few district superintendents have indicated in private that they agree, but not one has publicly agreed.

Obviously, the discussion isn't over. It is a mistake to conclude that because this thread exists, "we" are in agreement. At this point the conversation is one sided. Those of us who favor change have been quite vocal. Those who are actually in a position to bring about change have not yet weighed in.

[David Pettigrew]

I am not sure that I would make the same argument -- because this thread exists the basic assumption of the thread must be true.

I guess the questionable word in your statement is "we." A lot of us agree that the Church of the Nazarene in the U.S. is unhealthy, but I am not prepared to say that "we" are in agreement.

Based on what I heard in the meetings in Kansas City, last week there are some significant groups that don't agree:

1. The Board of General Superintendents have not said anything publicly that indicates that they are in agreement.

2. While some of the leaders who work in Nazarene Headquarters have agreed in private, none of them have publicly agreed.

3. A few district superintendents have indicated in private that they agree, but not one has publicly agreed.

Obviously, the discussion isn't over. It is a mistake to conclude that because this thread exists, "we" are in agreement. At this point the conversation is one sided. Those of us who favor change have been quite vocal. Those who are actually in a position to bring about change have not yet weighed in.

Understood, and not at all surprising. Perhaps "we" could best be defined as the participants of this thread. I've heard very little from the side of "everything is great the way it is" in this discussion.

Despite what many pastors say in their oral reports during district assembly, numbers do not lie. Numbers are not our goal, but they are our gauge. The Church of the Nazarene in the western world is not healthy.

[Dave McClung]

Understood, and not at all surprising. Perhaps "we" could best be defined as the participants of this thread. I've heard very little from the side of "everything is great the way it is" in this discussion.

Despite what many pastors say in their oral reports during district assembly, numbers do not lie. Numbers are not our goal, but they are our gauge. The Church of the Nazarene in the western world is not healthy.

The argument that is being made goes like this: Because of changing patterns of church attendance, the traditional ways of measuring the impact of a local church on its community don't accurately reflect the true picture. Even the most faithful members of a local congregation may miss close to 50% of services, so the "average Sunday morning worship attendance" may not accurately reflect a church's impact.

Here is a link to "Why Easter Counts"
http://www.ucmeblog.org/

[David Pettigrew]

The argument that is being made goes like this: Because of changing patterns of church attendance, the traditional ways of measuring the impact of a local church on its community don't accurately reflect the true picture. Even the most faithful members of a local congregation may miss close to 50% of services, so the "average Sunday morning worship attendance" may not accurately reflect a church's impact.

Here is a link to "Why Easter Counts"
http://www.ucmeblog.org/



I myself have made the argument in the past that there's not much point in reporting average attendance figures. However, I think we are wearing rose colored glasses if we think changing how we report gives a more optimistic picture of how healthy we are.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I recommend every church take the NCD survey. It gives a comprehensive, objective "score" to what kind of impact a church is having.

[Pete Vecchi]

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I recommend every church take the NCD survey. It gives a comprehensive, objective "score" to what kind of impact a church is having.

Let that broken recod play one more time...

What exactly is "the NCD survey" and how can people take these surveys?

[David Pettigrew]

NCD stand for Natural Church Development. (http://www.ncd-international.org/public/) You may be able to order their survey through your district office. You may be familiar Lonnie Bullock and New Church Specialties (http://www.newchurchspecialties.org/), used exclusively by the Church of the Nazarene in its Newstart/Restart/Refocus division. They use the survey in helping "Refocus" churches in determining their most critically unhealthy areas.

[Billy Cox]

The argument that is being made goes like this: Because of changing patterns of church attendance, the traditional ways of measuring the impact of a local church on its community don't accurately reflect the true picture. Even the most faithful members of a local congregation may miss close to 50% of services, so the "average Sunday morning worship attendance" may not accurately reflect a church's impact.

Here is a link to "Why Easter Counts"
http://www.ucmeblog.org/



My initial reaction to this line of reasoning is exasperation. A group of people don't like what the numbers are saying, so they cast doubt on the validity of the numbers.

So the 'most loyal attenders' are missing up to 26 Sundays per year (!!) Is that a big problem? Naaaah. We just need to find a different metric. What the...??

I'm really struggling to not be cynical here.

[Gary Swartzlander]

My initial reaction to this line of reasoning is exasperation. A group of people don't like what the numbers are saying, so they cast doubt on the validity of the numbers.

So the 'most loyal attenders' are missing up to 26 Sundays per year (!!) Is that a big problem? Naaaah. We just need to find a different metric. What the...??

I'm really struggling to not be cynical here.

I'm with you on this one Billy. The reasons the "most loyal attenders" are missing up to 26 Sundays per year, is that there isn't a compeling reason for them to be in their church on Sunday. It takes a lot of work, a lot of planning and a ton of vision to be a growing church, but if you work hard to incorporate those things that involve people in ministry in the church and in the community they will come. I promise you.

[Ryan Scott]

I think the idea was that there are, in many congregations, a lot of people who are impacted by ministries for which no numbers are kept. They may only be in Sunday worship half the year, but involved in congregational life on a regular basis.

[Billy Cox]

I'm with you on this one Billy. The reasons the "most loyal attenders" are missing up to 26 Sundays per year, is that there isn't a compeling reason for them to be in their church on Sunday. It takes a lot of work, a lot of planning and a ton of vision to be a growing church, but if you work hard to incorporate those things that involve people in ministry in the church and in the community they will come. I promise you.

I'm sure that the people at Bethany 1st Church spend the other 26 Sundays of the year feeding the hungry, visiting those in prison and clothing the naked in deprived places like Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and Minnesota.

I wonder how a big church knows whether its 2,000 plus attenders are at church on Sunday or if they stayed home for the Spongebob marathon. RFID? Barcodes?

[Gary Swartzlander]

I think the idea was that there are, in many congregations, a lot of people who are impacted by ministries for which no numbers are kept. They may only be in Sunday worship half the year, but involved in congregational life on a regular basis.

I think you are correct, but also think that there in lies the a question. In most any organization there are 2 levels of participants, those who have totally bought into the program and those who are served by the program. Most organizations wouldn't survive or be viable if it wasn't for their community service activities.

Is our purpose as the church to impact people by ministry or to impact them and then bring them along side of us as we minister to others? If our mission is only to minister to those in need, then our numbers won't show growth, but if we are doing our ministries and bringing those we reach into the church to partner with us as we minister to others, then the numbers should show increase.

If as the church we invest in people and invite and provide for them to become fully devoted followers of Christ then (at least to me) won't they want to join the fellowship and become regular attenders.

Am I confused?

[Gary Swartzlander]

I wonder how a big church knows whether its 2,000 plus attenders are at church on Sunday or if they stayed home for the Spongebob marathon. RFID? Barcodes?

Seems to me that if you are averaging 2000 attenders in church, then it's likely most didn't stay home? It also seems that those 2000 are being fed something that makes it worth their time to be there.

[Eric Frey]

I think the idea was that there are, in many congregations, a lot of people who are impacted by ministries for which no numbers are kept. They may only be in Sunday worship half the year, but involved in congregational life on a regular basis.

And yet... what defines the church is its worship. There are plenty of parachurch and evangelistic groups out there that specialize in discipleship and outreach, but the church is the church because it worships together. One who is a part of the church is one who worships with the church. When worship stops being the focal point of congregational life, then the church stops being the church and becomes one of the many parachurches out there.

Now I agree that numbers do not tell the whole story, but I think they are helpful indicators. If our church has 200 members and we only average 100 in worship, there is a problem whether the other 100 are doing midweek ministry or not.

[David Pettigrew]

Seems to me that if you are averaging 2000 attenders in church, then it's likely most didn't stay home? It also seems that those 2000 are being fed something that makes it worth their time to be there.

Understand what you are saying, Gary, but not sure it applies to some of our "flagship" churches (BFC, Olathe College, Nashville First.) If you have a Nazarene college next door, with hundreds of employees and thousands of students, it creates a built-in consumer base not present in most areas.

[Gary Swartzlander]

Understand what you are saying, Gary, but not sure it applies to some of our "flagship" churches (BFC, Olathe College, Nashville First.) If you have a Nazarene college next door, with hundreds of employees and thousands of students, it creates a built-in consumer base not present in most areas.

I agree David. We don't have a Nazarene College, or headquarters here in Jackson, Michigan, but can still run 1100 and don't believe we're even close to reaching all that need to be reached.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

And yet... what defines the church is its worship. There are plenty of parachurch and evangelistic groups out there that specialize in discipleship and outreach, but the church is the church because it worships together. One who is a part of the church is one who worships with the church. When worship stops being the focal point of congregational life, then the church stops being the church and becomes one of the many parachurches out there.

The Church is the Church when she reflects Christ and acts as his Body, who glorifies God. While this is highlighted in the sacraments and worship, it is hardly limited to worship or even centered in worship, and certainly not in what we see in the worship gatherings of today's local churches.

This is the very reason that I believe that while worship attendance numbers give a corner of the picture, they are hardly measurement of whether or not a local church is being the Church.

[Dale Cozby]

Brother McClung,

I haven't read all 245 posts in this thread, read about half of them though.

I am wondering if we did do a major overhaul of the system:

What would become of district held properties? Would they all be turned over in total to the regional office?
Who would then liquidate anything overly duplicated or burdensome.

Concerning your cluster idea:
Instead of clusters of like minded churches, would it not be a better idea to group churches more as mother and daughter churches? (Don't ask me why we use the female gender to describe a church) If you have 12 churches with little resource and few people they can't help each other that much ( due to various reasons)

Perhaps the largest church in a given area would serve as the mother church and the smaller ones as the daughters. Maybe no more than 12 daughters to a mother, Then as these clusters give birth to new churches they could be mothered by one of the daughter churches which most helped bring it to existence. Until a time when that daughter is mothering a small group of churches itself and is promoted by the region to "mother" and is then head of its own group of daughters churches.

I don't know just thinking out loud here but if we model the local organization after a body and the next level after the family and regions after the 12 tribes of Israel or in our case 13 regions and the denomination with a Patriarchal(GS) Father Abraham.

I have other thoughts but 1 per post is enough....I think.

[Eric Frey]

The Church is the Church when she reflects Christ and acts as his Body, who glorifies God.

Which is most cleary seen and most purely done in the celebration of Word and Table.

While this is highlighted in the sacraments and worship, it is hardly limited to worship or even centered in worship,

This is precisely why I have argued that at the root of this whole discussion is our lack of ecclesiology. Whether regarding worship, or structure, or the role of a DS, or any of the other changes proposed - the real issue we have to start with is what is the church. Until we answer that question we can go nowhere in these discussions.

and certainly not in what we see in the worship gatherings of today's local churches.

With this I agree 100%

[Ryan Scott]

And yet... what defines the church is its worship. There are plenty of parachurch and evangelistic groups out there that specialize in discipleship and outreach, but the church is the church because it worships together. One who is a part of the church is one who worships with the church. When worship stops being the focal point of congregational life, then the church stops being the church and becomes one of the many parachurches out there.

Now I agree that numbers do not tell the whole story, but I think they are helpful indicators. If our church has 200 members and we only average 100 in worship, there is a problem whether the other 100 are doing midweek ministry or not.

I would hope that a very small percentage of a Christian's worship is done in a service setting on a Sunday morning. Perhaps the hint is that Sunday Morning Corporate Worship may not be the most important thing a congregation can do, or the most important thing to track.

[Dave McClung]

I would hope that a very small percentage of a Christian's worship is done in a service setting on a Sunday morning. Perhaps the hint is that Sunday Morning Corporate Worship may not be the most important thing a congregation can do, or the most important thing to track.

What then? Collective Worship is the heart of most churches.

[Ryan Scott]

What then? Collective Worship is the heart of most churches.



I think corporate worship is the heart of most congregations, but a lot of times their ministry stops there. If a congregations is making a positive impact on their community which doesn't translate into Sunday attendance; there should be another way to track that.

I was just offering it as a possibility of why some of these pastors were advocating a different way to measure involvement.

[William Hunter]

Eric, you need to go to our denominational website and follow the links and read the current report of the Board of Gen. Supts given by Dr. Warrick. Your view of what the essense of the the church is, is way too narrow. This report would help you see the broader picture of what the COTN is. Worship is not the main focus, but a part of a larger picture. Yes, an important part, but a part, not the whole.

Addtionally, as I read this report I think I see in it the realization that there needs to be substantive structure change in the church, especially in the USA and Canada. What I see being stated here in part, is a statement of our necessary essentials based on our history; these essentials serving as fixed points in change so that retain our message and focus, and yet find more productive ways of connecting that message and the Christ it represents, with people who need to connect with Christ. Part of finding more effective ways of "doing church" is refining structure so that structure is not a weight what drags the mission to a slow movement at best, but one that frees the front line of the church and its resources for maximum mission fulfullment. I hope our leaders have the courage and wisdom to lead the church in such profound change while keeping our essentials fixed so that we do not just go spinning off somewhere and lose our God-given message.
The whole thread shows that we re in need of profound sturctural change so that so much money is not drained out of the local church just to support a structure and really does not help us get maximum use out of the resources given and provided by our people. I can tell you that my lay people are not the only laypeople who want some significant change here. Most of my leadership question the current district structure and see it as a neg. drain on resources.
And it seems our colleges get the last of budget money, if there is any money left to give toward budgets. I believe in the clear call for sound institutions of training for our young people. It seems to be if we properly change the currect structure, the local church would have more resources for its absolutely essential existance and outreach, that we would have more money for world outreach, and for stronger giving to our colleges and seminary. I see our current structure hindering the supporting of these three vital essentials in a holiness denomination. It seems we have become top heavy in structure that results in a drain of limited resources to areas that do not help us with the mission of our great church.
Also, there needs to be a more effective way for us pastors to gain the spiritual support we need. I believe the cluster groupings may be the most effective way to do this based on the experience we had here on my own district. I also see that there needs to be a "job description" of the pastor that does not make an administrator out of him, but keeps him focused on personal, life-transforming encounters with God, and focused on Acts 6:4 and Eph. 4:11-16. Our current "job description" helps keep the church clergy-driven, rather than lay-driven as it should be based on the Eph. passage.

Anyway, Eric, read the General's report and see if your concept of the essential of the church is not broadened a bit.




And yet... what defines the church is its worship. There are plenty of parachurch and evangelistic groups out there that specialize in discipleship and outreach, but the church is the church because it worships together. One who is a part of the church is one who worships with the church. When worship stops being the focal point of congregational life, then the church stops being the church and becomes one of the many parachurches out there.

Now I agree that numbers do not tell the whole story, but I think they are helpful indicators. If our church has 200 members and we only average 100 in worship, there is a problem whether the other 100 are doing midweek ministry or not.

[Dave McClung]

I
I was just offering it as a possibility of why some of these pastors were advocating a different way to measure involvement.

Could it also be that some pastors don't want accountability? I have heard many pastors say over the years that counting attendance doesn't measure the success of a church, but I have not yet heard anyone suggest a better way.

One church on my district has chozen to measure their success by small group involvement. They keep track of how many people spend at least one hour in a church sponsored small group activity. It seems to be working well and their numbers are soaring as they get people involved. (Incidentally, their worship service attendance is soaring too.) I don't have a problem with churches that select a goal other than Sunday Morning Worship Attendance to measure their success, but I do have a problem with pastors and churches that don't have any goals and don't want to be accountable.

I reject goals that can't be objectively measured. Over the years I have heard thousands of pastors report to the district assembly, "Our numbers are down, but the Lord is blessing us in wonderful ways." After a few years of that kind of report, the church closes.

I encourage you and other young pastors to learn to accept accountability. Set some measurable goals that include numbers and time tables. It is an essential part of vision casting.

[David Showalter]

Obviously, the discussion isn't over. It is a mistake to conclude that because this thread exists, "we" are in agreement. At this point the conversation is one sided. Those of us who favor change have been quite vocal. Those who are actually in a position to bring about change have not yet weighed in.

Dave McClung

How sad:basic04

[Ryan Scott]

I encourage you and other young pastors to learn to accept accountability. Set some measurable goals that include numbers and time tables. It is an essential part of vision casting.


I agree that accountability is very important, but I'm not sure objective accountability is the proper way to go about things in the Church. I can point to a number of congregations that are growing, but I wouldn't call healthy or successful. They grow because they attract people from other congregations and fail to challenge people in real spiritual growth.

By our current system, those congregations look just as healthy as those growing in attendance from a very real impact in their community.

I think it would be better to have a system of subjective accountability. A system where pastors and/or other leaders come into the community and assess their strengths and weaknesses. Of course this takes more time and effort on everyone's part, but shouldn't this be one area where we are willing to commit more time and effort?

I just can't equate success with numerical growth. Numerical growth does, sometimes, come with a successful community of faith, but I don't think its an absolute indicator. This is one issue that I think should be addressed in any new reorganization system. Numerical growth (whether healthy or not) helps the denomination, it increases giving and budgets and influence and reach. I'm not saying the denomination shouldn't encourage this approach, but I don't think the denomination can maintain integrity and say that growing one's numbers is the only measure of success.

This is one of the issues that really make me doubt my ability to work in a traditional setting in the Church of the Nazarene. I'm not giving up hope, but things like GROW Magazine really discourage me sometimes.

[Mike Schutz]

I reject goals that can't be objectively measured. Over the years I have heard thousands of pastors report to the district assembly, "Our numbers are down, but the Lord is blessing us in wonderful ways."


I think what some pastors are saying (or thinking) is one or more of the following:

*"We don't mind accountability, but hold us accountable for the things we can control."
*"We see miracles all around us. If we don't focus on those, and instead focus on the numbers, we will be like Charles Spurgeon, who was so depressed that he couldn't get out of bed to preach."
*"You want numbers, okay fine, numbers it is. We will preach easy beliefism (see Joel Osteen) or feed into prejudices and hate (see any picture of the Reichstag around 1939). No, instead we will preach a Gospel that says, 'Come, suffer and die.' It is true, it is real, it is life-changing, but it is also not very attractive."
*"Come to my church for a few months, and see if you can get the turnip to bleed. Maybe there are a few pastors who could turn this situation around faster than we are, but not many. We are doing the best we can. But the district and Kansas City are more concerned about us paying for their pet programs than for this church to truly be what it can be. The numbers are about showing us where we are failing, but no one is helping us to succeed."

I am not suggesting that any of these are reasonable, or rational, but they reflect the emotional situation in the hearts of pastors.

I simply do not find the biblical justification for attendance and budget payments as the appropriate measure of congregational health and significance. Take a moment to chart the popularity of Jesus from the beginning of his ministry to Calvary, based upon the number of folks who showed up.

Our church is growing, and is getting healthy. But I know of several churches that are so unhealthy that they have chased out or burned out several pastors. And our institutional response is to throw in a new victim, oops, I mean pastor, without addressing the systemic issues. And DSs are at a great disadvantage in addressing those issues.

Sorry, but I see think trying to measure the health of a church through attendance and finance is like measuring the health of a marriage by looking at the bank account and whether the family eats supper together. It is important information, but not the most important information, and far from the whole picture.

[Hans Deventer]

Sorry, but I see think trying to measure the health of a church through attendance and finance is like measuring the health of a marriage by looking at the bank account and whether the family eats supper together. It is important information, but not the most important information, and far from the whole picture.

OK, but then we should start to work on a check list for "church health". Our own district's goal is to establish "healthy churches". So what actually is a "healthy church"? You wrote you knew several unhealthy ones and we'd probably agree pretty soon on that designation. But what then is a healthy church? And if it isn't solely in the numbers (with which I agree), then what other factors can be mentioned to define a healthy church?

Let me give it a try. I think a healthy church is:

1. A place where people find the Lord and find healing
2. A valuable asset to the surrounding community.

Now somehow, even these two items can be described. One can say to what extent #1 is reality, and one could ask the neighbourhood for a figure on #2.

Just some thoughts.

[Dave McClung]

. It is important information, but not the most important information, and far from the whole picture.

Once again I ask, if numbers are not the most important information for purposes of accountability, what is? I have no objection to using something else for accountability, but no one has yet suggested a better basis.

I don't differ with the opinion that there are some churches that can appear healthy for a while when they aren't, but I don't accept the argument that a healthy church can experience long term decline in numbers. It doesn't happen. It is an indisputable fact that over the long term, healthy churches grow in attendance. Jesus said, "You will know them by what they produce. People don't pick grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles, do they?" The principle applies to churches too. Healthy churches produce disciples. It is possible in the short run for a church to count people who aren't disciples, but if the church isn't producing anyone to count, it isn't healthy.

[David Pettigrew]

When I worked in the hotel industry, obviously the bottom line was of upmost importance, but two other tools were used to measure success - guest satisfaction (measured through surveys upon checkout) and QA (quality assurance, measured through onsite visits by management.) If either of those scores were consistently low, we risked losing our franchise license, no matter how financially successful we were.

Is there a way to incorporate something equivalent in the CotN, in addition to reporting figures?

[Dave McClung]

Let me give it a try. I think a healthy church is:

1. A place where people find the Lord and find healing
2. A valuable asset to the surrounding community.



So, how would one know if 1 and 2 are true? Any church that meets these goals will have increased participation. It would be absurd for a church to argue that it is reaching these goals while its level of participation was declining.

[Mike Schutz]

Once again I ask, if numbers are not the most important information for purposes of accountability, what is? I have no objection to using something else for accountability, but no one has yet suggested a better basis.

I don't differ with the opinion that there are some churches that can appear healthy for a while when they aren't, but I don't accept the argument that a healthy church can experience long term decline in numbers. It doesn't happen. It is an indisputable fact that over the long term, healthy churches grow in attendance. Jesus said, "You will know them by what they produce. People don't pick grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles, do they?" The principle applies to churches too. Healthy churches produce disciples. It is possible in the short run for a church to count people who aren't disciples, but if the church isn't producing anyone to count, it isn't healthy.






Dave, I don't disagree. But when all we do is beat the drum to "get your numbers up," it doesn't help. We are then assuming that the pastors in those churches are either lazy, don't care, or are incompetent. Honestly, I have met a few pastors that fit each of those categories. But the only ones I ever met who didn't care were pastors who cared at one time - but they have burned out.

I agree with Hans on the importance of looking at congregational health. The instruments currently available to measure church health are valuable, but don't tell the whole story.

Along with what Hans has mentioned, I would also suggest that a reasonable question to be asked of the congregation is, "Do you see the fruit of the Spirit growing in our church?"

[David Pettigrew]

"Health" is a natural term. We don't refer to cars or computers as healthy; we do refer to cats and cacti as healthy. Yet, we often treat the church as a mechanical "thing" that, when broken, can be repaired by taking out a faulty part and replacing it.

Using the natural definition of the term, we can say an organism is healthy if it is:
1) free of disease, or able to recover from it.
2) experiencing balanced growth (reproducing cells at the same rate they die off)
3) reproducing itself (giving birth or producing fruit)

So, if the Church is organic (and scripture certainly treats it as such), then healthy churches
1) heal - learn from crisis experiences, repent of wrongdoing, and move on
2) grow - new active members are added
3) reproduce - give birth to new churches

Our current recording system helps us track 2 and 3. What most keeps those numbers low is the failure to deal with 1.

[Mike Schutz]

So, how would one know if 1 and 2 are true? Any church that meets these goals will have increased participation. It would be absurd for a church to argue that it is reaching these goals while its level of participation was declining.


I would agree, over the long term. But it is very possible over the short term (1-3 years) to see declining membership - folks leave over changes, a resultant decline in attendance, and even the possibility of decline in giving as resistant-to-change tithers walk out and are replaced by new believers.

To use a business analogy, a mediocre restaurant may come under new management, close down for three months, totally refurbish, and then reopen. For awhile the weekly numbers will be down, and their numbers for the year will be down due to the closing as well as the changes. But it is possible that a decline in numbers is a sign of potential health, rather than a sign of decline.

A decline in numbers is a sign that something is happening, but they don't tell you exactly what. They shouldn't be ignored, but they are not the only thing.

[Dave McClung]

Along with what Hans has mentioned, I would also suggest that a reasonable question to be asked of the congregation is, "Do you see the fruit of the Spirit growing in our church?"

Sometimes it is useful to ask subjective questions, but subjective questions can't be the basis of accountability. You can ask two members of the same church that question and get two completely different answers with both of them being accurate. The answer depends almost entirely on the perspective of the person who answers.

When I was serving in Vietnam, you could have asked me, "Do you see the fruit of the Spirit growing in this assignment?" My answer would have certainly been "Yes." The time I spent in Vietnam was a time of spiritual growth for me, but it had very little to do with the the war or the base chapel. It was a time when life's circumstances forced me to think deeply about the things I had been taught in church. Faith issues that had been hypothetical suddenly became real.

So, I would argue that the focus of a local church should be "making disciples." One of the reasons the Church of the Nazarene is growing so rapidly outside the U.S. is that we have established three tiers of goals:

1. Get people's attention measured by how many people attend a showng of the Jesus Film.
2. Get people to make a decision for Christ measured by the people who raise their hand at the conclusion of the showing.
3. Get people to engage in the process of becoming a disciple measured by the number of people who come back to participate in a discipling program.

Initially, a lot of people argued that those goals don't really measure whether a person has actually become a disciple because they measure how many hands are raised. A person can raise his or her hand without really having made a decision for Christ. One may come back to participate in a discipling program out of curiosity.

The real proof is in whether or not lives are changed. Enough time has now passed to confirm that many, many of those who raise their hand have follwed through and have become real disciples. The change in their lives is observable.

One could easily argue that since it is "making disciples" that is important, we shouldn't be counting how many people watch the film or how many people raise their hands at the conclusion. The answer is that if we don't get people to watch the film, we don't get them to become disciples. It is the first step in the process.

I make the same argument about local churches in the U.S. If we don't get people to attend the Sunday worship services, we won't get them to participate in the process of becoming a disciple. Sunday Morning Worship isn't the final step, but in most cases it is an important first step. We should measure how many attend and give the number appropriate concern. Over the long run, healthy churches have a constant stream of prospective disciples coming into their Worship Services. Getting them into the Worship Service isn't the final objective, but without growth in Worship Service attendance, a church can't make an increasing number of disciples.

[Gary Swartzlander]

When I worked in the hotel industry, obviously the bottom line was of upmost importance, but two other tools were used to measure success - guest satisfaction (measured through surveys upon checkout) and QA (quality assurance, measured through onsite visits by management.) If either of those scores were consistently low, we risked losing our franchise license, no matter how financially successful we were.

Is there a way to incorporate something equivalent in the CotN, in addition to reporting figures?

Seems we already have those in some way. If guests in our churches return and make it their home, that indicates their satisfaction. If they don't return, well, something didn't click. Doesn't really mean there was a problem, although it may. The number of people who come and stay as opposed to the number of those who come and leave may be an indicator.

The DS makes regular visits to a church and is supposed to meet with the board and staff to get a measure of the health of the church. There are little or no teeth in the follow-up that takes place. Does the DS have the ability to set a deadline for the church (not just the pastor) to correct problems or improve on deficiancies? Not that I am aware of.

Making rules to live by are unpleasant and unpopular, but usually necessary.

Can we do it and be effective?

[Dave McClung]

we risked losing our franchise license,

Is there a way to incorporate something equivalent in the CotN, in addition to reporting figures?

That is an interesting thought. Suppose we had some standards. A local congregation that failed to live up to those standards would lose the right to put "Church of the Nazarene" on their sign.

My response is a bit tongue in cheek, but if you think about it, if a person goes to a church that calls itself "Nazarene" shouldn't there be some things that are constant?

[Ryan Scott]

Jesus said, "You will know them by what they produce. People don't pick grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles, do they?" The principle applies to churches too. Healthy churches produce disciples.[/SIZE][/FONT]



I heard a lecture not too long ago exegeting the John 15 passage about bearing fruit. The basic theme was that when we equate bearing fruit to making converts, we distort the meaning of the passage.

In John 15 (and, he argued, almost every reference to the metaphor of fruit in the New Testament) fruit is outward action by the Christian. Look at those verses, it talks about us being the branches and bearing fruit. Well branches don't give birth to branches; that's the job of the vine. Branches bring forth fruit, which must be something different. This individual mentioned the fruit of the Spirit as an example that fits both the language of metaphor and the analogy in John 15.

I think this is more like the argument I was making over on the theology thread. Numbers are great, but they can't be the most important thing. I really do think we (in a denominational structure) must measure growth and health in a relational way. Yes it's subjective, but we put our faith in the larger body to make the right decisions in these matters. It would take more work to have a congregation reviewed by peers and leaders, but that's my alternative suggestion. It would take a little longer to flesh out details for this sort of process.

I just don't think there is any good measure that can be done quickly, easily, or objectively to measure the health of a congregation.

[Mike Schutz]

Here I am, sitting in Logan Airport in Boston on a Saturday night, with my back towards Legal Seafood - so I won't be tempted to get a bowl of chowder (I ate at Great Chow tonight with my daughter before I left ENC), waiting to catch a flight home, and I get to read Ryan Scott's solid biblical theology.

Can life get any better?!


(And for those of you who have any idea what I am talking about - Chris Miner just walked by!)

[Ryan Scott]

(And for those of you who have any idea what I am talking about - Chris Miner just walked by!)


I always see someone I know in Logan.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Here I am, sitting in Logan Airport in Boston on a Saturday night, with my back towards Legal Seafood - so I won't be tempted to get a bowl of chowder (I ate at Great Chow tonight with my daughter before I left ENC), waiting to catch a flight home, and I get to read Ryan Scott's solid biblical theology.

Can life get any better?!


(And for those of you who have any idea what I am talking about - Chris Miner just walked by!)

Here I am, sitting in Brewed Awakenings in downtown Hingham, wondering why Mike was just a few miles away and didn't tell me...?!?

Just kidding, I'm sure you were busy.

[Barb Bouldrey]

Even though I am in favor of most of the original post on this thread I have to say that I do not believe it would ever pass as ONE RESOLUTION.

I have been a delegate to general conventions and/or General Assembly every quadrennium since 1989. Every time there is at least one resolution about the budget system being a straight 10% tithe of the church and it has always failed. That one resolution has taken up a lot of time on the floor at times.

What I would propose is that Dave's resolution be presented as a lot of different smaller resolutions by different districts with the hope that SOME of them might be passed or sent to a commission to study.

I feel there is WAY too much change in the entire resolution to pass as one resolution.

If the original post in this thread was the one resolution and presented as the first resolution of the General Assembly, the entire week would be discussion of this one resolution and they might have to extend GA another week. LOL

Seriously, when we can take almost an entire day to change one word in one of our doctrinal statements, imagine how long it would take to discuss this one.

Barb

[Dave McClung]

Even though I am in favor of most of the original post on this thread I have to say that I do not believe it would ever pass as ONE RESOLUTION.



Of course, you are right, but if you read the original post carefully, I only made one recommendation -- that one person be authorized to communicate the denominational vision. The rest of the discussion presents ideas that might flow from the adoption of that recommendation.

[Ryan Scott]

You can always make a general resolution to allow the General Board, in consultation with the General Superintendents to make appropriate decisions regarding reorganization.

It's vague and could take a long time, but that seems to have happened with the "merge USA/Canada and World Mission departments" currently under discussion.

[Barb Bouldrey]

The rest of the discussion has some major changes that I believe are excellent ideas and need to be resolutions. Perhaps this discussion will cause some delegates from around the world to suggest resolutions to their own districts and we might see some of these ideas actually appear as resolutions in 2009.

I will not be nominated as a delegate since I already attend the NMI Convention as a delegate, so I have no imput in resolutions in any of these areas....But others might.

Barb

[Anita F. Henck]

That is an interesting thought. Suppose we had some standards. A local congregation that failed to live up to those standards would lose the right to put "Church of the Nazarene" on their sign.

My response is a bit tongue in cheek, but if you think about it, if a person goes to a church that calls itself "Nazarene" shouldn't there be some things that are constant?


Dave--
You may be tongue-in-cheek on this. But, I think this has considerable merit and have suggested it in discussion for some time. "Branding" is a common concept in business. Interestingly, we are conflicted about whether we are comfortable comparing church administration to business principles or not. We want to do so in comparing salaries and benefits but are uncomfortable doing so in other areas. Nonetheless, we might still have something to learn.

Someone else mentioned on this thread the expectations when they worked for a franchise hotel. If a poorly run hotel impacts the reputation of their brand, their fellow hoteliers are affected. A bad stay in a Ramada Inn in Dallas affects my likelihood to stay at a Fairfield Inn in Memphis, for example.

While we don't want to equate a church with a "brand" -- isn't some of the impact the same? An unhealthy Nazarene church that doesn't make a good impact on its community in one location affects the perception of the Nazarene church in your town -- when someone moves there.

Wouldn't it make sense to have some level of accountability so that the "cause of Christ" is glorified and not injured? And, on a practical level -- shouldn't we have some level of accountability within the denomination so that we can be comfortable that there are some similarities and assurances of key standards being met (the theology that is taught in Sunday School, the financial practices, etc.).

I'll write separately on accountability ... I need to finish up a Sunday School lesson I'm teaching in the morning!
==a==

[Hans Deventer]

So, how would one know if 1 and 2 are true? Any church that meets these goals will have increased participation. It would be absurd for a church to argue that it is reaching these goals while its level of participation was declining.

Why? What if the town they were in was declining in number of inhabitants due to economical factors?

[Hans Deventer]

I make the same argument about local churches in the U.S. If we don't get people to attend the Sunday worship services, we won't get them to participate in the process of becoming a disciple. Sunday Morning Worship isn't the final step, but in most cases it is an important first step. We should measure how many attend and give the number appropriate concern. Over the long run, healthy churches have a constant stream of prospective disciples coming into their Worship Services. Getting them into the Worship Service isn't the final objective, but without growth in Worship Service attendance, a church can't make an increasing number of disciples.

Considering that an ever increasing number in the West say they are Christians but don't attend church (or ever less, the other day a pastor here noticed that even the regular members show up only once every 2 or 3 weeks), we may have to find new ways of being church, less focussed on getting people inside a church building on Sunday morning.

[Hans Deventer]

Here I am, sitting in Logan Airport in Boston on a Saturday night, with my back towards Legal Seafood - so I won't be tempted to get a bowl of chowder (I ate at Great Chow tonight with my daughter before I left ENC), waiting to catch a flight home, and I get to read Ryan Scott's solid biblical theology.

Can life get any better?!

Than sitting at Logan Airport? Absolutely! It's not the worst of airports, but it by far isn't the best of places to be either. Through the years, I've been there 5 times now, but it still isn't my dream destination :rolleyes:

[William Hunter]

To me this is not good decision making, a waste of the resources of time, energy and money. Surely we can be more professional and effecient than this. Does this happen because of so many people with personal agendas and kingdoms to guard? I don't know but it is an example of poor use of resources when it takes so many people, so much time, engery and money to so something no harder than changing one word.

This is not making sure we have it right, it is just plain waste and misuse of resources.





Even though I am in favor of most of the original post on this thread I have to say that I do not believe it would ever pass as ONE RESOLUTION.

I have been a delegate to general conventions and/or General Assembly every quadrennium since 1989. Every time there is at least one resolution about the budget system being a straight 10% tithe of the church and it has always failed. That one resolution has taken up a lot of time on the floor at times.

What I would propose is that Dave's resolution be presented as a lot of different smaller resolutions by different districts with the hope that SOME of them might be passed or sent to a commission to study.

I feel there is WAY too much change in the entire resolution to pass as one resolution.

If the original post in this thread was the one resolution and presented as the first resolution of the General Assembly, the entire week would be discussion of this one resolution and they might have to extend GA another week. LOL

Seriously, when we can take almost an entire day to change one word in one of our doctrinal statements, imagine how long it would take to discuss this one.

Barb

[Anita F. Henck]

I keep looking at this question from multiple perspectives. Right now, I'm teaching a class on leading change and so this conversation came to mind. Kotter's change model is well known; it's first step of the 8-step model is "Create a sense of urgency". Perhaps our biggest challenge is that the sense of urgency doesn't exist because we have a non-accountable self-perpetuating system. Once it's set in place, little will stop it or require it to change.

I'm thinking more and more that the lack of formal accountability is part of our problem. Let me give two examples. They are far from extreme in my experiences.
1. A good friend pastored a small church for 7 years. In that time, he received no raises because his church board didn't have anyone to know to how to do this, it was his first pastorate (and he didn't know how to ask), and his DS never visited. Seven years of no DS visit. Yet, the DS is still largely hailed as a great leader. But, the small church dropped off his radar screen. And, it happened to several churches on that district. There needs to be training and accountability at the local, district, and general church levels.

2. While there are understandable concerns about churches paying a living wage for their pastors (see earlier discussions about indexing this to local professional salaries, such as public school teachers), I'm not aware of very many professions that allow people to continue without regular performance reviews. Yet the "performance review" of a pastor is an unpopular goal. So, do we have an impasse? On the other hand, I was in recent conversation with a full-time employee of a Nazarene administrative unit (I'll leave it vague as to whether it is at the district or general church level) who is an ordained minister. In addition, he is teaching 10 courses a year through a local university. He is the full-time facilities manager of a local health club. And, he is out every weekend preaching/teaching. By his own admission he is working 90-100 hours a week. But, his hobbies are expensive and this is part of his lifestyle choice. I'm confident that having enough finances for a living wage isn't the issue here. I'm not aware of too many professionals that could be working 3+ fulltime jobs effectively. So, while we have churches/colleges/offices that pay too little, we also have quite a few folks who are not able to give their primary employer (the church) their best because they are working multiple jobs in order to have a pretty high lifestyle (something about garaging a car through the winter so you can drive it top-down during the summer seems like a luxury to me).

I think we're back to the issue of needing a sense of urgency which is the result of a sense of accountability.

Most places wouldn't allow entities to continue that can't afford to staff themselves or haven't seen growth (whether numeric attendance or spiritual health) documented in years. Why should the church do less?

[William Hunter]

When God started the New Testament church He did not start a worship service. He started a prayer mtg. And what is the story of the first NT cong. in Jerusalem? It is the story of one small praying cong. of about 120 members in an upper room of the city which got on fire for God and went on to change the world! And in the Great Commission, Jesus said nothing about worship, but He did tell us to do three things. The most overlooked of the three is "...teach them to obey all that I have commanded you..." And Jesus "commanded" the disciples to return to Jerusalem and pray until His Spirit came to them. The result was that one cong. grew from about 120 to more than 3,120 in one day. It had nothing to do with worship but had everything to do with obediance and prayer. Read John 14; there you will see that Jesus never told His disciples to worship Him. but He did tell them that love and obediance are two sides of the same coin. We cannot say we love God without fully obeying Him in the process.

Worship is important but it is not the essence of the church. It is a result of doing first things first according to Christ's commands. Yet today, prayer seems to be the church's greatest weakness. Just look at the growth that is NOT taking place in the USA and Canada. We have lots of worship styles, etc., but little or no growth. Maybe we need to return to what those first disciples were told to do.



And yet... what defines the church is its worship. There are plenty of parachurch and evangelistic groups out there that specialize in discipleship and outreach, but the church is the church because it worships together. One who is a part of the church is one who worships with the church. When worship stops being the focal point of congregational life, then the church stops being the church and becomes one of the many parachurches out there.

Now I agree that numbers do not tell the whole story, but I think they are helpful indicators. If our church has 200 members and we only average 100 in worship, there is a problem whether the other 100 are doing midweek ministry or not.

[Ian Gentles]

Arent we just the victim of general church decline in west?

How much time do we spend in prayer as churches, is this possibly the problem?

[Ryan Scott]

Arent we just the victim of general church decline in west?


I think it's more a case of our failure to get out ahead of general Church flight. People are increasingly becoming aware of the spiritual aspects of their lives, but they are also increasingly seeking to nurture those outside the organized, traditional religious practices. It seems like we'd be better off moving forward and engaging these people in new ways rather than trying to attract them back to a system they've rejected.

[Mike Schutz]

I'm not aware of very many professions that allow people to continue without regular performance reviews.

Developing an effective system of regular performance review would be one of the most beneficial means for increasing the effectiveness of pastors. It would also be, in my opinion, one of the top five ways to prevent pastoral burnout.

[Ann Smith]

I have read this entire thread. It is exciting to me to see that this is a serious discussion. I have several comments.
1. Regarding Ds's. Having grown up in the parsonage and been a pastor's wife, I have seen Ds's over the years. I have never seen one who was a pastor to the pastor. When my husband was in Church Administration at Olivet, he heard his professor say that if there was a problem in a church, the pastor would go, regardless. I have seen that happen many times with friends and my dad.

2. Pastoral review. My pastor is several years past his review time. The DS doesn't seem concerned. The board is in the process. He is a good pastor and I hope he stays on until he retires. However, if the DS is lax on doing his review, he is probably lax on doing others. It doesn't help anyone.

3. Something needs to be done about budgets. My biggest gripe is the General Budget. I know it has a different name now, but I am stuck on the name. Since all of the general church money comes from the general budget, it is not honest to say it all goes to missions. Separate the missions portion out of the budget and call it what it is, World missions. Call the headquarters portion something else.

4. Meeting expenses. These huge meetings are expensive. I think of the expense of the exhibits at GA. It is huge and elaborate! Much too costly. I am an active member of The Illinois Nurses Association. Several years ago we went from having face to face meetings to having conference call meetings. Much less expensive in money and time. It takes me two hours each way to get to headquarters in Chicago, for an hour or two meeting. That ruins an entire day and the expense of gas, train, meal. I chair the Convention Task Force. We meet on a regular basis by conference call and get the work done successfully.

I see no reason why the can't do a lot of the work this way. It takes planning and work in advance. Things like this could cut the cost a lot.

As I have read, I have thought of lots of other responses but can't remember them now.
Ann

[Billy Cox]

Considering that an ever increasing number in the West say they are Christians but don't attend church (or ever less, the other day a pastor here noticed that even the regular members show up only once every 2 or 3 weeks), we may have to find new ways of being church, less focussed on getting people inside a church building on Sunday morning.

I am progressive enough to not dismiss out of hand the concept of an unchurched Christian. It does lead me to ask if corporate worship is critical to the Christian life...again, not an automatic answer.

[Hans Deventer]

I am progressive enough to not dismiss out of hand the concept of an unchurched Christian. It does lead me to ask if corporate worship is critical to the Christian life...again, not an automatic answer.

I've heard it said, you don't turn your bike into a car by putting it in a garage, likewise, you don't become a Christian by merely sitting in church every Sunday morning. But indeed, there are many sides to the issue.

Reading the Scriptures, at least one could wonder if the Sunday morning worship service is the heart of what it means to be a Christian.

[Billy Cox]

I think it's more a case of our failure to get out ahead of general Church flight. People are increasingly becoming aware of the spiritual aspects of their lives, but they are also increasingly seeking to nurture those outside the organized, traditional religious practices. It seems like we'd be better off moving forward and engaging these people in new ways rather than trying to attract them back to a system they've rejected.

This is a good observation. I'll play the other side... What segment(s) of the Christian Church are doing well in the West? Is it a coincidence that those Christian groups who are doing well organizationally are the same groups that we relentlessly attack - calling them sheep-stealers, blab-it/grab-it people, or charismaniacs?

Perhaps we would be wise to rein in our elitist urges and stop attacking other flavors of Christianity. Until we have done this, any efforts to get a second hearing from those who have rejected organized Christianity will fall on deaf ears.

[Ryan Scott]

I don't think there is any group doing well overall, even if some individual locations happen to be doing well.

[Paula Karr]

I don't think there is any group doing well overall, even if some individual locations happen to be doing well.

It seems that I'm reading in this thread that the "group" issue IS one of the major issues hampering growth.

Our independent church is growing by leaps and bounds. (50 people accepted the Lord LAST WEEKEND.) Perhaps because there is no time (and no money) spent on denominational issues, the church is able to focus more on its mission -- winning the lost and helping them grow in their faith. Our church has a 3-word mission:

Discover -- to help others to discover life in Christ.

Develop -- to help each member develop his or her own gift of ministry.

Deploy -- to teach each member how to lead others to discover life in Christ.

We are averaging 5,000 every weekend on two campuses. We have missionaries in several countries. (And the equivalent of Work and Witness teams from our church to go to those mission fields to work on short-term projects.)

I've read posts about those who are concerned that independent churches have less accountability, and I understand what those folks are saying. But from this "outsider's" perspective (although I was a Nazarene for 40 years), there are similar issues impacting individual congregations all the way up through the general church:


No accountability for churches that don't know how (or choose not) to pay their pastors a living wage, or for those with bullies on the board.

No accountability for district superintendents who don't pay enough attention to the churches on their districts to make sure that pastors ARE paid adequately and/or mentored/pastored by the DS.

A board of General Superintendents which tries to function as 6 CEOs -- with the sense that no one is ultimately accountable for the direction of the Church of the Nazarene.


I really applaud this thread. Lots of valuable input. Best wishes to all.

[William Hunter]

If the pastoral review is as poorly conceived as the current one why change? I find the current review process highly disfunctional at best. Any one board member who has a personal agenda and an ax to grind is pretty much given the freedom to stomp on the pastor, while the pastor has no input into the process. A reveiw process that works would require that those doing the review of the pastor are emotionally sound and spiritual mature themselves. How are we going to do that? The review process with volunteers and their personal agendas and kingdoms to guard just is not a good idea at this point. If we could ever figure a way to make this more professional and not subject to those driven by their personal agendas, it might work.


I have read this entire thread. It is exciting to me to see that this is a serious discussion. I have several comments.
1. Regarding Ds's. Having grown up in the parsonage and been a pastor's wife, I have seen Ds's over the years. I have never seen one who was a pastor to the pastor. When my husband was in Church Administration at Olivet, he heard his professor say that if there was a problem in a church, the pastor would go, regardless. I have seen that happen many times with friends and my dad.

2. Pastoral review. My pastor is several years past his review time. The DS doesn't seem concerned. The board is in the process. He is a good pastor and I hope he stays on until he retires. However, if the DS is lax on doing his review, he is probably lax on doing others. It doesn't help anyone.

3. Something needs to be done about budgets. My biggest gripe is the General Budget. I know it has a different name now, but I am stuck on the name. Since all of the general church money comes from the general budget, it is not honest to say it all goes to missions. Separate the missions portion out of the budget and call it what it is, World missions. Call the headquarters portion something else.

4. Meeting expenses. These huge meetings are expensive. I think of the expense of the exhibits at GA. It is huge and elaborate! Much too costly. I am an active member of The Illinois Nurses Association. Several years ago we went from having face to face meetings to having conference call meetings. Much less expensive in money and time. It takes me two hours each way to get to headquarters in Chicago, for an hour or two meeting. That ruins an entire day and the expense of gas, train, meal. I chair the Convention Task Force. We meet on a regular basis by conference call and get the work done successfully.

I see no reason why the can't do a lot of the work this way. It takes planning and work in advance. Things like this could cut the cost a lot.

As I have read, I have thought of lots of other responses but can't remember them now.
Ann

[David Pettigrew]

Our district is in the process of transitioning to a church health review system, rather than a pastoral pastoral performance review. We are also developing a coaching system, in which pastors mentor one another. Training for this begins March 28th - I'll let you know how it goes.

IMHO, pastoral performance review should be done yearly. The problem is our current system of review is far too subjective ("Are you for the pastor or agin' the pastor?".) We need measurable criteria.

Again, I put this as a check under the column of "Reasons why pastors should be employed by the denomination, rather than the local church."

[Dave McClung]

If the pastoral review is as poorly conceived as the current one why change?


The review conducted by the ds is supposed to be a review of the church/pastor relationship as a part of an on going process of self study. When a pastor and local board don't do the self study, then the ground work for a productive meeting with the ds has not been laid.

Don't blame the problems in on the "conception." The problems are a result of the failure of district superintendents, pastors and congregations to follow the Manual --

120. At least every other year, the pastor and the church board shall conduct a self-study to review the expecations, goals, and performance of the church and the pastor. At the time of the self-study the written understanding between the church and the pastor should be updated and renewed.

I have been unable to identify even one (other than my own) church that complies with even the first step -- a written understanding.

[Mike Schutz]

At least every other year, the pastor and the church board shall conduct a self-study to review the expecations, goals, and performance of the church and the pastor. At the time of the self-study the written understanding between the church and the pastor should be updated and renewed.[/B][/SIZE][/FONT]

I have been unable to identify even one (other than my own) church that complies with even the first step -- a written understanding.

For this process to work, the pastor and at least the church board secretary need to be trained in the process. Does this happen anywhere?

[Jeremy D. Scott]

2. Pastoral review. My pastor is several years past his review time. The DS doesn't seem concerned. The board is in the process. He is a good pastor and I hope he stays on until he retires. However, if the DS is lax on doing his review, he is probably lax on doing others. It doesn't help anyone.

If the pastoral review is as poorly conceived as the current one why change? I find the current review process highly disfunctional at best. Any one board member who has a personal agenda and an ax to grind is pretty much given the freedom to stomp on the pastor, while the pastor has no input into the process. A reveiw process that works would require that those doing the review of the pastor are emotionally sound and spiritual mature themselves. How are we going to do that? The review process with volunteers and their personal agendas and kingdoms to guard just is not a good idea at this point. If we could ever figure a way to make this more professional and not subject to those driven by their personal agendas, it might work.

IMHO, pastoral performance review should be done yearly. The problem is our current system of review is far too subjective ("Are you for the pastor or agin' the pastor?".) We need measurable criteria.

We've had discussion on the pastoral relationship review here before, and I believe it was on Naznet that I learned this:

There is no such thing in the Manual as a simple "pastoral review". What is provided for in Section 122 is a "Regular Church/Pastoral Review" and any district that is using it to review just the pastor needs to reassess what's being done. The section is quite clear that it's a review of the relationship between the pastor and the local church, which is two-sided. While the call for a vote may seem one-sided, the pastor always has the ability to resign.

This is not to say that I don't think the system needs changing. But if we were truer to this provision in the Manual, we might do better with the reviews.

EDITED TO ADD:
I didn't see Dave's post saying essentially the same thing below. Sorry for the double post.

[Billy Cox]

I don't think there is any group doing well overall, even if some individual locations happen to be doing well.

If no group is effective in the USA/Canada (which is very unlikely), why not look at a subgroup - namely the work of the Church in Africa or South America?

On a related note, I don't hear anyone downplaying the use of attendance or membership as a barometer of effectiveness in other parts of the world.

[Hans Deventer]

Our district is in the process of transitioning to a church health review system, rather than a pastoral pastoral performance review.

I'd be very interested in that system, David.

[William Hunter]

While all the reviews I have had have been very good ones in what the board said, the fact is they are absolutely one-sided. The pastor is not allowed to review his board and assess their effectiveness, etc. Why is it that the pastor's only recourse is to resign? This just gives me further reason to suuport a better process than we have.

Church boards, secretaries, and pastors are not at all trained for this process from what I have seen in near 33 yrs. of ministry. The most consistant thing in all of this is a elevated level of stress on the pastor and their spouse, and too many of us have learned that there are good reasons for the increased stress at review time. I think the process is dysfunctional for it does not allow a board and pastor to work together as a team to see the church move forward. The current system lends itself to being adversarial more than it does any other possibility. While we have a wonderful church, it is not without some serious wringles that need better attention than they receive.




We've had discussion on the pastoral relationship review here before, and I believe it was on Naznet that I learned this:

There is no such thing in the Manual as a simple "pastoral review". What is provided for in Section 122 is a "Regular Church/Pastoral Review" and any district that is using it to review just the pastor needs to reassess what's being done. The section is quite clear that it's a review of the relationship between the pastor and the local church, which is two-sided. While the call for a vote may seem one-sided, the pastor always has the ability to resign.

This is not to say that I don't think the system needs changing. But if we were truer to this provision in the Manual, we might do better with the reviews.

EDITED TO ADD:
I didn't see Dave's post saying essentially the same thing below. Sorry for the double post.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

While all the reviews I have had have been very good ones in what the board said, the fact is they are absolutely one-sided.
I don't understand. What I was saying is that the Manual provides for a good conversational review over the pastor-church relationship. I wasn't saying that it plays out this way all the time. Do you think the Manual is unfair?

The pastor is not allowed to review his board and assess their effectiveness, etc. Why is it that the pastor's only recourse is to resign? This just gives me further reason to suuport a better process than we have.
What do you mean "not allowed"? The pastor can always be working with the board. What other recourse would you suggest? If the main idea of the review is to seek recourse and protection from one side or the other, something is not right in the first place. The process in the Manual gives a regular opportunity for the board, and if necessary, the congregation, to decide whether or not the relationship should continue. The pastor always has this option.

What other process would you suggest?

Church boards, secretaries, and pastors are not at all trained for this process from what I have seen in near 33 yrs. of ministry. The most consistant thing in all of this is a elevated level of stress on the pastor and their spouse, and too many of us have learned that there are good reasons for the increased stress at review time. I think the process is dysfunctional for it does not allow a board and pastor to work together as a team to see the church move forward.
I still don't understand - the process as it plays out in your experience or the process as outlined in the Manual?

The current system lends itself to being adversarial more than it does any other possibility. While we have a wonderful church, it is not without some serious wringles that need better attention than they receive.

I may be naive (and I mean that sincerely), but the process in the Manual seems like a good foundation for DSs, pastors, and local churches to review both yearly and for the scheduled review with the DS. I guess the key is in how the three parties work together upon that foundation.

Our review is coming up. We've been working on material sent out and explained by the District Office to review how we are doing as a local church. None of the review material was directed at either the pastor or the board. It included assessment tools to push us to consider how North Street is doing in ministry.

All of us are looking forward to the review meeting with the DS.

[David Pettigrew]

I may be naive (and I mean that sincerely), but the process in the Manual seems like a good foundation for DSs, pastors, and local churches to review both yearly and for the scheduled review with the DS. I guess the key is in how the three parties work together upon that foundation.

Our review is coming up. We've been working on material sent out and explained by the District Office to review how we are doing as a local church. None of the review material was directed at either the pastor or the board. It included assessment tools to push us to consider how North Street is doing in ministry.

All of us are looking forward to the review meeting with the DS.

I think this, like the conversation regarding DS as pastor, is another scenario in which reality rears its ugly head.

The problem is not in the Manual. However, because every district has a different process for building upon the foundation provided, we have some very, very different experiences with the pastoral review represented here.

Let me tell you about a pastor I know. His review came around every four years. The DS showed up with evaluation forms to fill out. The board would look at the DS and say "We don't need to fill these forms out. Just put us down for another four years." The DS allowed it, so the review was about a ten minute process.

The church eventually got tired of the pastor. It was in the middle of a four year renewal, so the board voted to quit paying the pastor's salary until he left. Which they did, and he did. He had to take a smaller church with smaller pay just to keep from declaring bankruptcy.

I know this story is true because the pastor is my father. It's a much longer story, but you have the nuts and bolts of it. There's plenty of blame to spread around in this episode, but the Manual doesn't share in it.

However, what's in the Manual doesn't always play out in reality.

Here's Dave Pettigrew's solution for turning the church around:

The areas where the Church of the Nazarene currently exhibits the most control at the General level (ie: spending) should be controlled at the local level, and the areas where the Church of the Nazarene currently gives most control at the local level (ie: employment) should be controlled at the General level.

Now that this problem is solved, we can move on!:laughing

[William Hunter]

Jeremy, first everything I understand from friends who pastor on various other districts, the process is different from district to district. Here the pastor is excused from the room while the church board discusses his leadership and ministry. Then you are asked to return to the room and find out the results. At no time in this process is the pastor given the opportunity to access his board and their leadership, effectiveness, etc. No where is there discussion about agreed upon goals, how we are going to get there, etc.

I get to see the results of a survey type of instrument in which you can rate the pastor from 1 to 5 in various areas of ministry. I think 5 was the highest. Last time everyone gave me a 5 on everything. While that is appreciated there still is no discussion and planning set in motion concerning goals we will work TOGETHER on as a TEAM, pastor and layleaders. And as Dave said, do you know any church leadership team who fulfills parapgraph 121 in the Manual? Such plans are not filed with the DS nor are asked for. But then, this seems to be the case on most districts.

As far as paragraph 121.1 goes, it seems this assumes we will work with emotionally well adjusted people in both the ministry and church board. It has been my experience that too many layleaders have their personal agendas, and have heavily bought into the culture of "no one call tell them what to do", etc., even when you can show them in black and white in the Bible. With some, resolution is near impossible. Not all layleaders are this way, PTL, but too often some are. And the more we see our society becoming dysfuctional and coming out of broken and dysfunctional families, etc., the more of this we see in the leadership of the church. In every church I have known some who refuse with great conviction, to work at resolving differences. After almost 33 yrs. in the ministry I do not have any stars in my eyes anymore. As a denomination we are not consistant in how we handle reviews of our pastors; it is obvious to me that even DS's are not trainied in one process to follow, and that process on any district can change from year to year. Does anyone follow the Manual? And then, how do we work with people who just refuse to see anything but their own way? And if they have been on the board for awhile, I dare any pastor to try and remove their names from the next ballot. On the district I mentioned in a previous post where the DS ran some really good pastors out of the ministry as he lives out in leadership the family of origin dysfunction that he came to adulthood with, one church did not vote a long time board member back to the church board. This guy was a supporter of the DS and the DS forced the local church to include this guy on the board when the cong. had not elected to the board. Plus this guy had a key to the parsonage and more than a few times let himself in when the pastor's wife was dressing for church when he knew the pastor was at the church early to spend time in prayer for the day, etc. No, I do not have any stars in my eyes anymore. I've seen too much over the years to know that the Manual is often followed only when it is convenient for the DS or pastor to do so, etc. We do not have a well thoughtout process for reviewing the pastoral/church relationship, etc. That is why I stated previously that we have some serious wrinkles to work out. God in His great grace helps us in spite of our human failings, for which we are all thankful.

While I've posted a bit in this discussion, I suspect that I shall not see the needed changes we are all talking about in my lifetime. I've heard it said that by time we get around to change in the denomination, we are 20 yrs. too late. Now that may be an overstatement, but then there may be some truth in it. It would be great if all our districts did pastoral reviews the same, but that will take some years to bring to fulfillment. And I have noticed that if you try to discuss some of these things you are considered some kind of quack for speaking up. Let's all be silent and do nothing, so the logic seems to be behind refusing to deal with issues we all face together. So I keep my focus on my local church and try my best to give good spiritual leadership. At times it gets to me and I have to give serious consideration to maybe becoming and interim pastor where I can focus on giving leadership to a church and setting the tone for a good turn around, etc.

I've not heard anything, but I suspect my DS has a file of complaints on me as he does on most of us pastors, as any DS will have. Sometimes the malcontents and those who are driven by their own agendas finally get to be too much. But then I have a significant group of fairly new Christians and those returning to the church after being gone long before I came here, who make it known in so many ways that they want us to be their pastor for some time to come.

A note of praise is that one of the who retuned after years away from Christ and the church is my Parish Nurse, who I wish I had the money to put on staff. Another is now our church treasure and the leader of our children's church team. There are a couple of other stories like these here.

I suspect I have become too weary. With care-giving for my mother, and dealing with the occasional malcontent who cannot just leave but must cause a lot of pain in the process---I'm glad we are flying to Washington state to see our daughter soon. The break will be good. I would dearly appreciate a Sabbatical, but my church cannot afford that, nor can my wife and I. When I retire I will have pretty close to 40 yrs. in ministry. I still have a passion to grow an existing church by returning to Christ's passion and what we see in Acts and Eph. 4. I still get excited about planning, dreaming, and moving forward. But then I am tired. For years there has been no Sabbatical approach for pastors; the only break we got was to resign and go to another church.

At 61 yrs. of age I am not too hopeful of seeing the necessary changes we all have talked about in this thread. It would be wonderful to see, but I'll not hold my breath; nor will I expect that we will come up with a plan that puts pastors and church boards on the same team for the good of the local church when we think about pastoral renew; and one that is consistant across districts.

Boy, I'm in trouble now!

Let me edit this by saying that most of my church board absolutely detests this current process of renewing a pastor's call. A few of them may even refuse to take part in it if they live up to their spoken passion about this.





I don't understand. What I was saying is that the Manual provides for a good conversational review over the pastor-church relationship. I wasn't saying that it plays out this way all the time. Do you think the Manual is unfair?


What do you mean "not allowed"? The pastor can always be working with the board. What other recourse would you suggest? If the main idea of the review is to seek recourse and protection from one side or the other, something is not right in the first place. The process in the Manual gives a regular opportunity for the board, and if necessary, the congregation, to decide whether or not the relationship should continue. The pastor always has this option.

What other process would you suggest?


I still don't understand - the process as it plays out in your experience or the process as outlined in the Manual?



I may be naive (and I mean that sincerely), but the process in the Manual seems like a good foundation for DSs, pastors, and local churches to review both yearly and for the scheduled review with the DS. I guess the key is in how the three parties work together upon that foundation.

Our review is coming up. We've been working on material sent out and explained by the District Office to review how we are doing as a local church. None of the review material was directed at either the pastor or the board. It included assessment tools to push us to consider how North Street is doing in ministry.

All of us are looking forward to the review meeting with the DS.

[Ryan Scott]

Jeremy, first everything I understand from friends who pastor on various other districts, the process is different from district to district. Here the pastor is excused from the room while the church board discusses his leadership and ministry. Then you are asked to return to the room and find out the results. At no time in this process is the pastor given the opportunity to access his board and their leadership, effectiveness, etc. No where is there discussion about agreed upon goals, how we are going to get there, etc.


What district are you on again? I've got a year left at Seminary and I need to fully form my "places to avoid" list.

[Ann Smith]

One of the things that gripes me is the inability to change DS's unless they resign or are transferred. I have seen it several times. The DS gives a glowing inspirational report the night before the vote. Gets everyone so enthused that they end up voting to reelect him.

The one time I was on the board of a chuch was during the time my husband was not pastoring, many years ago. It was shortly after the current system. The DS met with the board with the pastor present. He asked us if we had any complaints or suggestions regarding the pastor. NO one said anything except me. I made one comment. The Ds then asked if we would recommend continuing our relationship and the vote was yes. I didn't see that as adequate at all.
Ann

[William Hunter]

Ryan, I am on a very good district in so many ways. Our DS is a good DS. What we deal with on this subject is what every district has to deal with---the fact that we do not have a standardized process that is the same on every district---thus every district does this differently. The fact that we do not have such a process for all districts is very unfair to our DS's, as well as pastors and local churches. I thikn most DS's do the best they can, but the fact that nothing is standardized puts all of us at a serious disadvantage. Thus, the process is frustrating at best. Don't be too quick to judge an entire district over a process that does not work well.

There are a couple of districts that I have never, and would never, send a resume to, but my district is not one of them. We have a good pastoral team here but our discussion deals here with the general church and the fact that we do not have in place some processes that help us at the dist. and local levels, and thus leave us open to frustration. Yes, be careful about where you go, but I would recommend your resume to my DS. We have some really good people in our greater church, it is just the organization that needs to be changed, and changed for the better. I think a few of the things as they now stand as a denomination, hurt us in the USA and Canada, and hinder the work we do in trying to fulfill God's mission. Isn't that what this thread is about...the need for some possitive change?


What district are you on again? I've got a year left at Seminary and I need to fully form my "places to avoid" list.

[Eric Vail]

I believe that the General Superintendents and the Regional Superintendents should be clergy.

Certainly those in the church who are charged with the authority to ordain would themselves need to be clergy. I assume with the proposed restructuring that this ministry would be passed from the level of General Superintendent to Regional Superintendent.

If the lone GS were relieved of this charge, nothing would necesitate that the GS be clergy. What I believe the GS needs to be (that 6 Generals cannot)--along with being a communicator of a vision--is someone who is the theological spokesperson for the denomination: someone who can moderate in-house debates, make statements for us on global maters, and can represent us in ecumenical dialogues.

The GS must not only be able to be a leader among our denomination's theologians in working out theological precidents, the GS must also be able to navigate theologically how we are to operate in the world as the church. We are not a corporation; we are the church. The way we as the church conduct ourselves should be glorifying to God and be a glimpse of his Kingdom. The church needs a gifted theologian-leader who has the ability to sift practical maters through theological criteria.

Such a weighty task takes intensive preparation and refinement. Along with the maturity brought by experience, to fill that role for us, I do not see how anyone would be prepared enough to do it without an earned Ph.D. in one of the theological disciplines (Bible, Theological History, or Systematic Theology).

I have been so pleased as I've read through various responses when people have raised theological objections to some of the proposals. For example, utility has ruled much of the discussions. However, one person questioned whether we can cut P&B because many faithful pastors of small churches would never be able to retire; as with Israel, we will be judged on how the least among us are fairing. Another objection was raised in the discussion about placing pastors with congregations that where the discussion had been centering on mandates and contracts we had forgotten the idea of covenant. This is why our denomination needs a theologian-leader. Someone who can lead us in what is good and right--not just expedient--because the person has been a student of the one who is Good.

Having the GS being clergy is not of great concern to me. However, please consider having an earned Ph.D. in a theological discipline be a requirement if we are only going to have one GS.

Respectfully,
Eric Vail

[Dave McClung]

Certainly those in the church who are charged with the authority to ordain would themselves need to be clergy. I assume with the proposed restructuring that this ministry would be passed from the level of General Superintendent to Regional Superintendent.

If the lone GS were relieved of this charge, nothing would necesitate that the GS be clergy. What I believe the GS needs to be (that 6 Generals cannot)--along with being a communicator of a vision--is someone who is the theological spokesperson for the denomination: someone who can moderate in-house debates, make statements for us on global maters, and can represent us in ecumenical dialogues.

The GS must not only be able to be a leader among our denomination's theologians in working out theological precidents, the GS must also be able to navigate theologically how we are to operate in the world as the church. We are not a corporation; we are the church. The way we as the church conduct ourselves should be glorifying to God and be a glimpse of his Kingdom. The church needs a gifted theologian-leader who has the ability to sift practical maters through theological criteria.

Such a weighty task takes intensive preparation and refinement. Along with the maturity brought by experience, to fill that role for us, I do not see how anyone would be prepared enough to do it without an earned Ph.D. in one of the theological disciplines (Bible, Theological History, or Systematic Theology).

I have been so pleased as I've read through various responses when people have raised theological objections to some of the proposals. For example, utility has ruled much of the discussions. However, one person questioned whether we can cut P&B because many faithful pastors of small churches would never be able to retire; as with Israel, we will be judged on how the least among us are fairing. Another objection was raised in the discussion about placing pastors with congregations that where the discussion had been centering on mandates and contracts we had forgotten the idea of covenant. This is why our denomination needs a theologian-leader. Someone who can lead us in what is good and right--not just expedient--because the person has been a student of the one who is Good.

Having the GS being clergy is not of great concern to me. However, please consider having an earned Ph.D. in a theological discipline be a requirement if we are only going to have one GS.

Respectfully,
Eric Vail

I totally agree with you that the person who is authorized to articulate the denominational vision must also have the authority to speak on theology. While there are laymen who have just as good a grasp on theological issues, members of the clergy are more likely to have theological insight.

Your note reminds me of a discussion I once had with Dr. Millard Reed. The general board had asked a committee of three businessmen to advise on a particular decision. We asked several members of the clergy to meet with the commitee to see if there were theological issues that we laymen had not identified. Dr. Reed suggested that there were. After a few minutes of rather heated discussion, Dr. Reed said, "The problem with you lawyers is you want everything to be logical. When it comes to theology, it can't always be explained in such a logical way as you want." Over time, I have accepted that Dr. Reed was right. There is an element of insight in theology that extends beyond logic. For that reason, I fully support your idea that the leader of our denomination should be a member of the clergy.

[Hans Deventer]

I totally agree with you that the person who is authorized to articulate the denominational vision must also have the authority to speak on theology. While there are laymen who have just as good a grasp on theological issues, members of the clergy are more likely to have theological insight.

I'm not sure. One can be a theology professor and not be ordained. If the issue at hand is "authority to speak on theology", then that should be the issue.

It's a little dangerous to name oneself as an example. But I am a layman, and I don't really think I'm so far below the theological insight of the average elder.

That does NOT mean I want the job, though! :laughing

[Eric Vail]

I'm not sure. One can be a theology professor and not be ordained. If the issue at hand is "authority to speak on theology", then that should be the issue.

You are exaclty correct that the issue is not clergy vs laity. The issue is authority to speak on theology. I think we should require that our highest leader have the highest possible level of training before being given the authority to speak on theology. No one with the appropriate amount of educational preparation and Christian maturity should be excluded from being elected.

If the person elected happens not to be ordained at the time of election, there is no reason--if the person feels called by God to the ministry of GS and is being called by the church to shepherd the denomination--that she/he could not be ordained at that time. The number of Nazarenes who have earned PhD's in a theological discipline yet are not ordained are a minority, so the point I am making affects relatively few people. Nevertheless, the few who are not ordained, should not be disqualified for that reason. Prior-ordination should not be a prerequisite for election.

Thanks, Hans, for clarifying what was the central issue in my first post.

Respectfully,
Eric Vail

[Dave McClung]

If the person elected happens not to be ordained at the time of election, there is no reason--if the person feels called by God to the ministry of GS and is being called by the church to shepherd the denomination--that she/he could not be ordained at that time.

Eric
That would be a significant change in our polity. The Church of the Nazarene ordains only those who profess a "lifetime" call to the ministry.

405.2 The church expects that one called to this official ministry should be a steward of the Word and give full energy through a lifetime to its proclamation.

Most of us have never experienced a lifetime call. Personally, I have sensed the Lord's calling in each career change I have made, but my calling has been one step at a time. I would guess that most laymen would say the same.

If ordination were extended to a person who felt called to a particular assignment, would the ordination end when the assignment ended?

[Ryan Scott]

That would be a significant change in our polity. The Church of the Nazarene ordains only those who profess a "lifetime" call to the ministry.

I agree that bestowing ordination on this CEO figure might not be the best move, but if we're removing ordaining others from their job description, why would they have be ordained if they were qualified in other areas?

[Charles W Christian]

Eric
That would be a significant change in our polity. The Church of the Nazarene ordains only those who profess a "lifetime" call to the ministry.

405.2 The church expects that one called to this official ministry should be a steward of the Word and give full energy through a lifetime to its proclamation.

Most of us have never experienced a lifetime call. Personally, I have sensed the Lord's calling in each career change I have made, but my calling has been one step at a time. I would guess that most laymen would say the same.

If ordination were extended to a person who felt called to a particular assignment, would the ordination end when the assignment ended?


Dave -
I think your question anticipates and encapsulates all the questions and problems that would surround the issue.

Ordination, by definition, is not something that should be lightly given and removed based upon a specific short-term job title.

Also, theologically-speaking, it seems that a person entrusted with "clergy" responsibilities (an ordained person) should, as you suggested, give oversight to the Church at all levels. This does not mean that ordained clergy people should do without the insight of those who are not ordained, whether it be in theology, administration, etc., etc.

However, it seems that there has historically (and, one could argue, biblically) been a strong emphasis upon entrusting the oversight of church matters to those who have been ordained, and I think to remove that would create some theological problems. A non-lawyer could be the head of the American Bar Association, and could possibly run it well/articulate vision, etc. But there would likely be some "gaps" there in areas both practical and theoretical. (That's just a guess; I have very little idea exactly HOW the ABA is run, so my analogy may be bad).

Bottom line: If we're speaking of oversight of the Church, then one called and ordained to Christian ministry should probably be in oversight. This goes back to the "doing everything decently and in order" kind of thing in the Bible.

I know that there are those reading this waiting to give us examples of how clergy can screw things up, and I'm way ahead of you, so no need to do so on my account. However, there seem to be some things (as Dave suggests) that need to move beyond the realm of the simply pragmatic.

Just thoughts....

Thanks,
Charles

[Hans Deventer]

However, it seems that there has historically (and, one could argue, biblically) been a strong emphasis upon entrusting the oversight of church matters to those who have been ordained, and I think to remove that would create some theological problems.

I don't think so. Again, if the requirement is theological education, then so be it. That does not equal ordination.

I honestly believe it would be a great day for the church if we recognised that we all have a life time call to be ministers of Gods grace where ever we are, and it really does not matter if we do so bivocational or in full time ministry. That, indeed, is just a matter of "doing everything decently and in order". But I submit that there is no Biblical foundation for what we turned the ministry into, and it has hurt the church enormously.

In the NT, the entire body of Christ is the "laos".

If the Lord tarries, I think, and actually hope, that Christianity in the West at the end of the 21st century will look totally different from what it is today. Far less institutionalized and far more engaged and fluid in small groups.

[Eric Vail]

From my understanding of ordination as an elder, it is for those with a call to preaching and the administering of sacraments (trust me that this in no way exhausts my philosphy of ministry for pastoring a local congregation).

In the original proposition for restructuring, the role of GS was described in terms of being a CEO and vision-caster. The spiritual gift of leadership within the church, necessary for a position defined in such a way, is in no way limited to clergy. Any Spirit-gifted lay leader could carry out those tasks--as several affirmed Dr. McClung could do.

In my original post I was adding that our GS needs to have the ability to speak authoritatively on matters of theology. We are currently in need of institutional and theological clarity. Again, the type of Spirit-gifting and preparation necessary for that second task of being a theological voice is not exclussive to the clergy.

Due to the roles explicitly suggested thus far for the GS--nothing has yet been said about that person needing to be called and entrusted by the church to the ministry of preaching and administering the sacraments--I do not see any reason for that person needing to be an ordained person. In my second post after saying that the person could be ordained if they felt called to the GS role and the church was calling them I nearly included that this would be permissible but not necessary; I should have. The specific tasks for which certain individuals are ordained have their setting in the gathering of believers, not in the office of our highest leader.

I am frustrated by the perception that any task that needs to be done within the church can better be done by a clergyperson than a layperson, as though clergy have a greater spiritual gifting for all things. We have forgotten that ordination is for specific functions within the body and what those functions are; in ordaining we are only affirming the gifting for preaching and discipling the body (i.e., looking after the body's relationship with its Lord). So often we place clergy in roles for which our laity are better prepared and at which they are more gifted. Given the enormity of the pie, of all that needs to be done within the church, the portion that is reserved exclusively for clergy is quite small in size (even if first in priority). For the rest of the pie (the tasks), we need to seek from among us the person whom God has raised up for that task (whether lay or clergy). We must affirm the gifting and calling of God upon laypeople for tasks, even big ones, within the body. Until then, we will have our clergy continuing to preempt the roles that other parts of the body were meant to carry out and neglecting the very specific ministerial task for which they were ordained.

[Charles W Christian]

From my understanding of ordination as an elder, it is for those with a call to preaching and the administering of sacraments (trust me that this in no way exhausts my philosphy of ministry for pastoring a local congregation).

In the original proposition for restructuring, the role of GS was described in terms of being a CEO and vision-caster. The spiritual gift of leadership within the church, necessary for a position defined in such a way, is in no way limited to clergy. Any Spirit-gifted lay leader could carry out those tasks--as several affirmed Dr. McClung could do.

In my original post I was adding that our GS needs to have the ability to speak authoritatively on matters of theology. We are currently in need of institutional and theological clarity. Again, the type of Spirit-gifting and preparation necessary for that second task of being a theological voice is not exclussive to the clergy.

Due to the roles explicitly suggested thus far for the GS--nothing has yet been said about that person needing to be called and entrusted by the church to the ministry of preaching and administering the sacraments--I do not see any reason for that person needing to be an ordained person. In my second post after saying that the person could be ordained if they felt called to the GS role and the church was calling them I nearly included that this would be permissible but not necessary; I should have. The specific tasks for which certain individuals are ordained have their setting in the gathering of believers, not in the office of our highest leader.

I am frustrated by the perception that any task that needs to be done within the church can better be done by a clergyperson than a layperson, as though clergy have a greater spiritual gifting for all things. We have forgotten that ordination is for specific functions within the body and what those functions are; in ordaining we are only affirming the gifting for preaching and discipling the body (i.e., looking after the body's relationship with its Lord). So often we place clergy in roles for which our laity are better prepared and at which they are more gifted. Given the enormity of the pie, of all that needs to be done within the church, the portion that is reserved exclusively for clergy is quite small in size (even if first in priority). For the rest of the pie (the tasks), we need to seek from among us the person whom God has raised up for that task (whether lay or clergy). We must affirm the gifting and calling of God upon laypeople for tasks, even big ones, within the body. Until then, we will have our clergy continuing to preempt the roles that other parts of the body were meant to carry out and neglecting the very specific ministerial task for which they were ordained.

Well, the point I've been making is that the roles of GS and DS should line up a little more like what I see is a clearer biblical role of an overseer (the word we translate as "elder" or "bishop" from the Greek). If that were the case, then it would seem ordination would be necessary.

Also, Hans, I don't think small groups and institutionalization are mutually exclusive. Jesus instituted the Church (Matt. 16:18; Acts 1:8; etc.). Organization does not have to mean death, although we can indeed organize things "to death" (or near death) if we do not do so in a Spirit led way.

I think you guys are on to some good things, but there is a theological underpinning that is missing, even with all this talk about theological credibility and authority (ironically). :-)

If we are entrusting someone to oversee the Church, then should not that person go through the processes the Church has put in place? Again, if someone knows a lot about theology, administration, etc., then they should be engaged in any kind of process of building the church, etc. But it seems that the Bible entrusts oversight of congregations (even small groups that meet in homes) to those who have demonstrated and have been given some sort of "ordination" or special preparation in regard to Christian ministry. Are you suggesting that after 2000 years we just suddenly come up with a new plan and scrap the biblical one in t