GA Resolution - turn around CotN structure

[Dave McClung]

Perhaps the answer is not in legislating what churches/districts/regions MUST do (ie. instead of sending your money in THIS way, you must now send it in THIS way), but in widening the boundaries of what churches/districts/regions CAN do.

If the largest church in our denomination can have a pastor who also serves as a DS, and that church has planted 24 churches in 27 years, and all the pastors on his district meet weekly (I'm speaking of course of Campinas Central in Brazil), then why can't we be free to have a similar structure in USA? Or do we already have that freedom and it's just the best kept secret in the denomination?

Apparently, we don't have that freedom in the U.S. The Metro NY District tried that same approach. The District Superintendent was also pastor of a local congregation. The RGS required that he give up one position or the other.

[David Pettigrew]

Very few people understand how serious the pension issue is. There are several different components:

1. As of the end of 2007, 4,809 individuals were receiving a monthly retirement check from the Church of the Nazarene. The cost was $14,875,327

2. Approximately half of active Nazarene Pastors have been "grandfathered" in the Pension Plan, so the number of individuals who have been promised a pension will continue to climb in the future.

3. In addition to the Pension Plan payments, life insurance claims of $1,576,517 were paid out.

4. In addition all active clergy in the U.S. received a contribution to their 403(b). That payment was more than $13,400,000.

The amount that came in from local churches from the P&B Fund was $12,539,450.

It doesn't take a math professor to figure out that if we cut the P&B Fund percentage, some of the benefits will also have to be cut. Since the denomination is legally obligated to fund the Pension Plan, the cuts would have to come from the other benefits -- tough choices.


These numbers do not include th $4,667,756 paid out in health and disability claims.


Dave, does that $12,539,450 go into a trust, and, if so, do you know what the current balance of that trust is? If what comes in is paid out directly, how is the deficit being covered?

Thanks,
dp

[David Pettigrew]

Apparently, we don't have that freedom in the U.S. The Metro NY District tried that same approach. The District Superintendent was also pastor of a local congregation. The RGS required that he give up one position or the other.

Wow...

[Ken Pell]

Originally Posted by Dave McClung View Post
Apparently, we don't have that freedom in the U.S. The Metro NY District tried that same approach. The District Superintendent was also pastor of a local congregation. The RGS required that he give up one position or the other.

Wow...

I know DM (and many of you) are faaaar more connected that I am and have far more savvy when it comes to the inner workings of the Church than I do. But I do serve in a neighboring district (Upstate NY). There *might* have been additional circumstances that made that decision well-advised.

[Dave McClung]

Friend, was Christ a member of the clergy? Is he not the ultimate vision caster for his kingdom/church? I would be more than happy to pray and fast, and even meet with a leader, with your qualifications, to help the Spirit reveal His vision to them for our church. Dave, maybe if what you say is true, someone with your type background and experience could be called to "clergyship" at the age of 50+, I'm sure we would be more than happy to ordain folks like yourself, if God is in it. After all they ordained me.

Dave, My point is merely this, yes, as you said, in "a" church that person has typically been clergy, but I think we are ready and hungry to begin thinking about a vision and goal that will move us beyond "a" church mentality and into the work, movement, and reality of "the" church. Most of us have heard and know that God is alive, well and moving in many areas around the world, Christ is building His Church, and we really want to get in on it.

God bless, I will now drop this line of discussion, but probably won't alter my thinking much, until you or someone produces a stronger defense for the "clergy".


I believe in a "God Called" clergy. What ever other qualifications I might have, God has not called me to that role.

Still, I am flattered to be mentioned.

[Paul Whitaker]

I believe in a "God Called" clergy. What ever other qualifications I might have, God has not called me to that role.

Still, I am flattered to be mentioned.


I believe there are many "God Called" laymen. Many have felt the call to "non religious" professions and then have been called by God and the church to take a ministerial position with the church - and have taken those positions and have or will be retiring from those positions.

I think the Lord knows of your experience and your love for Him and His work.

My prayer is, as you seek for the leader you have described, that you will determine that "humble servant" is you.

[Ryan Scott]

Apparently, we don't have that freedom in the U.S. The Metro NY District tried that same approach. The District Superintendent was also pastor of a local congregation. The RGS required that he give up one position or the other.


Wasn't the main criteria for doing so because the congregations on the district as whole paid a much smaller percentage of their budgets than they had previously?

That was the rumor running around HQ at the time anyway.

[Dave McClung]

Wasn't the main criteria for doing so because the congregations on the district as whole paid a much smaller percentage of their budgets than they had previously?

That was the rumor running around HQ at the time anyway.

I don't know?

[Dennis M. Scott]

Is Dr. Ken Mills of the Mid Atlantic District, still pastoring a local church? He was a year or so ago.

:bishop

[Hans Deventer]

I believe in a "God Called" clergy. What ever other qualifications I might have, God has not called me to that role.

I did hear you'll be a pastor pretty soon. :basic03

But seriously, I know what you mean, cause I can relate to that lack of calling. I've been doing many different things in the church, even including preaching, but like you, God hasn't called me to be a pastor in the regular sense of that word. And I can't blame Him and I won't.

[Dennis M. Scott]

[FONT=Comic Sans MS][SIZE=3] As of the end of 2007, 4,809 individuals were receiving a monthly retirement check from the Church of the Nazarene. The cost was $14,875,327



Thank you, for these points, that I think help us understand part of the issue. If I do understand, the above figures indicate the average monthly pension check is for less than $258. I can't help but suspect most Nazarenes wouldn't guess anywhere close to that number. Many also would say that our present system isn't doing what we really want to do. This is not a case of something not being broke and therefore shouldn't be fixed. "It's better than it used to be" won't pay the bills. Who's going to say it should stop? Nobody wants it to be less than it is, but let's face it, while this emperor may not be absolutely naked, he's not wearing much more than a speedo. Another observation is that it also means each month a little over $200 goes toward pensions from each of our churches. I pastor a tiny church - about a dozen members. We have three households receiving a Nazarene pension. I am frankly embarrassed to admit that the average church in North America contributes such a tiny amount to the well being of retired clergy. Even our tiny church could do better than that. Admittedly, our P & B allocation is less, but I thought that on the average more was being done. I'm not very comfortable saying I would want this allocation to be even less. Were that to be eliminated, and the three households in our fellowship stop receiving that check, we would have to figure out something at the local level to take up the slack.

My person opinion is that the regular contributions to individual 403bs is probably a better resolution of the issue, and I am grateful. I also appreciate the work P & B puts into this ministry, That includes board members like you, too. The older I get, the more I look forward to appreciating you more! The harsh reality is that I must look beyond you for retirement. That's why the contribution to my 403b is so meaningful. Neither my monthly pension check - if it's still there when I retire - or the 403b contribution is going to make or break me in retirement. I do receive from the local church some monthly compensation, and it presently represents less than 10% of what Linda and I are putting away toward retirement. Unfortunately that is a marked change from the first thirty years in ministry.

Regardless, thank you for helping us on Naznet get a better picture of P & B.

[Genevieve Boller]

I did hear you'll be a pastor pretty soon. :basic03

But seriously, I know what you mean, cause I can relate to that lack of calling. I've been doing many different things in the church, even including preaching, but like you, God hasn't called me to be a pastor in the regular sense of that word. And I can't blame Him and I won't.

It could happen, though--you never know. ;)

A couple years ago I felt something stirring and I was thinking maybe my husband was going to get into ministry (this was before I really understood the idea of being called). My husband would seem to be the perfect candidate for professional ministry - charming, extroverted, smart, loves Christ, loves people, etc. But no, the Lord called me. If He weren't the Almighty Lord of the universe I would seriously question His choice in this matter.

[Hans Deventer]

It could happen, though--you never know. ;)

True! So far, He has really confirmed what I'm doing right now though. But He's the Lord, He can change things.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

A few years before retirement from the pastorate, Dwayne got in on another retirement sytem that they have for ministers. I think, whatever he had in that is with Fideltiy. He had his churck retirement reduced, so, if something happened to him, I would get more than I would otherwise, like he did his state retirement pension.
Dave knows more about this than I do.

I think Dwayne has combined his other church plan with a 401K plan the state started, a few years before he retired, also. So, these two are together, now, through Fideltiy. Dwayne contributed some each month with what the state contributed, and through the church he added some to what the church paid each month.

[Ron Davis]

I'd immediately vote against it. We do our own thing on our district (= our country) and can manage quite well without a General Assembly telling us what to do, thank you!
We have a system of a fixed amount per active member for district budgets and see no reason to change it.

I'd bet your membership rolls are accurate.:basic03

[Hans Deventer]

I'd bet your membership rolls are accurate.:basic03

You bet! They were, but it's a great system to keep them accurate too :basic05

[Chuck Millhuff]

I truth we are a small church trying to meet this need. We have a pot of money from which we draw interest. The pot is not large so the interest is not large. It was
always meant to be a supplement to SS and any savings. The investment
is low risk on the pot as it should be. We just have to deal with it in kindness I guess. I

[Mike Schutz]

I understand the need to change structures. I believe it is necessary. However, it is secondary.

I don't disagree with Dave about the need for the church to use the examples of best practices from business. We should do our work with excellence and integrity, just as great businesses do. However, the church is not a business. The church is the visible expression of the kingdom of God in the present moment.

We must change the spiritual environment of our church. We need repentance, we need reconciliation, we need revival. We need the presence of God.

When we seek God's face together, when God moves in our midst, when our fellowship is healed, then the conversations about structural change will not only be more fruitful, but the answer may be more clear.

[Hans Deventer]

We must change the spiritual environment of our church. We need repentance, we need reconciliation, we need revival. We need the presence of God.

Sure. No one will disagree that this is the goal. However, the question is, how to attain that goal? It seems to me the issue is a matter of sequence, of goal and means. Dave's proposal is a means, not a goal.

[Chuck Millhuff]

A great revival in the church is what we all long and pray for but will that make a board of six people able to ordain the hundreds waiting in The Horn on Africa? And this but one challenge a six person board faces:

[Jeffrey Sykes]

Looking at #8 in your list, I have many questions. The first is do you realize that implementing the reduction in funding (to just the Seminary Offering) would result in the closing of NTS? The Seminary offering, though it is very generous, has (adjusted for inflation) continued to decrease throughout the years.

The support of the denomination through the General Board has continued to keep NTS a solvent institution. Without their support, the seminary would be forced to close its doors in less than a few months.

--JS

[Dave McClung]

Looking at #8 in your list, I have many questions. The first is do you realize that implementing the reduction in funding (to just the Seminary Offering) would result in the closing of NTS? The Seminary offering, though it is very generous, has (adjusted for inflation) continued to decrease throughout the years.

The support of the denomination through the General Board has continued to keep NTS a solvent institution. Without their support, the seminary would be forced to close its doors in less than a few months.

--JS

Jeffrey, I suspect that I know as much about school finance as anyone here. Without a doubt, cutting funding from the World Evangelism Fund to NTS would force some signigicant changes. It wouldn't cause NTS to close.

In case you don't know, I was president of ENC and am chairman of the Finance Committee for NBC.

[Ryan Scott]

I'm guessing it would have to be done awfully slowly. I know I couldn't afford to pay 40% more of whatever the WEF amount to NTS is (I think I head 40% somewhere, but maybe that's wrong).

[Jeffrey Sykes]

I'll be honest here. I have a hard time being objective given my proximity to the Seminary. I just wonder about the rational for cutting that funding for NTS. If it does happen I hope I'm not here when the Seminary has to adjust to over on third of its budget being cut. If your proposal makes headway at General Assembly, I'll make sure my resume is in good shape. :)

--JS

[Ryan Scott]

You'll be fine, Jeff. I believe the resolution is simply to have one person responsible for casting a vision. The rest are just Dave's suggestions.

[Dave McClung]

You'll be fine, Jeff. I believe the resolution is simply to have one person responsible for casting a vision. The rest are just Dave's suggestions.

Just for the record, I don't expect my recommendations to be adopted for immediate implementation. I do think there is a possibility that a resolution capping allocations will be adopted and the implementation of the cap will fall on some committee or commision.

In that eventuallity, the Seminary and the Universities had better have thought through a plan for survival with greatly reduced subsidy.

Hopefully, if such a cap is adopted, there will be a reasonable time for transition.

[Ryan Scott]

Do you really think such a resolution would be adopted? It would be an interesting test to see what delegates really care about more - finances or the perception of control.

[Dave McClung]

Do you really think such a resolution would be adopted? It would be an interesting test to see what delegates really care about more - finances or the perception of control.

You are too young to remember when California adopted "Proposition 13."

The voting citizens in California decided that taxes were too high. They adopted a cap on real estate taxes at 1% of the fair market value. The cap was much less than the existing tax rate. In California, the goverment agencies that depending on the tax revenue had to make dramatic changes to accomodate the tax reduction.

My sense is that the mood at the grass roots in the Church of the Nazarene isn't much different than the mood of the citizens of California back in 1978. Yes, I believe that a cap on "allocations" is possible and I believe the cap could be low enough to force major changes.

[Mike Schutz]

In Massachusetts it was "Proposition 2 1/2," passed in the early 1980s. The end result was that every teacher with less than 12 years of service was let go. Public education in that state has still not recovered.

Every church has the ability to make a decision as to how much they will pay toward the WEF and other allocations. I do not want to see those allocations reduced if the result is to cut denominational support of our educational institutions and pension responsibilities.

[Ryan Scott]

I was more referring to the major themes which seemed to keep coming up over and over at the last General Assembly, which were: "we're paying too much" and "we need to keep control over people."

It seems like these two clash (at least in perception) at removing the financial connection to the institutions. Sure, the make-up of the governing boards is still under denominational control, but we all know money talks.

[Billy Cox]

[QUOTE=Dave McClung;193480]
My sense is that the mood at the grass roots in the Church of the Nazarene isn't much different than the mood of the citizens of California back in 1978. Yes, I believe that a cap on "allocations" is possible and I believe the cap could be low enough to force major changes.

I am inferring that one of those changes is to use the power of the purse to remind NTS that they are the tail and not the dog. Would this be accurate?

[Dave McClung]

[quote=Dave McClung;193480]
My sense is that the mood at the grass roots in the Church of the Nazarene isn't much different than the mood of the citizens of California back in 1978. Yes, I believe that a cap on "allocations" is possible and I believe the cap could be low enough to force major changes.

I am inferring that one of those changes is to use the power of the purse to remind NTS that they are the tail and not the dog. Would this be accurate?

I don't hear much critcism of NTS specifically. The NTS subsidy is buried in the World Evangelism Fund. Everywhere I go, I am hearing people complain that the total of the World Evangelism Fund, the Educational Budget, the District Budget and the P&B Budget are taking too large of a bite out of the local budget.

I don't see a threat of anyone proposing a cut to the NTS funding as a separate resolution. I think it is more likely that there will be a Proposition 13 type of cap put on all budgets. As a result of the cap, NTS will have to compete with other ministries for the limited funding.

[David Pettigrew]

Two questions:

1) Can the local church survive without the general church?
2) Can the general church survive without the local church?

[David Showalter]

Two questions:

1) Can the local church survive without the general church?
2) Can the general church survive without the local church?

David, those are probably great questions for a "poll", but not to good for general discussion or answer. I am not for sure I'd want my answer published throughout the Nazarene Kingdom. Having said that, I have seen times when a local church probably would not have survived a certain crisis without the help and intervention of the District leadership. On the other hand I do not know how or why the general church would need to exist if there were no local bodies.

[Eric Vail]

Just for the record, I don't expect my recommendations to be adopted for immediate implementation. I do think there is a possibility that a resolution capping allocations will be adopted and the implementation of the cap will fall on some committee or commision.

In that eventuallity, the Seminary and the Universities had better have thought through a plan for survival with greatly reduced subsidy.

Hopefully, if such a cap is adopted, there will be a reasonable time for transition.


I do find it interesting that we are having any conversations about lowering our financial contributions to our academic institutions. A few years ago Harvard hosted a forum on different ways that denominations financially support (or don't support) their schools. They invited representatives from the CotN to present because we were so rare (even unique) in the level of our contributions.

The feedback at that forum was that those traditions who cut their funding lost their schools. To compete in the marketplace their schools abandoned their distinctive denominational flavor. Their schools no longer represented the values and beliefs of the denomination; thus they were no longer a place where families could send their children to be developed for lay or clergy ministry according to their tradition. Case study after case study showed that once schools were cut loose and slowly drifted away in their institutional culture, there's really no way to get them back (and no denominational authority to do so); you'd have to start all new schools to fulfill the purposes the original ones once filled for the denomination.

As a person who is preparing to go into teaching at one of our Nazarene schools I dislike the idea of cutting funding. I don't dislike it because I am afraid of working at a school that is struggling financially. I dislike it because I desire to train Nazarene young people in our Nazarene/Wesleyan heritage and as ministers within and on behalf of our church. I have much less interest in teaching at a generically evangelical liberal arts university.

[Billy Cox]

1) Can the local church survive without the general church?

I answer the question with a question. Are there local churches that survive and/or thrive without a denominational structure to help them?

2) Can the general church survive without the local church?

I answer the question with another question. Are there any denominations that do not have affiliated local churches?

Wow...that was easy!! Rhetorical questions are sooo easy to answer.

[David Pettigrew]

Apparently USA/Canada NYI leadership thought it was a good question a couple of years ago, when it was posed to us at District Leadership Conference. The point was that the denominational structure exists to support the local church, rather than the local church existing to support the denominational structure.

[Jon Twitchell]

David,

You've sharing a theme that I've been harping on for years (it seems). For instance: I've listened to NPH reps chastise pastors for using non-NPH curriculum. Now, in general, I believe that we should be using NPH curriculum, and while there may be times when something else is appropriate, I imagine that this comment was directed at pastors who NEVER use NPH curriculum.

However, I always thought that instead of chastising the pastors/ss supts who don't use NPH curriculum, it would have made more sense to take some of them out to dinner and figure out why it is that they don't use NPH curriculum.

That's just one example of the ways in which the General Church (and its departments) can sometimes act/speak as though the local church exists to support the General Church. On a cognitive level, I'm sure that they don't believe that to be true. But their actions are not always consistent with the notion that the General Church exists to support and resource the local church... not the other way around.

[Billy Cox]

That's just one example of the ways in which the General Church (and its departments) can sometimes act/speak as though the local church exists to support the General Church. On a cognitive level, I'm sure that they don't believe that to be true. But their actions are not always consistent with the notion that the General Church exists to support and resource the local church... not the other way around.

But in some very important ways, the local church *does* support the General Church. What most local churches get in return is the knowledge that they are participating financially in worldwide mission.

[Jon Twitchell]

But in some very important ways, the local church *does* support the General Church. What most local churches get in return is the knowledge that they are participating financially in worldwide mission.

I actually disagree with most of this statement. Every church, whether part of a denomination or not, is responsible to participate in global mission. I grew up in an independent church that had missions council. That missions council decided which independant missionaries they wanted to support. That independent church probably gave 6-8% of its income to world missions in this way.

I don't see our giving to missions as supporting the General Church-- I see the General Church facilitating the local church's participation in global missions. (At least, the missions portion of WEF).

Now... I realize that a portion of our WEF giving goes to administrative and global church costs that are not directly related to missions. However, I believe that our model is infinitely better than the independant model where missionaries have to travel in the states 1 out of 4 years in hopes or raising enough money to go back on the mission field.

[Paul Tarrant]

Two questions:

1) Can the local church survive without the general church?
2) Can the general church survive without the local church?

It seems we need to get back to basics - and away from the "poor me" complaints about budgets and pensions - This is Kingdom, and, so far as the denomination we have allied ourselves to is concerned, whatever the General church does must enhance the mission of the local church - if that means provide educated local, district and global leaders and missionaries, then that is what we need to provide for. Of course even pensions (or is it benevolence?) does that by making at least some provision from the diminishing pot for the spent, the widows and sick clergy. As we honour those who have served us, we make it clear to those we seek to recruit that they too are valued. Let's maintain a high view of the clergy.

What I do see in Kansas City is a desire to serve the local church with every possible resource to help us get the job done in our communities, and in the next communities also - so that is literature, lay-training, pastoral education, inspirational conferences, New-Start and multicultural resources, tools to assess leadership potential in church planters and to enhance aptitude with learned skills...
General church cannot do this alone - just as Christ could not accomplish his mission without the disciples fanning out across the globe to preach good news. Neither can the local church be as effective alone - as Christ promised to resource local ministry through his Spirit, so we are resourced by the Spirit, and by Spirit-filled servants who place in our hands the tools for the task.
If the CotN needs a turn-aroun today - it is us who can make that happen by:
1. Telling HQ what we need as tools and education.
2. Examining the tools they do present us with, and making the most of the holiness perspective provided through Nazarene products... then, second researching the tools offered by the wider Christian community of disciple-makers.
3. Helping our institutions recruit the best of our people (young and in mid-life), presentin goften to them the highest calling to service and ministry. Just maybe we have settled for the devil's suggestion that lay ministry is equal in every respect to trained and ordained ministry.
4. Affirming our leaders, and those who give their greater career prospects to serve the Kingdom in HQ: Missons, Literature, and Ministry resource.
Did anyone see that segment starting in WMVMag - "Missio Dei"? - Get it, see it - make your response - spread it...
5. Setting aside comfort and excess to prioritise influence. Who cares about carbon footprints, when we should be thinking of our missions footprint..?

[David Pettigrew]

It seems we need to get back to basics - and away from the "poor me" complaints about budgets and pensions - This is Kingdom, and, so far as the denomination we have allied ourselves to is concerned, whatever the General church does must enhance the mission of the local church - if that means provide educated local, district and global leaders and missionaries, then that is what we need to provide for. Of course even pensions (or is it benevolence?) does that by making at least some provision from the diminishing pot for the spent, the widows and sick clergy. As we honour those who have served us, we make it clear to those we seek to recruit that they too are valued. Let's maintain a high view of the clergy.

What I do see in Kansas City is a desire to serve the local church with every possible resource to help us get the job done in our communities, and in the next communities also - so that is literature, lay-training, pastoral education, inspirational conferences, New-Start and multicultural resources, tools to assess leadership potential in church planters and to enhance aptitude with learned skills...
General church cannot do this alone - just as Christ could not accomplish his mission without the disciples fanning out across the globe to preach good news. Neither can the local church be as effective alone - as Christ promised to resource local ministry through his Spirit, so we are resourced by the Spirit, and by Spirit-filled servants who place in our hands the tools for the task.
If the CotN needs a turn-aroun today - it is us who can make that happen by:
1. Telling HQ what we need as tools and education.
2. Examining the tools they do present us with, and making the most of the holiness perspective provided through Nazarene products... then, second researching the tools offered by the wider Christian community of disciple-makers.
3. Helping our institutions recruit the best of our people (young and in mid-life), presentin goften to them the highest calling to service and ministry. Just maybe we have settled for the devil's suggestion that lay ministry is equal in every respect to trained and ordained ministry.
4. Affirming our leaders, and those who give their greater career prospects to serve the Kingdom in HQ: Missons, Literature, and Ministry resource.
Did anyone see that segment starting in WMVMag - "Missio Dei"? - Get it, see it - make your response - spread it...
5. Setting aside comfort and excess to prioritise influence. Who cares about carbon footprints, when we should be thinking of our missions footprint..?

Hi Paul,

Anyone who has stayed in the conversation in this thread for this long is not in the "poor me" category, although that element is definitely present in our organization, as it is in any. The participants in this thread are not complainers - they are passionate about the Church of the Nazarene and want to see it prosper. I feel I can say this with some level of confidence. Those who merely have an ax to grind tend to join up, write a couple of angry posts, find there's no fuel here to add to their fire, then silently walk away, proclaiming the Church of the Nazarene is now under the care of liberals and heretics.

That is not to say there are not complaints in this thread. If everything in our church were the best it could be, we wouldn't need this conversation. I think the high level of budget apportionments is a legitimate cause for discussion.

I have not a doubt in my mind that every penny my church sends away, be it at the district or global level, goes to a worthy budget line item. The question we MUST face at this critical point in our story is "Will the Great Commission be fulfilled to a greater degree by investing money locally or globally?".

Of, course, that's not an "either/or" question. Since Jesus told us to do both, (Jerusalem...to the ends of the earth), we must invest our resources in both places. The problem comes when we invest in one to the detriment of the other. Many feel that we, as a denomination, have perhaps invested globally at the expense of local ministry. We are unique. Most denominations have the opposite problem.

When a local church is forced to make the hard choice to tighten it's belt, where does it make cuts? Not debt or bills. Those are not optional. We cut people and ministry. We either put off hiring staff, or let staff go. We put off beginning a costly ministry, even if it is needed.

Why would we not expect the global church to do the same?

This is why I think a percentage system makes a lot more sense than an apportionment system. As the local church prospers, so will the global church. As the local church goes through lean years, the global church will have to adjust accordingly.

What makes no sense is increasing spending at the global level when local churches are sacrificing to pay budgets. I'm not saying this is the whole picture right now, but I see it as a legitimate cause for discussion.

One thing I have learned is this. No one has the whole picture. Local Nazarenes really don't have a clue what takes place on the headquarters level, and the sacrifices made by those who choose to minister there. On the other hand, many at headquarters have never attended a church like mine.

That is why the discussion is so important. I'm so glad this discussion has been moved from the board room to the chat room, giving us all a voice in it.

[John Kennedy]

Dave -

I haven't been a Nazarene for more than 30 years. But as a Naz-friendly, ex-Naz, Naznetter (who says I couldn't pass a sobriety test), who spent years up close and personal with the topic under discussion, your post resonates.

[Sam Hunter]

I'm the one who posted the draft general assembly resolution to move to 10% in budgets for the local church. Here is some rationale.

1. The ratio of north american congregations to congregations in the rest of the world continues to change in a way that will require more and more resources from a shrinking base. More money from north america isn't necessarily the best answer.
2. I've been involved with two church planting efforts now in north america and the organizational culture does not support that kind of activity if it means that you won't be paying your assigned budgets. In the last 10 years our congregation commissioned 60 people to plant a new congregation and also said goodbye to $100,000 per year in giving. In another instance we gave a staff person and 10 families to restart a struggling church. In neither case was there an attaboy or forebearance of budgets.
3. Our congregation is located in one of the fastest growing parts of the country and also one of the hardest to evangelize. It would be great to hire one or two more staff persons to help connect with our community, but those funds are earmarked for external budgets.
4. Increasing the number of north american congregations will take the lid off of many things: support of headquarters, support for pensions and benefits, etc. Squeezing local congregations with higher budgets will make it more difficult in many ways.
5. The evidence from others (see Reclaiming the Great Commission by Claude Payne) is that giving local congregations more choices will actually increase the overall support of Great Commission related endeavors.

[Paul Tarrant]

Sam, I like your reasoning - and hope someone is writing this into a resolution for GA-09. In the District budgeting system in the UK we have a number of clauses to reduce the base figure from which District and Global Allocations are calculated. One of these is "approved building." Maybe the Resolution that comes to GA should include a number of factors to be subtracted from the base figure. I could support it if a proportion of a local church's Evangelism budget could be taken out to calculate the base, especially if it can be shown that a church has given staff to plant a church or new campus.
On another giving-demand from HQ, I'm a bit concerned about the "stealth-tax" being requested to fund the Global Ministries Center build to be promoted as part of each local Centennial celebration. No doubt someone will later want to publish a listing of each District's contribution. I'm suggesting our local Centennial Offering go to our own local mission of reaching the next town where we have just bought an appartment for a new core-team leader. Am I being anti-denominational?
Anyway, Can someone say what this Resolution will look like yet - since it has to progress through a District Assembly, before December, to make the Assembly Resolution roster?

[Dave McClung]

Anyway, Can someone say what this Resolution will look like yet - since it has to progress through a District Assembly, before December, to make the Assembly Resolution roster?

Paul, I understand that most resolutions from outside the U.S. come through district assemblies. That in not the case in the U.S. Most U.S. Districts appoint a "Resolutions Committee." On the districts where I served, the Resolutions Committee is made up of the delegates and alternates. Resolutions are initiated by the Resolutions Committees well after the District Assembly is over.

Still, I would hope that most resolutions are moving forward before December. The committee for our district meets in June, but that will be a preliminary meeting. I assume that the committee will continue to work right up to the deadline for resolutions. If I remember correctly that is about General Board time in February, but the rules provide for late resolutions to be submited after that.

[Jeffrey Sykes]

I think Eric has a valid point here. If funding for various institutions is cut, what keeps those institutions from branching out and becoming a bit more "generic" to appeal to a wider constituency and appeal to a wider audience?

And thought I doubt there is much in NTS' vision which is out of touch with the mission of the church, why should NTS be forced to change if the denomination decides that it is unworthy of financial support? I'm sure there would be strong denominational support from Dr. Benefiel even if funding were cut but how or why should NTS be obliged to follow the vision of an organization whose vision would implicitly devalue its contribution (by cutting out financing)?

If voting with feet (or dollars) shows where priorities are, wouldn't cutting the funding to various educational institutions send a clear message about how NTS, or regional colleges and universities are no longer part of the vision of the denomination? With that message being communicated, wouldn't the prudent (practical) thing for those institutions be to do whatever they can to broaden their appeal in order to insure their own survival?

--JS

[Ryan Scott]

Well funding cuts wouldn't stop the districts from nominating the trustees. It's not like the denomination would be cutting ties, they would just have to work to recruit support from local congregations rather than assuming it.

I don't think it's a bad idea; it just needs time to be properly implemented.

[Paul Tarrant]

Under Sam's Reasons:
Rationale 4. suggests a 10% apportionment system because it fits with the Biblical storehouse tithing concept.... and yet I see no evidence in Scripture for a set level of apportionment for local congregartions to central administration... While it is a good idea to set a level - it would be difficult to justify a particular percentage. I would sugest setting a maximum apportionment as a guideline to the District Finance Board, while setting a set district percentage for Global Missions (WEF) - according to total raised over the whole district: The General church needs to be able to anticipate a particular level of income, and I don't know what that percetage is ... but it would encourage all districts: Phase 2 and 3 to get on board.

Under 5. If we really want to "Empower local churches to support world evangelism projects, district projects, and compassionate ministry projects of their choosing ...." we might try suggesting that up to 50% of local WEF apportionment (or you pick a number) could be designated by the local church to a specific field. We all recognise that people give better to a project they identify with, and we might then suggest to WMD to restrict fields from promoting their projects to more than a certain limit of districts. Partnerships like this can be very productive and raise giving to missions. Keeping a 50% cap saves us from unfunded GMC and general WEF funding. Keeping the percentage designation to a field allows for that funding to be spent on personnel and projects, so realistically would make minimal difference to flexibility that WMD enjoys - It would also keep it manageable for GTO.

On Rationale 6. Another way for "Local congregations" ...to... "be empowered to increase their efforts in evangelism" is to offer DBFinance the option to reduce the base figure in proportion to a local church's previous year's spending developing property or a new congregation plant.

I agree with Rationale 7's premise that top down organizations are missing opportunities. Any "Taxation" option that supports local outreach, or that partners local churches financially in mission with a District grant would work for me... 'cos that happens anyway, in many Districts... and it places the onus for mission right back on the local church where it belongs.

I think any hope of sucess in General Assembly Resolutions depends upon including flexibility for a "Global Manual." We can expect Assembly to push for reduction in verbiage and "rules of operation", so setting a ceiling of say 12% on total budgets, with flexible discretions given to District Finance Boards might work best.

In some WM districts in the 2/3rds world where income is not always in bills and coins, we might have difficulty processing chickens and ears of maize all the way through to the GTO....:laughing

[Dave McClung]

In some WM districts in the 2/3rds world where income is not always in bills and coins, we might have difficulty processing chickens and ears of maize all the way through to the GTO....:laughing

When I saw the plans for the new Headquarters, I didn't see any chicken coops.

[Mark Woodward]

In the church I pastor we are trying to open our doors at every opportunity to our community. This open door policy is bringing folks in our doors and building relationships that allow us to show the love and compassion of Christ. Some groups contribute a small amount to cover expenses like heat/lights etc. The more groups use our building - the more our bills go up and yes sometimes what we collect to offset these bills. It just gets hard when paying out utilities that allow more to use your facility play into your budgets. So for each additional dollar we spend to open our doors - we might need to send up to an additional 20% to support the various budgets. Sometimes I feel like we are hurt by trying to reach more. Also, our utilites have increased 5-16% annually for the past 4 years. Hard to keep the old drafty building heated at these rates.
Now if we could increase our debt (which I am not sure is very Biblical - but seems very adventageous for budget reduction), pay more for health insurance or pay staff all as pastors that get their pay 100% as housing allowance - then we are a-ok.
Please some help for the church that is stretching beyond its limits to connect to its neighborhood. Having a chinese language school, 4 additional language group congregations, mandolin orchestra, blue-grass band, pilates, electric car association, Jewish circle, women's sobriety group, Scottish Pipers, book clubs, sustainable community meetings, and much more gets expensive. Help please!

[Dave McClung]

In the church I pastor we are trying to open our doors at every opportunity to our community. This open door policy is bringing folks in our doors and building relationships that allow us to show the love and compassion of Christ. Some groups contribute a small amount to cover expenses like heat/lights etc. The more groups use our building - the more our bills go up and yes sometimes what we collect to offset these bills. It just gets hard when paying out utilities that allow more to use your facility play into your budgets. So for each additional dollar we spend to open our doors - we might need to send up to an additional 20% to support the various budgets. Sometimes I feel like we are hurt by trying to reach more. Also, our utilites have increased 5-16% annually for the past 4 years. Hard to keep the old drafty building heated at these rates.
Now if we could increase our debt (which I am not sure is very Biblical - but seems very adventageous for budget reduction), pay more for health insurance or pay staff all as pastors that get their pay 100% as housing allowance - then we are a-ok.
Please some help for the church that is stretching beyond its limits to connect to its neighborhood. Having a chinese language school, 4 additional language group congregations, mandolin orchestra, blue-grass band, pilates, electric car association, Jewish circle, women's sobriety group, Scottish Pipers, book clubs, sustainable community meetings, and much more gets expensive. Help please!

What are "pilates?"

[Randy McRoberts]

In the church I pastor we are trying to open our doors at every opportunity to our community.

What would happen if you kept your doors closed and went to the community instead? Would your ministry be better? Would your utility bills go down?

[Jon Twitchell]

What are "pilates?"


Pirates who steal exercise equipment?

:)

It's some sort of exercise/stretching program... I think!

And it's not pronounced like pirates... it has 3 syllables, with stress on the second syllable, and a long E at the end.

[Paul Tarrant]

o.k here is a draft General Assembly Resolution that goes to the heart of one issue. Feel free to edit it, tweek it, submit it to your district resolutions committee!

General Assembly Resolution

Reason 7. In an age where top down organizations are missing opportunities, this change would unleash local congregations to size opportunities both at home and around the world.

Sam, I'm not sure I understand what "SIZE OPPORTUNITIES" means - Did you mean "SEIZE" ?

[Sam Hunter]

Yes, Paul the correct word should be seize!

Sam

[Heidi Anderson]

What would happen if you kept your doors closed and went to the community instead? Would your ministry be better? Would your utility bills go down?

Could you clarify what you mean by this? I just need to be clear that you're saying we should close our 25,000 square foot urban neighborhood church and stand on the street corner? I'm confused.

We use almost every inch of our 25,000 sq. feet - I think rather well. There are folks who come into our coffeehouse who have never set foot in a traditional church (and never would). We use our building as a resource...and I am happy that our >100 person church is thoughtful and faithful enough to throw our doors open in non-traditional ways.

[Randy McRoberts]

No, I think you should keep doing exactly what you are doing? I'll not clarify any more than I have already.

[Mark Woodward]

What would happen if you kept your doors closed and went to the community instead? Would your ministry be better? Would your utility bills go down?

I so agree that churches need to go and be. We do that as well - we go and participate and are a vital part of the communty- could not answer this earlier - I was at the local grade school. :)
We are champions of being supports and participants of our local church neighborhood. We also encourage our congregants to go and be in their neighborhoods and communities - even to the point of not being at church every Sunday- but being the church every Sunday. (now that one is hard to count in statistics)
Beyond going and being we also open and welcome. Hard for most of these things to exist if they don't have a place that welcomes them. We don't see our building as ours - and you better take proper care and treat her right or we will use it for our exclusive use and potlucks. We don't see our building as a liability in this urban neighborhood. A property probably worth over 10 Million with a debt ratio of about 1.2% with a Nazarene congregation of about 100. We don't see it as something that could be sold and a large campus could be built in the suburbs. We see it as a community center, a gathering place. A place for neighbor to meet neighbor. A place that can open its doors and embrace the needs of our community. A place where over 1,000 community members call it home for various meetings or gatherings each and every week.
So yes we need to continue to go and be and Love. I also, feel we need to prayerfully use the assets that belong to the Kingdom for Kingdom opportunities. I believe Bresee said we are to build missions centers - where we can also worship.
Just not sure where the bagpipers will practice if we shut the doors - and there is nothing like "Amazing Grace" played by 4 pipers and 2 drums...gives you the chills and that is what it is all about getting that feel good goose bump feeling.:)

[Heidi Anderson]

Oh..perhaps I mis-read your previous statement as I didn't read that you were saying we should keep doing what we're doing. Sorry if I misunderstood. It happens.

[Emmanuel Reinbold]

As a fairly new Nazarene pastor (less than 2 years), I am extremely encouraged by what I have read tonight! I have had serious concerns about the budget process as I have watched our church struggle to fulfill our mission of growing passionate servants for Christ through the WORD because our funding is all being sent elsewhere. I believe in supporting the work of disciplemaking, but I feel that our current system has too much overhead and makes growing a church and paying the budgets very difficult to do.

I am very much in favor of much that I have read in this thread (I have spent the last 6 hours reading all 560 posts) and am excited to see this discussion taking place!

I agree with Dave that the first task is that we have a vision-caster to clearly articulate our mission and vision. Then we can bring our structure into alignment with that mission. If we are to be making Christlike disciples in the nations, then our structure needs to put the discipleship process at the top of the priority list!

As we have one clear leader who can articulate the vision for our church, we can hopefully make the changes necessary to allow the local churches to use the resources that God is supplying them with to impact our local mission fields while still pooling our resources to impact the world with the message of Christ and His call to holiness!

[Paul Tarrant]

...the first task is that we have a vision-caster to clearly articulate our mission and vision. Then we can bring our structure into alignment with that mission. If we are to be making Christlike disciples in the nations, then our structure needs to put the discipleship process at the top of the priority list!
... we can hopefully make the changes necessary to allow the local churches to use the resources that God is supplying them ....

Visionary Leadership, empowered to set in place strategies, THAT LOCAL CHURCHES WILL UTILISE... Last time I looked the CotN has many strategies, programs and materials - and most significant in recent days has begun a fresh move to seek God again through persistent local corporate prayer initiatives to Wake Us, Shake Us, and Move us outside the walls - becoming a "going" church rather than an "inviting" church.
Wake Us - to see what we are, and what the world has become without our involvement in community, in politics, in justice for the poor and disempowered.
Shake us - to realize what we could do as one church united under God.
Move Us Outside - to where the people are - with the message that changes lives one-at-a-time.

WE ARE on the brink of sentinel changes in our structure - but even structural changes need a people who will follow. I imagine the role of GS must be one of the most tiring, and frustrating roles in the CotN - there is little glory, and a lot of struggle - a bit like being a pastor, or a DS 100 times over - not that I want to be one of them either.
God strengthen you BGS as you are open, and as you open up His plans and leading us to.

[Jared Rider]

After reading this post, I must admit that I am secptical about much of you have said, there are some diffinate changes that need to happen. But I also think that just to through ideas out there is a dangerous thing to do, you talked about the changes needed that you saw, but said nothing about time spent in prayer and searching the will and insight that needs to take place before the presentation that you have posted. I may be wrong and you may have taken the time to pray and search the will of the Father. I think that we really need to be mindful of the will of the Father and not our own idea of what needs to be done. Also I think that if there is any complianing going on, you kind of expect that when you are dealing with people, we all have our own though processes, our own back ground and history. There is more that I am sure could be said but I have said my piece for this moment.

[Dave McClung]

After reading this post, I must admit that I am secptical about much of you have said, there are some diffinate changes that need to happen. But I also think that just to through ideas out there is a dangerous thing to do, you talked about the changes needed that you saw, but said nothing about time spent in prayer and searching the will and insight that needs to take place before the presentation that you have posted. I may be wrong and you may have taken the time to pray and search the will of the Father. I think that we really need to be mindful of the will of the Father and not our own idea of what needs to be done. Also I think that if there is any complianing going on, you kind of expect that when you are dealing with people, we all have our own though processes, our own back ground and history. There is more that I am sure could be said but I have said my piece for this moment.

Jared, you didn't say how much you prayed before you posted.

I am not offended by your post, but I do think it is immature for you to assume that I don't pray. I have observed that a some people try to get support for their ideas by attributing them to God. I never do that. When I present ideas, they are my own. You are free to accept them or reject them. You should pray about them first.

[John Kennedy]

Dave -
As a 'NFNNNN' (NazFriendlyNonNazNaznetter), thanks for NOT playing the 'God card'. I've seen enough of that in my lifetime (and not in just any one denomination) to last me for a very long time. Those who invoke God's endorsement for the furtherance of their agendas simply demean themselves.

[Randy McRoberts]

Dave -
Those who invoke God's endorsement for the furtherance of their agendas simply demean themselves.

You mean, like the singer/songwriter who comes to church and says, "God gave me this song. I hope you like it."?

Well, you'd better like it if it's from God, huh?

Sorry for sidetracking the discussion. Back to the regularly scheduled program.

[John Kennedy]

Sorry for sidetracking the discussion. Back to the regularly scheduled program.[/QUOTE]

As already noted, playing the 'God card' almost invariably has a way of sidetracking any meaningful discussion of the issue.

[David Pettigrew]

God told me it was ok if we sidetracked the discussion.

[John Kennedy]

Well, it's sure a good thing God is omnipresent, given the amount of time he must have to spend writing disclaimers.

[David Pettigrew]

I'll never forget Dr. Mark Reighard at SNU, in one of his concerts, proclaiming "God told me to write this song." It was called "I want to be a Christian food processor in God's big country kitchen."

[Billy Cox]

Well, it's sure a good thing God is omnipresent, given the amount of time he must have to spend writing disclaimers.

If God is omnipresent, I wonder if on Christmas morning in heaven, 'all the presents' are for God. :basic03

[Greg Farra]

J. Vernon McGee used to tell the story of the preacher who was being complimented on his just-finished sermon. He told the lady," Thanks, God gave it to me."

She replied,"It wasn't THAT good!" :preach

[Ken Pell]

J. Vernon McGee used to tell the story of the preacher who was being complimented on his just-finished sermon. He told the lady," Thanks, God gave it to me."

She replied,"It wasn't THAT good!" :preach

I like Father Mulcahy's line on M*A*S*H when he is complimented by Colonel Potter on a sermon ... "You can't miss when you have good material." :)

[Dave Bucher]

I'm a late-comer to the NazNet scene, and have spent much of the last week reading the many threads on Renewal and the gazillion posts. Here's my thoughts up to this point ....

Have the six GS’s elect one person to articulate the vision.

Encourage the merger of districts or move to regions.

Use retirees to accomplish the “pastor to the pastors” task that is so often asked of the DS's.

Apportionments for district and regional needs set at 10% of what the local church is directly benefited by, then WEF is an offering above and beyond the local tithe. Local churches don’t set the family’s tithe based on last year’s income, but have to be flexible with their budgets based on income. Why should districts or regions be any different?

Have annual district or regional assemblies, but the GS only comes every other year.

Let ordinands decide if they want to wait for the GS, visit another district that does have a visiting GS, or be ordained by the local DS.
(Ordination is special not only for the individual, but for the all the area churches. Someday, that young man or woman may very well be your pastor. Get involved in their lives now.)

Have DS/RS/GS encourage the congregations to consider calling more women to serve as their pastors.

Encourage churches to pay a livable salary package. If they can’t, they need to consider bi-vocational or shared pastors.

Develop an eHarmony type of system for pastoral placement. It needs to at least regional, if not world wide.

Develop a regional-based church conflict resolution system.

Develop a team approach to district/regional leadership that includes managerial/administrative expertise.

[Dave McClung]

I'm a late-comer to the NazNet scene, and have spent much of the last week reading the many threads on Renewal and the gazillion posts. Here's my thoughts up to this point ....

Have the six GS’s elect one person to articulate the vision.

Encourage the merger of districts or move to regions.

Use retirees to accomplish the “pastor to the pastors” task that is so often asked of the DS's.

Apportionments for district and regional needs set at 10% of what the local church is directly benefited by, then WEF is an offering above and beyond the local tithe. Local churches don’t set the family’s tithe based on last year’s income, but have to be flexible with their budgets based on income. Why should districts or regions be any different?

Have annual district or regional assemblies, but the GS only comes every other year.

Let ordinands decide if they want to wait for the GS, visit another district that does have a visiting GS, or be ordained by the local DS.
(Ordination is special not only for the individual, but for the all the area churches. Someday, that young man or woman may very well be your pastor. Get involved in their lives now.)

Have DS/RS/GS encourage the congregations to consider calling more women to serve as their pastors.

Encourage churches to pay a livable salary package. If they can’t, they need to consider bi-vocational or shared pastors.

Develop an eHarmony type of system for pastoral placement. It needs to at least regional, if not world wide.

Develop a regional-based church conflict resolution system.

Develop a team approach to district/regional leadership that includes managerial/administrative expertise.

Welcome to NazNet. There are a lot of good ideas in your post. It seems to me that the missing element is "who". Most of your suggestions start with a verb, but lack a subject. Without adding the subject that addresses "who" the suggestions can't be implemented.

That is where my primary frustration lies. To be implemented, most of your ideas and most of mine would require action or at least support from the Board of General Superintendents or the General Assembly.

[Betty Bolerjack]

I'm a late-comer to the NazNet scene, and have spent much of the last week reading the many threads on Renewal and the gazillion posts. Here's my thoughts up to this point ....

Have the six GS’s elect one person to articulate the vision.

Encourage the merger of districts or move to regions.

Use retirees to accomplish the “pastor to the pastors” task that is so often asked of the DS's.

Apportionments for district and regional needs set at 10% of what the local church is directly benefited by, then WEF is an offering above and beyond the local tithe. Local churches don’t set the family’s tithe based on last year’s income, but have to be flexible with their budgets based on income. Why should districts or regions be any different?

Have annual district or regional assemblies, but the GS only comes every other year.

Let ordinands decide if they want to wait for the GS, visit another district that does have a visiting GS, or be ordained by the local DS.
(Ordination is special not only for the individual, but for the all the area churches. Someday, that young man or woman may very well be your pastor. Get involved in their lives now.)

Have DS/RS/GS encourage the congregations to consider calling more women to serve as their pastors.

Encourage churches to pay a livable salary package. If they can’t, they need to consider bi-vocational or shared pastors.

Develop an eHarmony type of system for pastoral placement. It needs to at least regional, if not world wide.

Develop a regional-based church conflict resolution system.

Develop a team approach to district/regional leadership that includes managerial/administrative expertise.
Welcome to NazNet, Dave! It's good to see you here. This is a very thoughtful post with some really good ideas. It's going to be tough getting any of this accomplished, especially in the near future, but the conversation is a step in the right direction. I hope you'll continue to participate and maybe develop your ideas a bit further.

[Dave McClung]

Dave

I would be interested in hearing more of your thinking about conflict resolution centers. Describe how they would work.

[Chuck Millhuff]

My interest is to see this discusition get to the floor of TGA in any form. It will not come from HDQ's so it will have to come from a district or from a group of delegates in some shape. LET'S GET THE BALL ROLLIN'

[Dave Bucher]

Dave McClung,

Here's my attempt to provide a subject (the who) for each of the actions ...

Have the six GS’s elect one person to articulate the vision.
GA - This is at the heart of many of the previous posts with the various attempts to provide a resolution to the GA

Encourage the merger of districts or move to regions.
The mergers are already being done in some places. Do we need a resolution for this or is it acceptable to let it move at its own pace?

Use retirees to accomplish the “pastor to the pastors” task that is so often asked of the DS's.
Though this could be a strategy from the DS's, there is nothing to prevent this from happening at the present zone level. I feel we under-utilize the retired elders. Some of the best wisdom I ever received came over coffee with the seasoned but sidelined pastors. If a pastor wants a pastor, reach out to the retiree in the next town rather than expect your DS to visit.

Apportionments for district and regional needs set at 10% of what the local church is directly benefited by, then WEF is an offering above and beyond the local tithe. Local churches don’t set the family’s tithe based on last year’s income, but have to be flexible with their budgets based on income. Why should districts or regions be any different?
DA - again, already being implemented in various ways in many districts. Should it come as a mandate from the GA?

Have annual district or regional assemblies, but the GS only comes every other year.
DA - there is no manual mandate that a GS has to come to a DA. The DA just needs to adjust their own expectations. We haven't had a GS in years. What makes North American districts so special?

Let ordinands decide if they want to wait for the GS, visit another district that does have a visiting GS, or be ordained by the local DS.
(Ordination is special not only for the individual, but for the all the area churches. Someday, that young man or woman may very well be your pastor. Get involved in their lives now.)
Again, part of this is already being done outside of North America. We had our first ever ordinands from Micronesia this year, and both of them ended up being ordained on the Metro Manila District, 1200 miles away. Brian Woolery was already in Manila to attend APNTS and serve as the Regional NYI pres, but Laura Smith had to travel from Guam. Helen Ann and I flew to Manila to be with them and provide more a tangible link back to Micronesia. And the GS already has the authority to appoint someone to do ordination in their absence.

Have DS/RS/GS encourage the congregations to consider calling more women to serve as their pastors.
This is a mind set that needs to be changed throughout much of the denomination. We'll take a woman's money in our institutions, but will we offer her a pulpit? A change in mind set will not be mandated by the GA, but rather implemented by the articulation of values by the leadership.

Encourage churches to pay a livable salary package. If they can’t, they need to consider bi-vocational or shared pastors.
DS/GS - the key being "encourage", not mandate.

Develop an eHarmony type of system for pastoral placement. It needs to at least regional, if not world wide.
Private business? If someone developed such a system, would the market support it? I'd spend $1000 to participate in a well built and implemented system rather than be subjected to the procedure we so often experience. How many churches would rather spend a bit of money rather than take their chances with the few resumes brought to them by the DS?

Develop a regional-based church conflict resolution system.
Our universities? Private arbitrators? Zone teams? I'll have to give this more thought. I just know that the need is great.

Develop a team approach to district/regional leadership that includes managerial/administrative expertise.
DS - again, being implemented in many districts by creating administrative assistants positions. Keith Metcalf on the KC district has extensive business training and experience.

Just my thoughts from across the ocean blue,

Dave Bucher

[Dave McClung]

Dave McClung,

Here's my attempt to provide a subject (the who) for each of the actions ...

Have the six GS’s elect one person to articulate the vision.
GA - This is at the heart of many of the previous posts with the various attempts to provide a resolution to the GA

Encourage the merger of districts or move to regions.
The mergers are already being done in some places. Do we need a resolution for this or is it acceptable to let it move at its own pace?

Use retirees to accomplish the “pastor to the pastors” task that is so often asked of the DS's.
Though this could be a strategy from the DS's, there is nothing to prevent this from happening at the present zone level. I feel we under-utilize the retired elders. Some of the best wisdom I ever received came over coffee with the seasoned but sidelined pastors. If a pastor wants a pastor, reach out to the retiree in the next town rather than expect your DS to visit.

Apportionments for district and regional needs set at 10% of what the local church is directly benefited by, then WEF is an offering above and beyond the local tithe. Local churches don’t set the family’s tithe based on last year’s income, but have to be flexible with their budgets based on income. Why should districts or regions be any different?
DA - again, already being implemented in various ways in many districts. Should it come as a mandate from the GA?

Have annual district or regional assemblies, but the GS only comes every other year.
DA - there is no manual mandate that a GS has to come to a DA. The DA just needs to adjust their own expectations. We haven't had a GS in years. What makes North American districts so special?

Let ordinands decide if they want to wait for the GS, visit another district that does have a visiting GS, or be ordained by the local DS.
(Ordination is special not only for the individual, but for the all the area churches. Someday, that young man or woman may very well be your pastor. Get involved in their lives now.)
Again, part of this is already being done outside of North America. We had our first ever ordinands from Micronesia this year, and both of them ended up being ordained on the Metro Manila District, 1200 miles away. Brian Woolery was already in Manila to attend APNTS and serve as the Regional NYI pres, but Laura Smith had to travel from Guam. Helen Ann and I flew to Manila to be with them and provide more a tangible link back to Micronesia. And the GS already has the authority to appoint someone to do ordination in their absence.

Have DS/RS/GS encourage the congregations to consider calling more women to serve as their pastors.
This is a mind set that needs to be changed throughout much of the denomination. We'll take a woman's money in our institutions, but will we offer her a pulpit? A change in mind set will not be mandated by the GA, but rather implemented by the articulation of values by the leadership.

Encourage churches to pay a livable salary package. If they can’t, they need to consider bi-vocational or shared pastors.
DS/GS - the key being "encourage", not mandate.

Develop an eHarmony type of system for pastoral placement. It needs to at least regional, if not world wide.
Private business? If someone developed such a system, would the market support it? I'd spend $1000 to participate in a well built and implemented system rather than be subjected to the procedure we so often experience. How many churches would rather spend a bit of money rather than take their chances with the few resumes brought to them by the DS?

Develop a regional-based church conflict resolution system.
Our universities? Private arbitrators? Zone teams? I'll have to give this more thought. I just know that the need is great.

Develop a team approach to district/regional leadership that includes managerial/administrative expertise.
DS - again, being implemented in many districts by creating administrative assistants positions. Keith Metcalf on the KC district has extensive business training and experience.

Just my thoughts from across the ocean blue,

Dave Bucher

Dave

I appreciate your willingness to engage in this kind of thinking. What I am trying to do at this point is identify the issues upon which I have some influence.

I am in the process of drafting a number of resolutions that will be presented to the WAPAC Resolutions Committee. If they get support from the WAPAC Resolutions Committee, they will proceed to the General Assembly.

If you draft a resolution to implement any of your ideas, I will see that it gets to the first step -- consideration by a district.

Dave McClung

[David Pettigrew]

I believe New Church Specialties has some things in the works in regards to pastoral placement/intentional interim pastor ministry.

[Dave Bucher]

Dave

I would be interested in hearing more of your thinking about conflict resolution centers. Describe how they would work.





Dave Mc,

I envision a regional conflict resolution center to include the following ....

1. A willingness to work toward resolutions with conflicts involving pastors, DS's, church boards, and even district auxillaries/committees

2. Staffed by people who can
a. listen well,
b. summarize back to the parties what they heard,
c. clarify with the parties until the points of conflict are well defined,
d. facilitate open discussion toward resolution,
e. act as arbitrators if necessary, and
f. identify if an impasse has occurred and the parties need to separate.

3. Requests for intervention can come from
a. church board,
b. pastor, or
c. DS

4. Conflict resolution team members would need to be removed from the politics enough to sort out the emotions and vested interests. We have often expected the DS to resolve conflicts. They don't have the time and they have too much vested interests.

5. Priorities would be prayer and communications. Relationships are more important than positions. People are more important than ministries.

6. Funded by the districts. Some will balk at adding additional expenses to the churches. This is like changing the oil in your car or calling the fire department when the chimney blazes. Money well spent.

I'm sure there are many other issues that need to be addressed here. My heart aches over the lost people and spoiled Kingdom opportunities that have resulted from our inability, or more often unwillingness, to resolve our problems.

Thoughts from my not-so-perfect tropical island paradise,

Dave B

[Dave McClung]

Dave Mc,

I envision a regional conflict resolution center to include the following ....

1. A willingness to work toward resolutions with conflicts involving pastors, DS's, church boards, and even district auxillaries/committees

2. Staffed by people who can
a. listen well,
b. summarize back to the parties what they heard,
c. clarify with the parties until the points of conflict are well defined,
d. facilitate open discussion toward resolution,
e. act as arbitrators if necessary, and
f. identify if an impasse has occurred and the parties need to separate.

3. Requests for intervention can come from
a. church board,
b. pastor, or
c. DS

4. Conflict resolution team members would need to be removed from the politics enough to sort out the emotions and vested interests. We have often expected the DS to resolve conflicts. They don't have the time and they have too much vested interests.

5. Priorities would be prayer and communications. Relationships are more important than positions. People are more important than ministries.

6. Funded by the districts. Some will balk at adding additional expenses to the churches. This is like changing the oil in your car or calling the fire department when the chimney blazes. Money well spent.

I'm sure there are many other issues that need to be addressed here. My heart aches over the lost people and spoiled Kingdom opportunities that have resulted from our inability, or more often unwillingness, to resolve our problems.

Thoughts from my not-so-perfect tropical island paradise,

Dave B

Dave

When I consider a proposal, I like to imagine a case to see how the process would work. Let's try our process on a hypothetical case:

Suppose that Layman A reports to the DS that Pastor has taken into membership of the church individuals who do not qualify as members under the Manual. Pastor acknowledges that Layman B has been taken into membership. Layman B is a smoker but has promised to quit. He is "working on it." Layman A says, "If a smoker is taken into membership, I am out of here." Layman A's tithe represents 30% of the income of the church. The DS calls you to be the mediator/arbitrator. When mediation fails, what would be your arbitration decison and how would you enforce it?

[Billy Cox]

Use retirees to accomplish the “pastor to the pastors” task that is so often asked of the DS's.
Though this could be a strategy from the DS's, there is nothing to prevent this from happening at the present zone level. I feel we under-utilize the retired elders. Some of the best wisdom I ever received came over coffee with the seasoned but sidelined pastors. If a pastor wants a pastor, reach out to the retiree in the next town rather than expect your DS to visit.


I agree that retired elders are under-utilized, but I think it is no accident that our polity specifically excludes them from certain areas of service. For that reason, I think only the best and brightest retired elders have any business mentoring - and even then with with proper vetting, training and very specific guidelines.



Develop an eHarmony type of system for pastoral placement. It needs to at least regional, if not world wide.
Private business? If someone developed such a system, would the market support it? I'd spend $1000 to participate in a well built and implemented system rather than be subjected to the procedure we so often experience. How many churches would rather spend a bit of money rather than take their chances with the few resumes brought to them by the DS?


I am a seminary-educated software developer, so I've thought about this idea before. Several years ago, a pastor-friend and I even did some conceptual development and chatted about the idea with some well-known Nazarene personalities in the KC area.

One of the lesser known personalities actually looked us right in the eye and told us that we were too late to the party; that Gary Sivewright was putting final touches on just such a system. While I was inclined to believe him, my crazy friend actually called Gary Sivewright and he said it was a bunch of baloney.

Anyhow... :rolleyes: What we found was that DS's would oppose such a system and that the Clergy Services department at HQ had no desire to stir up the DS's by jacking around with their main lever of organizational control.

This can change, but it will only happen if an influential insider decides to get behind it.

[Dave Bucher]

Dave

When I consider a proposal, I like to imagine a case to see how the process would work. Let's try our process on a hypothetical case:

Suppose that Layman A reports to the DS that Pastor has taken into membership of the church individuals who do not qualify as members under the Manual. Pastor acknowledges that Layman B has been taken into membership. Layman B is a smoker but has promised to quit. He is "working on it." Layman A says, "If a smoker is taken into membership, I am out of here." Layman A's tithe represents 30% of the income of the church. The DS calls you to be the mediator/arbitrator. When mediation fails, what would be your arbitration decison and how would you enforce it?






Dave Mc,

My approach to the mediation would have been to pray and discuss with the parties Manual paragraphs 34, "should be avoided", not "must be avoided", 34.5 "we call our people to", not "we mandate our people to", and 108 dealing with associate membership.

However, you specified in your scenario that mediation had not worked and we've moved to arbitration. I'd side with the pastor. Layman B goes into associate membership until he demonstrates that he has ceased smoking for one year, then can move to full membership. The pastor and layman B are "working on" the smoking issue, while layman A is inflexible. If Layman A walks, we let him know he is always welcome back and that we love him very much.

If money trumps, let's sell membership, board positions, parking spots, and premium pews and rename ourselves Country Club of the Nazarene. On the other side, if we allow a "good riddance" attitude to prevail, we've failed to accept our responsibility and privilege to minister to the whole Body of Christ.

Dave B

[Dave McClung]

Dave Mc,

My approach to the mediation would have been to pray and discuss with the parties Manual paragraphs 34, "should be avoided", not "must be avoided", 34.5 "we call our people to", not "we mandate our people to", and 108 dealing with associate membership.

However, you specified in your scenario that mediation had not worked and we've moved to arbitration. I'd side with the pastor. Layman B goes into associate membership until he demonstrates that he has ceased smoking for one year, then can move to full membership. The pastor and layman B are "working on" the smoking issue, while layman A is inflexible. If Layman A walks, we let him know he is always welcome back and that we love him very much.

If money trumps, let's sell membership, board positions, parking spots, and premium pews and rename ourselves Country Club of the Nazarene. On the other side, if we allow a "good riddance" attitude to prevail, we've failed to accept our responsibility and privilege to minister to the whole Body of Christ.

Dave B

Dave

The point I was trying to make is that the dispute resolution processes that work in the world don't necessarily work in the church. I am a certified mediator and an arbitrator for the American Arbitration Association, but I wouldn't know how to go about resolving the conflict that I described.

The simple truth is that most of the conflicts between pastors and congregations will never be resolved by outside experts. In the situation I described, the arbitrator could stick to the letter of the Manual and a new member would be lost or bend the Manual and a seasoned member would be lost. Neither answer would be a good one.

The difference between conflict resolution outside the church and conflict resolution within the church is that outside the church an unresolved conflict will go to litigation. If someone wants to be unreasonable, you can take them to court and the law will prevail. When a conflict arises within the church, the party who is willing to live with conflict always wins, because there is no way to force a resolution.

I am probably reacting to your suggestion more strongly than most, because I know that if it were to be adopted, I would be one of the people called on to mediate or arbitrate. Before I would accept such an assignment, I would have to have a better understanding of how the process would work.

You have a good idea. I encourage you to flesh it out.

[Dave Bucher]

I agree that retired elders are under-utilized, but I think it is no accident that our polity specifically excludes them from certain areas of service. For that reason, I think only the best and brightest retired elders have any business mentoring - and even then with with proper vetting, training and very specific guidelines.



Billy,

Most of what I see in the Manual about limiting the retired elders seems to address the issues of preventing them from dominating local church boards. They can be very intimating there and I think it is wise to implement such a practice.

I also agree that if we were to set up a formal mentoring program using retired elders as mentors, it would require "proper vetting, training and very specific guidelines."

However, I see an opportunity to implement something much less formal. A pastor needs someone to visit with, vent to, get ideas from, pray with. Someone that is not directly involved with the pastor's congregation. A retiree that's 30 miles away may know some of the stuff going on, but isn't in the midst of the politics and emotions. Such a person would have more pastoral experience, and probably more available time, than a current full-time pastor on the zone.

This would be a cultivated friendship. A pastor would need to watch, listen, and "ask for references" before reaching out to a retiree in this manner. A pastor would need to feel secure that the relationship is in confidence, and that the retiree is not simply a pipeline to the DS.

I could also see a program actually being sponsored by the DS. The DS would select several retirees they have confidence in, funds them with a bit of gas and coffee money, and sends them out to the pastors. Their mandate would be to listen and pray first, occasionally make suggestions, and report back to the DS ONLY in the case of Manual or legal violations, or where the pastor has expressly requested that something be passed up the line. It is not a mandated meeting, but simply an invitation. Some will accept, others will find other avenues to fulfill the need.

Dave B

[Charles W Christian]

Dave Mc,

My approach to the mediation would have been to pray and discuss with the parties Manual paragraphs 34, "should be avoided", not "must be avoided", 34.5 "we call our people to", not "we mandate our people to", and 108 dealing with associate membership.

However, you specified in your scenario that mediation had not worked and we've moved to arbitration. I'd side with the pastor. Layman B goes into associate membership until he demonstrates that he has ceased smoking for one year, then can move to full membership. The pastor and layman B are "working on" the smoking issue, while layman A is inflexible. If Layman A walks, we let him know he is always welcome back and that we love him very much.

If money trumps, let's sell membership, board positions, parking spots, and premium pews and rename ourselves Country Club of the Nazarene. On the other side, if we allow a "good riddance" attitude to prevail, we've failed to accept our responsibility and privilege to minister to the whole Body of Christ.

Dave B

Dave B-
I think your approach here is balanced, and I think Dave M gave a very practical example of how such things come up.

I wish more people approached the solution with the balance that you have shown here. Most pastors want to simply kick the rich guy out with a "good riddance" approach, it seems, but you warn us against the wisdom of this. Most lay people think that for pragmatic reasons the rich guy should "win," since "money talks." You also demonstrate the biblical wisdom against not always going with "what's practical."

The biggest flaw in how the polity of the Ch of the Naz plays out, in my opinion, is that the we err on the side of a simple pragmatism that is not theologically/biblically sound. This has turned many of our pastors into used car salespeople and many of our laymen into hatchet job politicians! You show a balance here that I appreciate.

Thanks again,
Charles

[Ryan Scott]

The simple truth is that most of the conflicts between pastors and congregations will never be resolved by outside experts. In the situation I described, the arbitrator could stick to the letter of the Manual and a new member would be lost or bend the Manual and a seasoned member would be lost. Neither answer would be a good one.


You forgot to mention that there are a lot of pastors who would be lost if an official denominational body came down with that mediated response.

[Dave Bucher]

You forgot to mention that there are a lot of pastors who would be lost if an official denominational body came down with that mediated response.

So, Ryan, are you saying that money does trump? I think we have allowed it to, and the attitude of following the money is at the core of many of our conflicts.

Pastors are most at risk. The DS isn't going to get fired over something like this. One of the laymen might end up having to go to a church down the street, but the pastor and family gets chewed up and has to move.

I want to remain sensitive to what can we do to help pastors and churches in crisis. Though I appreciate the intent of the Manual's guidelines, I have seen too little resolution and too much hurt.

Dave B

[Dave McClung]

So, Ryan, are you saying that money does trump? I think we have allowed it to, and the attitude of following the money is at the core of many of our conflicts.

Pastors are most at risk. The DS isn't going to get fired over something like this. One of the laymen might end up having to go to a church down the street, but the pastor and family gets chewed up and has to move.

I want to remain sensitive to what can we do to help pastors and churches in crisis. Though I appreciate the intent of the Manual's guidelines, I have seen too little resolution and too much hurt.

Dave B

Dave
I apologize for taking the discussion away from what you intended. Clearly, the Church of the Nazarene needs a better process for resolving conflicts than just moving pastors around. If I had a better idea than yours, I would present it.

Let's table the conflict resolution issue for a later date and discuss the rest of your proposal.

[Dave McClung]

I'm a late-comer to the NazNet scene, and have spent much of the last week reading the many threads on Renewal and the gazillion posts. Here's my thoughts up to this point ....

Have the six GS’s elect one person to articulate the vision.

Encourage the merger of districts or move to regions.

Use retirees to accomplish the “pastor to the pastors” task that is so often asked of the DS's.

Apportionments for district and regional needs set at 10% of what the local church is directly benefited by, then WEF is an offering above and beyond the local tithe. Local churches don’t set the family’s tithe based on last year’s income, but have to be flexible with their budgets based on income. Why should districts or regions be any different?

Have annual district or regional assemblies, but the GS only comes every other year.

Let ordinands decide if they want to wait for the GS, visit another district that does have a visiting GS, or be ordained by the local DS.
(Ordination is special not only for the individual, but for the all the area churches. Someday, that young man or woman may very well be your pastor. Get involved in their lives now.)

Have DS/RS/GS encourage the congregations to consider calling more women to serve as their pastors.

Encourage churches to pay a livable salary package. If they can’t, they need to consider bi-vocational or shared pastors.

Develop an eHarmony type of system for pastoral placement. It needs to at least regional, if not world wide.

Develop a regional-based church conflict resolution system.

Develop a team approach to district/regional leadership that includes managerial/administrative expertise.

Dave
Help me understand your proposal:

Apportionments for district and regional needs set at 10% of what the local church is directly benefited by

Wouldn't your suggestion result in an increase in apportionments? You are suggesting 10% for district and education, that would mean that Pension & Benefits and WEF would be over and above the 10%. P&B needs 2% and WEF needs 8%. That would be 20% of the what the local church is benefited by. For most local churches, that would be an increase.

[Ryan Scott]

So, Ryan, are you saying that money does trump?


No, I'm saying one of the core practices of the Church of the Nazarene has been to allow for a difference of opinion. A resolution that says committed Christians who are trying to quit smoking are worthy only of associate membership - or that Pastors are unable to make these sorts of judgments for themselves seems to violate that practice.

I think a good number of pastors would be scared to have that sort of restriction placed on them in an official capacity. It is one thing for a DS to assert this type of influence behind the scenes, but making such rigidity public would scare a lot of pastors off.

[David Pettigrew]

I believe we already have a mediation/arbitration avenue available in the form of the church trial. The only time I ever know of it being used, however, was in the case of Holland London, father of FotF's H.B. London. Church historians - please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Dave McClung]

I believe we already have a mediation/arbitration avenue available in the form of the church trial. The only time I ever know of it being used, however, was in the case of Holland London, father of FotF's H.B. London. Church historians - please correct me if I'm wrong.

The provisions for a church trial are used from time to time. In fact, they are used about once a week in the U.S., but the rules are designed to encourage resolution without a trial. I am only aware of two times that the process has gone all of the way to a decision by a Board of Discipline.

In the fast majority of cases, the person charged resigns to avoid the trial. That is the weakness of the process. Church Memership is voluntary and the maximum discipline that can be administered is explusion. Who values their church membership enough to go through a trial? Most people, if charged, either acknowledge their wrong doing and accept discipline or they deny any wrong doing a resign their membership.

[David Pettigrew]

I agree that retired elders are under-utilized, but I think it is no accident that our polity specifically excludes them from certain areas of service. For that reason, I think only the best and brightest retired elders have any business mentoring - and even then with with proper vetting, training and very specific guidelines.




I am a seminary-educated software developer, so I've thought about this idea before. Several years ago, a pastor-friend and I even did some conceptual development and chatted about the idea with some well-known Nazarene personalities in the KC area.

One of the lesser known personalities actually looked us right in the eye and told us that we were too late to the party; that Gary Sivewright was putting final touches on just such a system. While I was inclined to believe him, my crazy friend actually called Gary Sivewright and he said it was a bunch of baloney.

Anyhow... :rolleyes: What we found was that DS's would oppose such a system and that the Clergy Services department at HQ had no desire to stir up the DS's by jacking around with their main lever of organizational control.

This can change, but it will only happen if an influential insider decides to get behind it.

One of the most brilliant up-and-comers I know in the entire Church of the Nazarene gave some thoughts on this topic here. (http://www.naznet.com/community/showpost.php?p=183528&postcount=115)

[David Pettigrew]

One of the most brilliant up-and-comers I know in the entire Church of the Nazarene gave some thoughts on this topic here. (http://www.naznet.com/community/showpost.php?p=183528&postcount=115)

Billy, if you want to resurrect your software idea, I'll invest in it. I'll even work our booth in the exhibit hall in Orlando. We can give out peppermints.

[Pete Vecchi]

One of the most brilliant up-and-comers I know in the entire Church of the Nazarene gave some thoughts on this topic here. (http://www.naznet.com/community/showpost.php?p=183528&postcount=115)

Thanks for bringing that post back up. It was from nearly 5 months ago and I either hadn't seen it or hadn't noticed it with all of the other posts in this topic.

But with the renewed discussion now about pastoral placements, that post from March certainly is a good one for people to look at either again or for the first time.

[Billy Cox]

Billy, if you want to resurrect your software idea, I'll invest in it. I'll even work our booth in the exhibit hall in Orlando. We can give out peppermints.

I have heard that if you make a large monetary gift to the Jesus Film (or whatever cool project needs money), you too can be a preferred vendor for Nazarene Headquarters. :rolleyes:

You can even overcharge and under-deliver; HQ people will complain, some will even hate you, but money talks and forgiveness quickly follows. In the corporate world this is called accepting kickbacks, but in the church it's called ministry.

I'm not rich enough to buy-in yet.

[David Pettigrew]

I believe New Church Specialties has some things in the works in regards to pastoral placement/intentional interim pastor ministry.

I found some information detailing an intentional transitional period for churches at New Church Specialties. (http://www.newchurchspecialties.org/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/AppLogic+FTContentServer%20?GXHC_gx_session_id_Fut ureTenseContentServer=10194a375fcd38dd&pagename=FaithHighway/10000/4000/328NE/ncsministry_home) Click on this link (http://www.newchurchspecialties.org/images/10000/4000/328NE/user/Tipfileforweb.doc) to download the document.

[Dave Bucher]

I found some information detailing an intentional transitional period for churches at New Church Specialties. (http://www.newchurchspecialties.org/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/AppLogic+FTContentServer%20?GXHC_gx_session_id_Fut ureTenseContentServer=10194a375fcd38dd&pagename=FaithHighway/10000/4000/328NE/ncsministry_home) Click on this link (http://www.newchurchspecialties.org/images/10000/4000/328NE/user/Tipfileforweb.doc) to download the document.

David,

With only a few minutes to look this over, I was quite impressed. I wish something like this had happened before going into some of my assignments!

Has anyone had much experience with this or similar programs?

Dave B
Dave

[Rich Schmidt]

I haven't managed to make my way through all 61 pages of posts here yet... but I wanted to comment quickly on the idea of having just 1 leader at the top of the organizational pyramid who is supposed to discern and express God's vision for the denomination.

I don't like it.

I guess I like a more congregational approach as opposed to one that looks to the top guys (and gal, finally) for direction. Of course, that also makes me less inclined to like the directed pastoral placement ideas that have been suggested here, too.

It could be that these ideas have already been batted down and abandoned earlier in the thread, but I just don't have the time to wade through them all just now. :) My apologies if this post is out of place or out of line. :)

[David Pettigrew]

I haven't managed to make my way through all 61 pages of posts here yet... but I wanted to comment quickly on the idea of having just 1 leader at the top of the organizational pyramid who is supposed to discern and express God's vision for the denomination.

I don't like it.

I guess I like a more congregational approach as opposed to one that looks to the top guys (and gal, finally) for direction. Of course, that also makes me less inclined to like the directed pastoral placement ideas that have been suggested here, too.

It could be that these ideas have already been batted down and abandoned earlier in the thread, but I just don't have the time to wade through them all just now. :) My apologies if this post is out of place or out of line. :)

Just keep on a'readin, Rich.