GA Resolution - turn around CotN structure

[Dave McClung]

Does the Church of the Nazarene need a “turn around?”


Dave McClung


2/8/08


During the month of January, I spent a lot of time hiking in the mountains of Arizona. As I walked, I had time to reflect on what I have learned from life’s experiences.
One lesson that came to my mind was one I learned from my Commanding Officer in the United States Air Force. I had fallen into the habit of complaining about how things were in the Air Force. My commander told me, “Dave, there are only two things you can do that are productive – learn to live with things as they are or take action to change them. Complaining and hoping that somebody else is going to change things is nonproductive.” It was wise advice.
It seems that everywhere I go, I hear people who are complaining and hoping that someone will change things. I don’t intend to be a part of that crowd.
As I hiked, I also reflected on some of the lessons I have learned from being a “turn around” manager. I have been either President or Chairman of more than 25 different corporations. (A list of them is in my resume at http://www.davemcclung.com (http://www.davemcclung.com/)). Some of the things I observed from these corporations were:
1. Their Core Values were still intact.
2. Their corporate vision was primarily “hold on to the past.”
3. Their managers spent much of their time seeking to avoid the loss of past accomplishments.
4. The middle management was made up of people who were at one time successful front-line managers. They spent a lot of time talking about the “Good Ole Days.”
5. The organizations had become slow to change.
As I walked and thought, I realized that what I have observed in other organizations pretty well describes the current Church of the Nazarene in the U.S. Without a question, our Core Values are intact, but our vision of the future is fuzzy. We have six godly leaders, but each of them has a different vision for the Church of the Nazarene. Because no one is authorized to clearly articulate a vision for the entire organization, those of us seeking to identify the corporate vision don’t see one.
When one looks at how our middle management (district superintendents) spend their time: matching pastors with churches, resolving conflicts, and attending meetings, it would seem that our corporate vision is to protect the existing organization.
In my own mind, I have come to the conclusion that the Church of the Nazarene needs a “turn-around.”
What is involved in a turn-around? A turn-around involves 4 steps:
1. Selecting a visionary leader.
2. Doing the research needed for the leader to form a clear vision.
3. The visionary leader articulates his or her vision in a way that it becomes the corporate vision.
4. The organization is changed to reflect the corporate vision.
What would it take to turn around the Church of the Nazarene in the U.S.? We need to follow the same steps. To achieve a clear corporate vision, the Church of the Nazarene needs one person with authority to articulate the corporate vision – a chief executive officer. I could follow any of the six General Superintendents, but no one can follow all six.
Then we need a complete restructure of the organization to prepare for our second century of winning lost souls to Christ. The renewed organization might look something like this:
1. One General Superintendent whose primary role would be vision casting.

2. Thirteen Regions, each with a Regional Superintendent

Africa Region
Asia-Pacific Region
Canada Region
Caribbean Region
Eurasia Region
Mexico and Central America (MAC) Region
North Central U.S. Region
Northeast U.S. Region (ENC + Mt. Vernon – Virginia)
Northwest U.S. Region
South America (SAM) Region
South Central U.S. Region (SNU+MNU)
Southeast U.S. Region (include Virginia)
Southwest U.S. Region

3. Every Region will be led by a Regional Superintendent elected by the Region; however, the General Superintendent would have a right of approval.

4. General Assembly and General Board would be replaced with a governing body made up of the General Superintendent, Regional Superintendents and one layman elected from each Region. The governing body would meet twice a year – often enough to govern effectively.

5. Districts would be eliminated and District Superintendents would return to other places of service, mostly to become pastors of local congregations.

6. Minister’s Pension Plan –
A budget would continue to be necessary to honor promises to retirees and those “grandfathered.” The budget would be discontinued when the pension plan is fully funded.

All other retirement obligations for ministers would become the responsibility of the local church or organization where they are employed.

7. Nazarene Publishing House – Combine denominational communication and publishing.

8. NTS – No subsidy other than once a year voluntary offering. Do whatever is necessary so to make the NTS Vision Consistent with the Denominational Vision.

9. Denominational Headquarters –
General Secretary – necessary
General Treasurer – necessary
Archives – necessary
Communications – merge with NPH
NMI -- necessary
SDMI -- necessary
NYI -- necessary

10. Regional Assemblies – Size and nature up to the region. Most would opt for a biannual assembly.

11. Districts – The traditional districts will cease to exist. Each local church will belong to a “cluster” of local congregations with similar characteristics. Representation to the Regional Assembly would be elected from each cluster. Each cluster will have a cluster coordinator who is also a pastor. Responsibilities of the current districts would be reassigned:
Crisis Response – Region with support of cluster coordinators
Personnel (Pastor movement) – see note 12.
Clergy Education – Region (college or university should have a role)
Credentials – Region
New Starts – Local churches and cluster coordinators
Fellowship – clusters

12. Matching local churches with pastors – The current system is broken. It is debatable whether or not the system has ever worked as intended. Our forefathers hoped to blend the best of the Episcopal System with the best of the Congregational System. In reality, we have a system that has most of the problems of both systems. I suggest that we adopt the Methodist system or something like it.

13. World Missions – World Missions are a part of Nazarene DNA. We should continue to coordinate World Missions at a denominational level; however, direct management of World Missions Efforts should be at the Regional level. Both financial and personnel resources should flow from the U.S. to other parts of the World. World Mission partnerships should be formed between Regions and between local churches across Regional Lines.

14. NYI , NMI & SDMI – There is value in having organizations at a denominational level to coordinate activities on a Global basis.


Continued -- It was too long for one post.

[Dave McClung]

(Continued)

1. Budgets, Allocations and “Funds” – We need to get out of the “taxation” model. Most Nazarenes have come to think of the money they pay out to the “denominational interests” as a tax. We need to restructure it so that local churches can directly connect the amounts they pay to the corporate vision of their local church. This is the way I would break it down:

Denominational Dues – (Cost of Denominational Headquarters) .5%
Regional Dues – (Cost of Regional Headquarters) 1%
Cluster Dues – (Cost of the Cluster Operations) .5%
Educational Dues (College, and Ministerial Education) .5%
Retirement Plans – (Keeping the promise made in the past) 2% (until fully funded)
World Missions – (Outreach to new areas) 7.5%
Optional Dues – (camps, conference centers, etc.) strictly voluntary
(All percentages would be on total raised for all purposes)
This plan would be 10% of the total raised for all purposes plan, plus an extra 2% until the “grandfathered” pension plan is fully funded.
Conclusion
I am asking you to join me in the pledge to stop complaining. Complaining is nonproductive. Hoping that someone else will bring about change is nonproductive. It is time to take action. Here is the suggested process:
1. Let’s take a few months to “brain storm.” Everyone who has an idea or concern should put it forward.
2. I challenge others to put forward your own view of what a restructure might look like.
3. As we discuss the ideas and pray concerning the future of the Church of the Nazarene our ideas will begin to come into focus.
4. This fall, we (those of us who pledge to stop complaining) should seek to come to a consensus concerning a way forward.
5. Our consensus can be written up as a resolution for the General Assembly.

[Jon Twitchell]

Dave,

This is the most exciting thing I've read all day.

I've got to think & pray before I respond further.... but I wanted to post and say that I agree with much of what you've written... especially the bit about not complaining and becoming an agent for change.

Thank you for your thoughtful post.

[William Hunter]

Dave, my frustration comes with the fact that it does not seem we have a place where leaders are willing to put everything on the table and let's get started on thinking and rethinking and fix the broken and non-productive places. Almost every pastor who has tried that I know of was in essense was told to shutup and be quiet and be a good little pastor and just send in the money. There is more discussion about among some pastors than DS's and Generals realize. Many of us see the absolute need for healthy change, but where do we start when leaders are not willing to join the discussion without their personal kindgoms held out of the discussion.

Some of us have some ideas that might help further the discussion but we are not given a place to voice them. The only place I know of to start is with my local church, regardless of how others leaders feel about it. The local church is everything in a denomination and needs to be healthy in several areas, if the denomination is to be healthy. Given the usual mindset of just keep quiet and be a good little pastor and send in the money, the only place to begin is right here in the local church until other levels of the church catch on.

[David Pettigrew]

This, along with Dr. Oord's suggestions for Article X, really make me excited to be a Nazarene.

A comment on #12 (matching pastors and congregations) - In the Episcopal church, clergy are assigned to parishes based on a pretty extensive assessment process. They are matched based on personality, professional strengths, local church needs, etc. I would love a system like this. Rather than the current system, in which both parties put their best foot forward in a brief interview, only to discover the "truth" about each other later on, let's have some "arranged marriages" with all the cards on the table upfront.

Here's a concrete idea to "tinker" with: All candidates for elder in the Church of the Nazarene must serve for two years as an associate pastor (deacon)in a "level three" church (attendance 200+), entering into a coaching relationship with their lead pastor. Upon successful completion of this tenure, they will be assigned to a "level one" church for two years (attendance under 50) as lead pastor, remaining in a coaching relationship with the same pastor. These four years must be served in the candidates home region. Upon completion and ordination, elders may apply to transfer to the region of their choice.

Perhaps some student loan forgiveness could be tied to this. Or, if a candidate has no student loan debt, they could have an equivalent amount put into their annuity.

Just ideas.

[Pete Vecchi]

(Continued)

I am asking you to join me in the pledge to stop complaining. Complaining is nonproductive. Hoping that someone else will bring about change is nonproductive. It is time to take action. Here is the suggested process:
1. Let’s take a few months to “brain storm.” Everyone who has an idea or concern should put it forward.
2. I challenge others to put forward your own view of what a restructure might look like.
3. As we discuss the ideas and pray concerning the future of the Church of the Nazarene our ideas will begin to come into focus.
4. This fall, we (those of us who pledge to stop complaining) should seek to come to a consensus concerning a way forward.
5. Our consensus can be written up as a resolution for the General Assembly.

I greatly appreciate these 5 ideas. I certainly hope that anything I have written hasn't been viewed by anyone as "complaining." That has not been my intent. Rather, my intent has been to foster discussion and come up with ideas.

I especially like #5 above. My question (not complaint) goes to how we do that. Who has the authority to bring something to the General Assembly? My understanding was that it had to be something sponsored by a district. In fact, I had an idea for the previous general assembly that I wanted to see if our district would consider, but since I had no idea of the time schedule involved, I was too late in getting the district to consider sponsoring the idea.

I plan on pondering some of the things Dave has written before responding more fully.

[Dave McClung]

I greatly appreciate these 5 ideas. I certainly hope that anything I have written hasn't been viewed by anyone as "complaining." That has not been my intent. Rather, my intent has been to foster discussion and come up with ideas.

I especially like #5 above. My question (not complaint) goes to how we do that. Who has the authority to bring something to the General Assembly? My understanding was that it had to be something sponsored by a district. In fact, I had an idea for the previous general assembly that I wanted to see if our district would consider, but since I had no idea of the time schedule involved, I was too late in getting the district to consider sponsoring the idea.

I plan on pondering some of the things Dave has written before responding more fully.

Pete
Part of being an agent of change is taking the time to understand the process that is required to change things. That means that discussion that gets out of the "complaint" category has to be directed toward the process. Here are some ways:

1. Most Districts use "Resolutions Committees." Many times the Resolutions Committee is made up of the same people who are elected to be delegates and alternates to the General Assembly. Those are the people one needs to include in their discussions.

2. It is also possible for resolutions to come directly from a District Assembly. Any delegate to a district assembly can propose a resolution. If it gets a favorable vote from the district assembly, it is passed on to the General Assembly.

3. Any 5 members of the General Assembly submit a resolution.

Actually, the hardest part of getting a resolution passed is the drafting of the resolution. At least 80% of the resolutions that are submitted fail because they aren't worded properly. The wording is very, very important.

[Cindi Hammons]

Dave,

All I can say is, Wow!

One question, would the General Supt. and the Regional Supt.'s be required to be ordained ministers?

One thing I would truly miss (just my personal opinion) is the District fellowship that is present. I understand your concept of the cluster groups, but that is different than the larger district idea. However, I realize that I am more often the minority on this issue. I do like the NYI District plan of activities as it helps teens realize that they are a part of something much bigger than their local community.

You have posted some very good thoughts which I think I could support with very little reservation.

[Steven Martinez]

Thanks for you time in hashing this out Dave. However, my problem lies with the fact that I love my district. The district is ran efficently and the DS is an excelent leader who just recieved a 98% approval this last Assembly. The main problem with your proposal is that it assumes that the faults of our denomination are from the top down. Yet, I would suggest that the problem is from the bottom up. Too many congregations have no desire to grow, or help others in growing. They wish to reap all the benefits of the denomination without pitching in. For example, you state that you want to remove the funding from NTS and change it to an annual offering. Why would you handicap our highest institution of learning for the entire denomination? Because of budgets, Nazarene students pay half tuition. When you add in the amounts that I recieved for attending a Nazarene University the total amount that I saved was over $21,000 dollars! All of that money came from budgets since that money goes to tuition assistance. Do we want to add $20,000 dollars to every Nazarene student who enters into ministry? .5% is not going to cover this amount.
Also you mention the connection with NTS and the denomination's vision. Why do so many people see NTS as being outside of the vision of the CoN. Every professor has to be approved by the BGS before they can teach at NTS. In other words the only disconect would be with local congregations and NTS.
I like the fact that this is a thought out plan but unless there are some hard numbers in regards to dollar amounts I just do not see how we can replace the current system with this proposed one. The percents seem arbitrary to me.
By the way I am in no sense a tradionalist (I do not think I am old enough to remember any "good ol' days") but I do not see the great problem with the system as much as I see a problem with Disticts and local churches that do not want to play ball.

[Dave McClung]

Dave,

All I can say is, Wow!

One question, would the General Supt. and the Regional Supt.'s be required to be ordained ministers?

One thing I would truly miss (just my personal opinion) is the District fellowship that is present. I understand your concept of the cluster groups, but that is different than the larger district idea. However, I realize that I am more often the minority on this issue. I do like the NYI District plan of activities as it helps teens realize that they are a part of something much bigger than their local community.

You have posted some very good thoughts which I think I could support with very little reservation.

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

[Chris Patton]

Dave,
I thoroughly agree with your assessment and all of your suggestions. While I do not have the experience you do, (I'm only 30) I have read others who have critiqued organizations and drawn similar conclusions which mirror where our church is at. One question I have is how do you foresee addressing all the territorial issues that will come up. I don't think anyone will disagree with your assessment or your solution. I think the biggest opposition will come in the form of the question "How will this effect me personally?" I don't think many DS's and other denominational leaders will like the answer to this question and that is where the "fight" will be. I think if this issue is thought through and can be addressed early on, it will overcome a huge obstacle and help this potential resolution be successful.

How would you respond to this "personal territory" question as it arises?

Chris

[Jon Twitchell]

Previously I was involved in a discussion about district reallignment with a group of people who were in a place to make it happen. My biggest concern about merging districts was the loss of accessible district auxiliary events (NYI, NMI, SS, etc.)

In my experience, the majority of district activity is coordinated by the auxiliaries. And yet, I would imagine that the majority of the district budget does not go toward funding auxiliary activities.

It seems as though most people I've had this conversation with before equate district consolidation with the loss of district auxiliaries... and yet, I think a creative solution could be constructed that auxiliaries to have a ministry focus that works well within their particular district's geographical area.

For instance, just because we consolidated a number of districts within a region (and that NorthEast region looks HUGE from here...), doesn't mean that the NE Regional NYI couldn't create a structure for ministry that resembles the current district structure.

Dave pointed out elsewhere that the biggest cost of a DS is not the salary--it's removing some of our most competent preachers and leaders from the local church.

Those are just random thoughts at this point...

[Billy Cox]

Previously I was involved in a discussion about district reallignment with a group of people who were in a place to make it happen. My biggest concern about merging districts was the loss of accessible district auxiliary events (NYI, NMI, SS, etc.)

In my experience, the majority of district activity is coordinated by the auxiliaries. And yet, I would imagine that the majority of the district budget does not go toward funding auxiliary activities.

It seems as though most people I've had this conversation with before equate district consolidation with the loss of district auxiliaries... and yet, I think a creative solution could be constructed that auxiliaries to have a ministry focus that works well within their particular district's geographical area.

For instance, just because we consolidated a number of districts within a region (and that NorthEast region looks HUGE from here...), doesn't mean that the NE Regional NYI couldn't create a structure for ministry that resembles the current district structure.

Dave pointed out elsewhere that the biggest cost of a DS is not the salary--it's removing some of our most competent preachers and leaders from the local church.

Those are just random thoughts at this point...


One other point... With only one GS, it would be so much harder for the 'flagship' churches to 'promote' their pastor to GS so that the church can move on to bigger and better things. :)

[Jon Twitchell]

Billy... I am too dense to read the subtext there... I'm really not clear on what you mean.... ?

[Barb Bouldrey]

WOW...you HAVE been thinking! What a wonderful vision of what could be and what would be more efficient use of time and money and leadership.

My first thoughts are:

1. I would not like the Methodist procedure for putting pastors in pastorates. I do not like the idea of appointments with no say from the congregation or pastor, but the Regional leader saying, "you must move there next." I also do not like it that the Methodist district leaders still move some of their pastors every 4 years, whether they or the church like it or not. It is still that way around here in the smaller Methodist churches.

2. I like the idea of the 13 Regions and even the clusters, but I would not like to see the idea of the district concept disappear totally. Our fellowship, training, education of our children, youth and missions depends a lot on district activities. I know that the district activities are very important to your children and youth. They need the exposure to the Christian world being larger than "us in our little corner of MO."

3. I am not sure the pension being the responsibility of the local church would ever become a reality. Since over half of our churches average 75 or less in attendence I cannot see them being faithful to a pension plan for their pastor.

How many resolutions to General Assembly would this involve, Dave? Dozens or one major resolution? I cannot see your entire list of suggestions getting very far as one major resolution...and getting past the resolution committee to the floor of the assembly.

I believe there are enough NazNetters who will be GA delegates or serve on district councils to be able to present resolutions from many districts of the denomination about this.

With enough discussion and the deadline at the end of the year for resolutions, you might be able to come up with some suggested resolutions that we could take to our district delegation to present.

I know that in NMI our entire region presented a resolution and it made it to the floor and passed. I also know that I presented an NMI resolution one time all by myself and it made it to the floor and passed. But it was just a tiny fine-tuning matter.

Very, very interesting. And wonderful how God has led your mind to do this.

Barb

[Jon Twitchell]

Barb,

The two things that concerned me most about Dave's plan were two of the same things you mentioned... pastoral placement and pensions.

Pastoral Placement - Dave, in another place I thought you had suggested a more congregational model of placement--the congregation being responsible for searching for and negotiating with a pastor. Unless I've misread something, you seem to have changed your mind... if so, what did you consider?

I would contend for more congregational responsibility in pastoral recruitment, package setting, and calling. I think that this would encourage longer tenures, as well as force congregations to take a higher level of personal/community responsibility for pastoral compensation.

In regard to pension, aren't we really headed in that direction anyway? I realize that I recieve a small contribution to my TSA each year from the P&B fund... but the majority of my retirement contribution should come from my local church. However, I would like to point out that P&B provides other benefits (like life insurance) that might be beneficial to keep at the regional level.

As far as smaller churches and retirement (and pastoral packages in general), I would recommend some strong minimum standards for pastoral compensation...and force local congregations to assess their own viability--do they call a bivocational pastor? do they share a pastor? or do they merge with another congregation? By asking congregations to take a more active role in the call of the pastor, then they must take responsibility for their decisions...instead of shifting blame on the DS (which probably happens more often than not).

[David Showalter]

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

Dave, I do not know you, however for several months I have wondered and contemplated what it would be like if a person of your experience, background, gifts, talents, and leadership abilities were at the top of our organizational structure. In fact just a few weeks ago as I read one of your post I thought "man I wish he could be elected to the top". I am in no way trying to stroke your ego, as I know you have no need of such, that is merely the specific thought that has entered my thinking process several times recently. I personally do not know many(any) "clergy" who have the qualifications to lead our great church in the ways you have outlined. I therefore would be far more apt to favor a mature godly person with your qualifications to lead us, than a great preacher/pastor/evangelist/D.S./"clergy".

Please know, as God helps me, I personally pledge to be a part of the solution in the days ahead, and not a mere grumbler of the way it is. So, please to all my naznet family, if you see me being "merely" negative, cynical, pessimistic, and/or counter productive, nail me to the wall - thanks, David

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

After the extra plan for pastoral retirement was established our church sent a certain amount in each month that draws interest.
Dwayne has retired from the pastorate, but the money invested is still drawing interest.
Dave, is there a certain age that Dwayne will have to draw this money out and pay taxes on it?

[David Showalter]

This, along with Dr. Oord's suggestions for Article X, really make me excited to be a Nazarene.



Here's a concrete idea to "tinker" with: All candidates for elder in the Church of the Nazarene must serve for two years as an associate pastor (deacon)in a "level three" church (attendance 200+), entering into a coaching relationship with their lead pastor. Upon successful completion of this tenure, they will be assigned to a "level one" church for two years (attendance under 50) as lead pastor, remaining in a coaching relationship with the same pastor. These four years must be served in the candidates home region. Upon completion and ordination, elders may apply to transfer to the region of their choice.

Perhaps some student loan forgiveness could be tied to this. Or, if a candidate has no student loan debt, they could have an equivalent amount put into their annuity.

Just ideas.

David, good point, I have often wondered why we couldn't implement a system similar to the teaching profession, where the last semester, or year of school is spent student teaching. My daughter's elementary degree included an entire year in the classroom, student teaching, she thinks it was the most beneficial aspect of her preparation.

[Dave McClung]

Dave, I do not know you, however for several months I have wondered and contemplated what it would be like if a person of your experience, background, gifts, talents, and leadership abilities were at the top of our organizational structure. In fact just a few weeks ago as I read one of your post I thought "man I wish he could be elected to the top". I am in no way trying to stroke your ego, as I know you have no need of such, that is merely the specific thought that has entered my thinking process several times recently. I personally do not know many(any) "clergy" who have the qualifications to lead our great church in the ways you have outlined. I therefore would be far more apt to favor a mature godly person with your qualifications to lead us, than a great preacher/pastor/evangelist/D.S./"clergy".

Please know, as God helps me, I personally pledge to be a part of the solution in the days ahead, and not a mere grumbler of the way it is. So, please to all my naznet family, if you see me being "merely" negative, cynical, pessimistic, and/or counter productive, nail me to the wall - thanks, David

While I am flattered by your comments, I firmly believe that the primary role of our leader is to be a person who casts a clear vision of the future. In a church, that person needs to be a member of the clergy. If for no other reason, there is an extra accountability that goes with being a member of the clergy.

I will observe that because I am inelgible for such an office, it allows me to speak more freely than I otherwise could.

[David Showalter]

Dave,
One question I have is how do you foresee addressing all the territorial issues that will come up. I don't think anyone will disagree with your assessment or your solution. I think the biggest opposition will come in the form of the question "How will this effect me personally?" I don't think many DS's and other denominational leaders will like the answer to this question and that is where the "fight" will be.

How would you respond to this "personal territory" question as it arises?

Chris

Chris, I recently listened to a young D.S. pour out his heart about our church and it's future. He shared how he is brainstorming with himself, others, and THE SPIRIT, about his position becoming a nonpaid, voluntary position, with most of the church filling responsibilities being shifted to clergy on his district. My point is merely this, I believe there are D.S.s who are as hungry for change and kingdom success as we are, and they too are trying to think outside the box.

[Dave McClung]

After the extra plan for pastoral retirement was established our church sent a certain amount in each month that draws interest.
Dwayne has retired from the pastorate, but the money invested is still drawing interest.
Dave, is there a certain age that Dwayne will have to draw this money out and pay taxes on it?

A person with a tax deferred plan has to start withdrawing when they reach 70 1/2. The withdrawl will be taxable income.

[David Pettigrew]

On the concern of losing fellowship by doing away with the district:

1) Where in our mission statement does it say anything about fellowship being our goal (To make Christlike disciples in the nations)?

2) Who says we can't still get together as much as we want? If the Dallas District disappeared tomorrow, but they still had a campmeeting at Camp Scott every summer, I bet some folks would still show up. They just wouldn't vote on anything. A district assembly with all the spiritual, fun parts and none of the boring parts? Sign me up!

3) Teens and kids just want to be together. They couldn't care less about where the boundary lines are of who can show up to camp and who can't, as long as there's a camp.

I would say if our district dividing lines suddenly disappeared, we would "loose" fellowship rather than "lose" it, and would end up with more and better.

But even if fellowship suffered, is it a reason to keep a structure that hinders our mission?

PS - The best Nazarene fellowship I've had in years has been right here.

[Dave McClung]

Barb,

The two things that concerned me most about Dave's plan were two of the same things you mentioned... pastoral placement and pensions.

Pastoral Placement - Dave, in another place I thought you had suggested a more congregational model of placement--the congregation being responsible for searching for and negotiating with a pastor. Unless I've misread something, you seem to have changed your mind... if so, what did you consider?

I would contend for more congregational responsibility in pastoral recruitment, package setting, and calling. I think that this would encourage longer tenures, as well as force congregations to take a higher level of personal/community responsibility for pastoral compensation.

In regard to pension, aren't we really headed in that direction anyway? I realize that I recieve a small contribution to my TSA each year from the P&B fund... but the majority of my retirement contribution should come from my local church. However, I would like to point out that P&B provides other benefits (like life insurance) that might be beneficial to keep at the regional level.

As far as smaller churches and retirement (and pastoral packages in general), I would recommend some strong minimum standards for pastoral compensation...and force local congregations to assess their own viability--do they call a bivocational pastor? do they share a pastor? or do they merge with another congregation? By asking congregations to take a more active role in the call of the pastor, then they must take responsibility for their decisions...instead of shifting blame on the DS (which probably happens more often than not).

You are right that I once posted an opinion that local churches must be more proactive in selecting and recruiting thier own pastor. That opinion was based on the current system staying in place.

As I have been thinking about cutting cost, I have focused on the cost of changing pastors. It is one of the biggest wastes in our denomination. One of the disadvantages of a congregational system of placing pastors is increased turn over. Many of our smaller churches turn over pastors every year. No wonder they stay small.

Any system that would double the average tenure for pastors would do a lot to reduce costs.

[Jon Twitchell]

David,

I would contend that fellowship (by which, I mean Christian Community) is an essential tool to "make disciples," and an essential byproduct of "disciple making." If, by fellowship, we mean the 3-Fs (food, fun, and fellowship), then it has little to do with disciple-making.

Other than that, I agree with everything you just said. Camping associations, NYI events, NMI rallies, even equipping and training can happen on any level--regardless of the bounds of district structure that we've assigned. In fact, we might do well to reconsider the alignment of those activities--churches might decide to join a different camping association that was previously across district lines, the NYI might take church demographics into account when drawing their cluster lines, etc.

[Jon Twitchell]

You are right that I once posted an opinion that local churches must be more proactive in selecting and recruiting thier own pastor. That opinion was based on the current system staying in place.

As I have been thinking about cutting cost, I have focused on the cost of changing pastors. It is one of the biggest wastes in our denomination. One of the disadvantages of a congregational system of placing pastors is increased turn over. Many of our smaller churches turn over pastors every year. No wonder they stay small.

Any system that would double the average tenure for pastors would do a lot to reduce costs.


I would think that a church that couldn't just call the DS, expecting him/her to bring the next fatted calf to the table, would work harder at keeping the pastor they have.

I'm envisioning a scenario where the church would have to create a profile, place it in an online database at KC, (or their regional website), and then start browsing profiles of pastors who are currently looking for assignments. I would expect that this would be a lengthy (and potentially painful) process for a church... and so they would work harder at keeping a pastor.

(I realize that what I wrote makes it sound like it's all the church's fault...and not the pastor's... obviously, it goes both ways.)

I'm just not sure that a Methodist structure of appointments and regular clergy shuffling is conducive to longer tenures either.

[David Pettigrew]

What if pastors and congregations had complete freedom in choosing each other (provided their profiles determined they were a good match), but pastoral tenure was set at a minimum of four years? How would it change things if we all knew we had to work together, and couldn't just try to solve problems by moving on?

[David Showalter]

While I am flattered by your comments, I firmly believe that the primary role of our leader is to be a person who casts a clear vision of the future. In a church, that person needs to be a member of the clergy. If for no other reason, there is an extra accountability that goes with being a member of the clergy.

I will observe that because I am inelgible for such an office, it allows me to speak more freely than I otherwise could.


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".

[Dave McClung]

David,

I would contend that fellowship (by which, I mean Christian Community) is an essential tool to "make disciples," and an essential byproduct of "disciple making." If, by fellowship, we mean the 3-Fs (food, fun, and fellowship), then it has little to do with disciple-making.

Other than that, I agree with everything you just said. Camping associations, NYI events, NMI rallies, even equipping and training can happen on any level--regardless of the bounds of district structure that we've assigned. In fact, we might do well to reconsider the alignment of those activities--churches might decide to join a different camping association that was previously across district lines, the NYI might take church demographics into account when drawing their cluster lines, etc.

Jon

I am a late comer to the cluster concept, so my thinking about how clusters would operate isn't as developed as my thinking in some other areas.

I firmly believe that a local church needs to extend its vision beyond the walls of the local church; however, I believe that the day of the one size fits all approach is past.

My current thinking is that local congregations would join clusters of churches with similar visions. To use your example, churches with highly active NYI programs might form a cluster. Another cluster might be for churches with active Work and Witness Programs.

I have not thought through the possibility that a church might want to belong to more than one cluster.

It might be that clusters would be "Coops". A group of local congregations might band to together to purchase property and liability insurance at a discount.

The central idea of my "cluster" concept is that each local congregation will be responsible for its own costs, but can join together with other local congregations to extend their vision beyond the walls of the local church.

[Gary Swartzlander]

I would think that a church that couldn't just call the DS, expecting him/her to bring the next fatted calf to the table, would work harder at keeping the pastor they have.

I'm envisioning a scenario where the church would have to create a profile, place it in an online database at KC, (or their regional website), and then start browsing profiles of pastors who are currently looking for assignments. I would expect that this would be a lengthy (and potentially painful) process for a church... and so they would work harder at keeping a pastor.

(I realize that what I wrote makes it sound like it's all the church's fault...and not the pastor's... obviously, it goes both ways.)

I'm just not sure that a Methodist structure of appointments and regular clergy shuffling is conducive to longer tenures either.

Having been raised in the United Methodist environment, I can assure you that their method of moving pastors was often not in the best interest of the local congregation. As a teenager I was our youth representative to the church board, and recall several times of having to hear that a pastor that had just found his way around our church and town and beginning to have a positive ministry was being moved. I am not aware that they ever had an option.

Our Nazarene church has benefited dramatically from our ability to maintain staff for long periods of time, and I would hate to see that option changed.

I have more to offer and will do that later when it's not so obvious I'm taking time out from my work.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Dave, please keep walking.

This has been a good walk. Let's keep refining it. I've not been as many places as you've been, but I do have a few observations. Contrary to usual thought, the church can move pretty quickly. Leadership changes quickly. I am amazed at how fast turnover is at the helm of our colleges and districts. Ten years from now half the membership won't know who college presidents and districts are today. For some of them, I'd be in favor of buying their contracts and letting them retire early, if they weren't willing to move over or get out of the way. The question of what to do with them is really a short term issue. Admittedly, for me, it's a no brainer, because I have no rank or position to lose.

While these proposals are exciting, and might possibly allow for a surge in mission activity, I'd still want to see some specific action that would get us moving. A turnaround doesn't accomplish much if all we do is face the opposite direction. Perhaps regional councils could make it happen, but structural change alone isn't going to insure it. A dying institution facing one direction doesn't simply need to turn around. It can turn around and die facing the opposite direction if something fundamental doesn't happen. Reducing allocation percentages and eliminating topheavy bureaucracy may be a heartwarming thought, but that's not our mission. I want to see how proposed change is going to help more aggressively do what we're about. This part needs a little more walking - I believe that's the dialoguing part you've called for.

Finally, how can we prevent this from simply being referred to some body where it will die?

Post finally, could we designate someplace in the world where the complainers could all go and be together? The feed off each other, and enjoy one another's company - at least as much as they enjoy anything.

[Dave McClung]

What if pastors and congregations had complete freedom in choosing each other (provided their profiles determined they were a good match), but pastoral tenure was set at a minimum of four years? How would it change things if we all knew we had to work together, and couldn't just try to solve problems by moving on?

Slavery has been abolished in the U.S.

[Jon Twitchell]

Slavery has been abolished in the U.S.


I did actually laugh out loud... which is bad, because my wife is teaching piano lessons in the next room over... :)

But you make an excellent point. And it's something that should be highlighted in our current call/review process. We expect churches to honor a four year call when they offer it... but we 'understand' when a pastor gets called to another church before his four-year call is over. This gives the appearance of an accountability structure that only goes one way. I'm all for lengthening tenure, but we have to be careful that it is a mutual goal.

[David Pettigrew]

Slavery has been abolished in the U.S.


I don't get it.

[Dennis M. Scott]

You have asked us to pray. I will pray about this until you release me from your request. I'm not sure what else I can do, but I do know I can pray.

[Dave McClung]

I don't get it.

In an earlier time, indentured servants were bound to their employer for the term of their employment. Those types of agreement have been considered to equate to slavery. If an employee signs a 4 year contract, the law does not require the employee to stay. In a few cases, like football coaches, courts have prevented the employee from taking employment elsewhere, but they never require an employee to stay in the job. That would be slavery.

[Dave McClung]

A turnaround doesn't accomplish much if all we do is face the opposite direction.

So far, most of the comments have focused on the details of reorganization. If people focus on the details, they have missed the most important part of my proposal -- The need for a clear vision for the future.

An organization can't have a turnaround without first having a clear organizational vision. I won't support any of the organizational changes I have suggested unless the changes are accompanied by a fresh vision.

I have heard about organizations where a vison comes from the "grass roots", but I have never personally seen one. I can't even identify one. It has been my experience and observation that organizational vision comes from the top.

It seems to me that the most radical part of my proposal is the idea that we should have a single General Superintendent.

[David Pettigrew]

So, does the Methodist church practice slavery?

Right now I believe we are just brainstorming, meaning any idea can be thrown out there. If short pastoral tenure is a problem (and I think we agree that it is), what incentives or policies could we present in the form of a resolution to lengthen it?

I agree that it sounds ridiculous to have pastors sign their life away for four years. But could a policy not exist that pastors would not be eligible to apply for transfer until serving for a specified period of time?

Perhaps the root of the problem is that we think of the pastor/church relationship as a contract rather than a covenant. My marriage is a covenant. I don't start looking for a new wife every two years because the current one burned dinner.

Legislation won't solve this, but what can we do to encourage it?

[Jon Twitchell]

It seems to me that the most radical part of my proposal is the idea that we should have a single General Superintendent.




To me, that's the part that seems to make the most sense of the whole thing. But as a relative newcomer to the family, I'm probably unaware of the history. Why do we have 6?

[David Warren]

David,
In thinking of one General Supt., I know the Assemblies of God have only one and other denominations. Would this in your mind be adding a level of organization structure putting one over 6 or 7 regional or did you have something else in mind.

Even before we begin this discussion in earnest, do we need to ask what we believe the Church of the Nazarene is and what it should become or are you comfortable with our core values and new mission statement (To make disciples in all the nations) as a foundation. The reason I ask, in my mind your structure then flows out of that. At least ideally.

I agree that this type of discussion has to also take place at the top. The danger of starting at the bottom seems to be revolution. I have recently been discussing the merger of a couple of districts with pastors from the other district and it gets to a point it cannot be discussed let alone seriously looked at without at least the permission of the district supt.'s

Much of what you've mentioned I would love to dialogue about over the next several weeks, but it is something that cannot be digested quickly. I agree with who ever suggested this might be made into a forum. Then each of your points be a different thread.

THANKS for the freedom to discussion !

In Christ's grip,
dave warren

[Dave McClung]

David,
In thinking of one General Supt., I know the Assemblies of God have only one and other denominations. Would this in your mind be adding a level of organization structure putting one over 6 or 7 regional or did you have something else in mind.

Even before we begin this discussion in earnest, do we need to ask what we believe the Church of the Nazarene is and what it should become or are you comfortable with our core values and new mission statement (To make disciples in all the nations) as a foundation. The reason I ask, in my mind your structure then flows out of that. At least ideally.

I agree that this type of discussion has to also take place at the top. The danger of starting at the bottom seems to be revolution. I have recently been discussing the merger of a couple of districts with pastors from the other district and it gets to a point it cannot be discussed let alone seriously looked at without at least the permission of the district supt.'s

Much of what you've mentioned I would love to dialogue about over the next several weeks, but it is something that cannot be digested quickly. I agree with who ever suggested this might be made into a forum. Then each of your points be a different thread.

THANKS for the freedom to discussion !

In Christ's grip,
dave warren

Dave, my suggestion of a single General Superintendent doesn't come from looking at other church organizations. It comes from my experience in the corporate world and the military. Have you ever heard of a sucessful corproation with six CEO's? There is a reason that for profit corporations and military organizations have a single person in charge. Experience has shown that it is the most efficient way to organize a large organization.

As for the Regional Superintendents, I find it intersting that the part of the Church of the Nazarene that is being most successful in adding growth already have a single leader. The rest of the world is already organized the way I have suggested. All they will have to do is change the name of their leader from Regional Director to "Regional Superintendent."

In case anyone missed it, my proposal is merely that the U.S. and Canda adopt a govenmental structure similar to what is already in place in the parts of our denomination where growth is taking place.

[Greg Farra]

Coming from the ELCA, I was a bit surprised at the size of the districts in Ohio. There are three synods (areas) in Ohio: North east, Northwest, and Southern. They are over seen by a Bishop, whose duties seem on par with the D.S. Each synod has clusters of churches, and each is part of a larger region. Perhaps larger sitricts would help. Maybe not. I'm new to the Nazarene world, so my two cents may not amount to much.

I

[Ryan Scott]

I have two comments to make:

The first has to do with #12, matching pastors with congregations. We've discussed this at length here already, but I believe that in the wording you have it, you would lose a lot of young pastors. It would be tough for me to remain within the denomination under a structure of "assignments." Perhaps it is a postmodern thing, I don't know, but the prevailing trend of people my age heading to senior pastorates is a very communal view of parish ministry.

My plan is to find a mentoring relationship for a few years out of seminary, but afterwards I expect to search for a congregation that will commit to me, and I to them, essentially for my career. I don't think there is anything to be gained by leaving one congregation for another unless there are serious issues. Even through disagreements, the concept of community should be much stronger than it is. Congregations should not view pastors as interchangable or as employees and pastors should not view congregations as "jobs" or "assignments," but as peers, fellow travelers on the journey. This may not be the way things have been, but it is the wave of the future. Creating a system where the local congregation is not the arbiter of their own pastor or weakening the ability of a pastor to commit to a congregation would be detrimental to healthy congregations.

I'll be more than happy to not have an "official" ministry position at all than to accept a congregation that is committed to a shared vision of the future. We've passed an age where a young pastor will take whatever is available.


The second comment is much shorter and less involved. I don't think we can remain with the "world mission" system as we have it and you have it in the new proposal. I like going to the regional model. Some regions are going to be better of financially than others, but I don't think an automatic allocation system is the most conducive to regional health. I think local congregations in the US will still need to be generous in their support of those in poorer regions, but there has to be a better system than what we have now.

Also, calling it world missions gives the impression that missions is both something "over there" and a component of our lived out faith rather than the core of it. We are to be people of mission. I think devising a system where regions can craft plans for use of funds that will be both strategic and sustainable and then offering them to regions with money as options for giving would be a better model. Having direct connections and seeing definite results will yield a better understanding of where the money goes and will bring in more donations to begin with. A local congregation would raise more and understand more if a specific water project in Bolivia was their project, in partnership with a Bolivian congregation than if they contributed money to a general pool.

I also think the standard allocation system breeds dependency where independence should be fostered. I'm not saying the US abandon its brothers and sisters in poorer areas, but we need to support plans for self-sufficiency, not perpetuating the status quo. The regional alignment has a lot of possibilities, but we need to get a little further away from the way things have been.

[Billy Cox]

Jon

I am a late comer to the cluster concept, so my thinking about how clusters would operate isn't as developed as my thinking in some other areas.

I firmly believe that a local church needs to extend its vision beyond the walls of the local church; however, I believe that the day of the one size fits all approach is past.

My current thinking is that local congregations would join clusters of churches with similar visions. To use your example, churches with highly active NYI programs might form a cluster. Another cluster might be for churches with active Work and Witness Programs.

I have not thought through the possibility that a church might want to belong to more than one cluster.

It might be that clusters would be "Coops". A group of local congregations might band to together to purchase property and liability insurance at a discount.

The central idea of my "cluster" concept is that each local congregation will be responsible for its own costs, but can join together with other local congregations to extend their vision beyond the walls of the local church.



In my opinion, the idea of local churches cooperating with each other is a bigger paradigm shift than a move from six GSs to one. I would like to see what it looks like.

[Jim Poteet]

Dave's 4 steps of a turn-around

What is involved in a turn-around? A turn-around involves 4 steps:
1. Selecting a visionary leader.
2. Doing the research needed for the leader to form a clear vision.
3. The visionary leader articulates his or her vision in a way that it becomes the corporate vision.
4. The organization is changed to reflect the corporate vision.

Dave,

What great thoughts. Your background in turning around corporations is much the same process used when a coach is hired to turn-around a specific athletic program. I have had that opportunity several times in my coaching career.

No doubt, the four steps you've mentioned must be the basis for any turn-around. I am a keen observer of what happens when a new coach takes over a major college football program. He usually has many obstacles to overcome.

One program that I am quite familiar with is the University of Texas. Mack Brown was selected as the Head football coach at Texas in 1998. Mack is a charismatic visionary leader who is also a great communicator. Before he accepted the job, he sat down with Darrell Royal, who won three national championships at Texas, and asked him if he could be successful and turn-around the program to again be a national power. Darrell said "Yes, because you have twenty million people who really care about what happens."

Mack took the job. He did the research and realized almost immediately that the he must win over two groups of people. The first group was the Texas high school football coaches who had the players Mack needed to be successful. The second group was the former Texas football players who had an emotional tie with the program. He shared his vision with each group that the University of Texas would again be a great program and compete for national championships.

The two groups bought in to Mack's vision and they became his allies and soon great players were signing letters of intent to play for Texas. He had articulated and cast his vision so that the right people bought into his vision and they assisted him in taking that vision to the masses.

Mack's vision became the corporate vision and soon most of the people in Texas began to believe and the Texas football program was changed. The players bought in to the vision; the students bought in to the players' vision; the fans bought into the players' and students' vision and great things began to happen in the football program and the whole culture was changed to reflect the corporate vision. Success begat more success; Bowl wins begat more bowl wins. A BCS bowl begat another BCS bowl which happened to be in the Rose Bowl against USC for the National Championship.

It took eight years, but the organization was changed to reflect a vision that said we can be nationally competitive each year. As with any organization, there will be obstacles that cause adjustments to be made from time to time, but the change occured because a visionary leader cast a vision that others were willing to accept and help the change to occur.

My "gut level" feeling is that Mack Brown's turn-around at Texas was much easier than the turn-around of our denomination vision. In my discussions with friends who have been "Nazarene" for 60+ years like myself, we tend to discuss the fact that somewhere in the past 30 years or so, we have lost the "sense of who we are." I think that means that we have little sense of vision or purpose that ties us all together.

One of my favorite basketball players of all time is Bill Bradley. (Yes, the same Bill Bradley, a former US senator and Presidential candidate.) Bill was featured in a biography about his high school and college basketball days. The book, A Sense of Where You Are, was written in 1965 and articulated why Bill was such a great player. He told of two important aspects that helped him be a dominant player and an outstanding leader. The two aspects were (1) a sense of where you are, and (2) a sense of who you are. Bill had vision and he was able to impact those around him by both his example and his ability to get others to buy in to his thoughts for any organization of his involvement.

Somehow, the Church of the Nazarene must develop "a sense of who we are" and "a sense where we are." I'm afraid if something along the lines of Dave's masterpiece does not happen, our future is rather "shakey."

[Ryan Scott]

Somehow, the Church of the Nazarene must develop "a sense of who we are" and "a sense where we are." I'm afraid if something along the lines of Dave's masterpiece does not happen, our future is rather "shakey."


I agree. I had one of the myriad interviews that go into receiving a renewal of my district minister's license last night. One of the questions was, even thought I've been a Nazarene since before I was born, why was I committed to being one in the future.

I answered simply that I believe the distinctive emphasis on realizing a real and proper relationship with God in this life is an important one and a good reason for us to exist. I also expressed my lament that our true distinctives are becoming lost in the entrepreneurial and individualistic emphasis of American evangelicalism.

I wonder if any turnaround beginning with our general structure will matter if the people in the pews don't know what it means to be a Nazarene?

[David Warren]

Dave,

Wasn't suggesting that you were looking at other denominational styles, just pointing out others that are doing it and it is working. The Assemblies also have District Supt.'s who are still pastors which goes along more with your idea of the cluster group concept.

The regional superintendents gives me no problems. Having one G.S. over them is an interesting addition. We wouldn't need 6 in the U.S. and Canada though. One or maybe two at the most would be great. What that does to District Assemblies is a whole other issue though. I have been in favor of cutting District Assemblies to every other year for a while. The issue I have is not accountability. I believe we can still do that with some changes in reporting. My issue is fellowship and feeling a part of the team. The district I'm on has no other time when the whole district comes together. Isolation is a big problem and how we address that is, I believe very important.

Also it is interesting to me that we are talking about moving toward a more high church structure in dealing with pastoral/church relationships (appointments). That seems to be the opposite of the rest of the ideas which seem to me to be more of cutting managment or church bureaucracy.

In Christ's grip,
Dave

[Billy Cox]

I have heard about organizations where a vison comes from the "grass roots", but I have never personally seen one. I can't even identify one. It has been my experience and observation that organizational vision comes from the top.


This makes alot of sense and here we sit at the grassroots hoping against hope that the stuff we dream about will ever see the light of day.

[Gary Swartzlander]

I wonder if any turnaround beginning with our general structure will matter if the people in the pews don't know what it means to be a Nazarene?

Is it possible to seperate a couple issues as we deal with this? Ryan's points are very valid, but I wonder if at the most basic level we don't try to get the cart before the horse?

A small, small percentage of the people who walk through the doors of our local church for the first time do so because it is a Nazarene church. As I related in a previous thread, I became a Nazarene after visiting a local church to meet a girl that someone recommended I should meet. There are hundreds of reasons someone might visit a church, but rarely will it simply be "because it is a Church of the Nazarene". Only after they are led to relationship with Christ and form relationships within the local church are they really exposed to what it means to be an attender at a Church of the Nazarene. Most people have to be taught what it means to be a Nazarene only after they have experienced a warm welcome, made new friends, and been introduced to Christ through the local church. Very few people walk through the church door for the first time and ask "when is district assembly?"

The work of the districts, the work of the Denomination and how it is structured are vitally important, but it's importance is dramatically different to different people.

[Billy Cox]

Somehow, the Church of the Nazarene must develop "a sense of who we are" and "a sense where we are." I'm afraid if something along the lines of Dave's masterpiece does not happen, our future is rather "shakey."

I appreciate the sports and corporate analogies. To run with that analogy, our denomination is in effect becoming like a football team with 5,000+ coaches.

Is there a church leadership paradigm existing today in which denominational cohesion is strong? I can't think of one that would be palatable to our congregational sensibilites.

[Ryan Scott]

Is there a church leadership paradigm existing today in which denominational cohesion is strong?


Not one with our size or scope. The problem I see is that if the majority of members don't know what our specific reason for existence is, then we shouldn't exist. We have a distinctive message to represent, but how well can we represent it if our own people don't know what it is. It is the membership of local congregations that defines who we are, not the General Assembly. I'm just not sure there's much we can do from a general level that will make any lasting impact without the buy-in of local congregations, which seem too diverse to care all that much.

I think the General Assembly needs to do what it can, but I don't know if we can count on a top-down action to "turn-around" the denomination.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

The suggested changes would be huge and I think that any effort to do it all at once could never happen. I'd be interested in some incremental changes that may or may not ultimately lead to all Dave has suggested.

One thing that comes to mind is that the BOGs already elects a chairperson. Would it be possible to elevate that person to being the defacto leader of the denomination?

Meanwhile, we have some districts merging, which both eliminates one DS's office and elevates another. With advances in communications and our society in the US becoming more mobile, this trend could be encouraged, resulting in districts taking on a more regional flavor. Also, a simple change to every other year Assemblies has been batted about for years.

Just a couple of thoughts on this very interesting topic.

[Ryan Scott]

They've just made the Chair the effective CEO of Headquarters, which technically manages most of the denomination. That office could be expanded a little to give leadership, but it would take decisive action with a strong definition to keep that person from deferring to the group.

As for Districts merging, I think it makes sense. You could have several regional leaders in charge of various administrative duties instead of overworking one person. I just think it will be practically impossible since a lot of people enjoy their various district positions too much. Power is ugly, even in very limited forms.

[Jim Poteet]

[QUOTE=Billy Cox;171300]I appreciate the sports and corporate analogies. To run with that analogy, our denomination is in effect becoming like a football team with 5,000+ coaches.


This is a point well understood. I can't imagine being a part of a coaching staff with 5 other head coaches. It would be nearly impossible to present a vision and game plan for success. I however can see one head coach and 5 great assistant coaches each with their own areas of expertise, but under the ultimate authority of the head coach.

[Billy Cox]

Wasn't suggesting that you were looking at other denominational styles, just pointing out others that are doing it and it is working. The Assemblies also have District Supt.'s who are still pastors which goes along more with your idea of the cluster group concept.


Interestingly, the Assemblies of God do not identify themselves as a denomination. Perhaps their more nimble form of organization is at least part of the reason that they are about the same age as the Church of the Nazarene, but have nearly 57 million members worldwide.

[Billy Cox]

The suggested changes would be huge and I think that any effort to do it all at once could never happen. I'd be interested in some incremental changes that may or may not ultimately lead to all Dave has suggested.


I am reminded of the scene from Apollo 13 in which an astronaut in Houston has to figure out the precise order in which to power up various items in the spacecraft in order to have enough power to operate.

So...is there any one change in Dave's list on which everything else relies? I have a theory, but I am curious as to what others might think.

[Dave McClung]

I am reminded of the scene from Apollo 13 in which an astronaut in Houston has to figure out the precise order in which to power up various items in the spacecraft in order to have enough power to operate.

So...is there any one change in Dave's list on which everything else relies? I have a theory, but I am curious as to what others might think.

I thought I made it clear in the memo that the one thing upon which all the rest depends is the communication of a organizational vision. The rest of the suggestions are just guesses about what the vision might look like.

We have to change the structure so that someone has authority to cast a vision for the future.

[Chuck Millhuff]

No doubt reorganization has its value. As a member of the USA/Canada Mission Evangelism Department that meets every month and goes over this kind of thing adnazium I have a bit of appreciation for the discussion. As I see the business model advanced year in and year out with little success I grow weary of it all. Yes we have lost our vision and trying to run a world wide organization with a committee with any real success IN TODAY'S WORLD is all but impossible. I must add that we have not only lost our vision but we have lost our message and they are not the same. I would see the vision as how to thrust the message to its intended target, the world. Now with the message so in a muddle who cares about the vision or the delivery system? The training in Dave’s program is strangely missing or in the case at hand attention to our schools. All the rest I agree with knowing that a committee as a rule is reduced to its lowest denominator yet with out the product or message well understood what is the use of the rest?

[Billy Cox]

I thought I made it clear in the memo that the one thing upon which all the rest depends is the communication of a organizational vision. The rest of the suggestions are just guesses about what the vision might look like.

We have to change the structure so that someone has authority to cast a vision for the future.






Perhaps my too-quick reading of your post is testament that your core message gets obscured by the extensive details. It also gives over-ample fodder for 'impossibility-thinking'.

[Chuck Wilkes]

Dave:

I like a number of your ideas...from an organizational viewpoint. They make great sense if the goal is to revamp an organization. However...

It seems to me that the driving force for the entire enterprise of the "church" is not the organization; rather, it is advancing the Kingdom of God as God's participants in that process.

Until there is a true understanding of, and a passionate commitment to, the core of the Gospel and of the Scriptural call to be holy...essentially the pursuit of becoming one with Jesus Christ, it won't much matter who casts what vision. If the people who are called "Christ-ian" ("little Christs") really, passionately begin to bear his likeness, nothing much will help.

Just some thoughts of mine.

Chuck

[Wesley Smith]

Words cannot express my eagerness to participate in the process of developing a resolution to present to the next GA. It was a joy to get home this evening and read Dave's post. (Hope it's okay to say that I was privvy to a reading prior to its post here!) While I have some suggestions to add in the next couple days when I have more time, it thrills me to believe that such an effort might be part of a new future for our denomination.

Just a couple quick responses...

Personally, I am very committed to the issue of revisioning or re-missioning our denomination. It is not a peeve issue or personal prejudice, no ax to grind. Rather, a heartfelt belief that we face dark days, possibly the death of our movement if we are not both open to transformation and, even, agressive about seeking transformation. Truly, I am willing to give whatever I can give to move such an effort forward.

I agree with Chucks' (Millhuff & Wilkes) concern. My response revolves around the issue of what might come first...the chicken or the egg. My answer is that...one of them better! In this case, it seems to me that if we would get off the dime organizationally and invest heavily in whatever we can humanly do to unincumber the mission, and redirect the mission that we could leave plenty of space for the Holy Spirit to guide and change and renew us message-ly and spiritually as we prove ourselves to be serious about being willing to do anything to experience...fresh wind, fresh fire.

More in the next couple days.

God bless us all!

Wes

PS. There were some sentiments shared by someone in an earlier post about Dave's credientials perhaps serving us in high office in our church. Dave's response (humility) is what I would have expected. Just let me say this, God has blessed our denomination with some very spiritual, dedicated and organizationally gifted lay people. It would bless my heart if a new reformation would truly hit us where the skills, gifts, etc., of all people, lay and clergy, were brought to the table without prejudice. There must be, there has to be a way to super-collide lay and clergy and come out with a superior product. That's what I think!

[Hans Deventer]

My country is a district with 13 churches. Bound by culture, history and language even. Whatever will change, chances are, those 13 churches will keep doing things together pretty much like they are now. We'll keep having district camps for children and youth, the district will keep being the owner of the church buildings (though it would be quite interesting if by Manual resolution the district would cease to exist, we'd probably have to set up a new judicial structure). I actually don't think OUR specific problems are at the district level. For all practical purposes, that's the highest level we have and it is only one level above the local church.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

I have a lot of thoughts, but for now, I want to just add that I think monumental change all at once would be good, and to assume that it's not possible (or even remotely possible) for a General Assembly to accomplish is stripping our corporate ability to be moved by the Holy Spirit. I'm not saying that I think this is or isn't a directive from God, but rather, there's a reason that "spirit" and "fire" and "wind" are the images used to describe the present moving of God in our lives - each of them is one of continual movement, and though hard to grab onto, once you do, it's amazing what can happen.

[David Pettigrew]

Having just returned from the conference in Nampa, McLaren's "Everything Must Change" is in the process of sharpening me right now.

I love the idea of GA '09 becoming a revolution enacting body, rather than just a resolution enacting body. I'm crazy enough to believe the folks at naznet could be the "spark" to set our church on fire.

No doubt we are in need of a vision caster. It's built into our heritage (Wesley, Bresee.)

No doubt we have wasted too many years complaining about how our structure hinders our mission, and headquarters salaries, and moving ministers.

No doubt we don't have another four years to spin in the wind while some "body" talks about what recommendations to make.

Here is my one concern about one person being at the helm. We are in effect two denominations right now, theologically. In trying to elect one leader, would we end up seeing a struggle like what happened in the SBC in the '80s? The one advantage of our current structure is that all "sides" are represented on the board of generals.

It is a risk, but one I'm certainly willing to take.

[Chuck Millhuff]

We are certainly two churches and when you consider open theology being taught and believed by some of our best and brightest we may be at least three churches. It is not the turning of a great ship at sea it is the directing of a bunch of speed boats.

[Ryan Scott]

We are certainly two churches and when you consider open theology being taught and believed by some of our best and brightest we may be at least three churches. It ia not the turning of a great ship at sea it is the directing of a bunch of speed boats.


I'm not so sure the different interpretations of our articles of faith is as big a deal as all those congregations, pastors, and members who are not even close to being Wesleyan anymore.

Wesleyan and Nazarene doctrine lends itself to a wide range of "orthodox" interpretations, but that doesn't mean anything goes.

I really don't think we'll continue to exist in an effective way without an identity in Wesleyan theology.

[Chuck Millhuff]

I'm not so sure the different interpretations of our articles of faith is as big a deal as all those congregations, pastors, and members who are not even close to being Wesleyan anymore.

Wesleyan and Nazarene doctrine lends itself to a wide range of "orthodox" interpretations, but that doesn't mean anything goes.

I really don't think we'll continue to exist in an effective way without an identity in Wesleyan theology.

Explain the A of G and thier holding to thier toungs etc and thier growth.

[Chuck Wilkes]

Chuck:
I'm not sure that the AG analogy is too helpful. It's not that difficult to get a growing group to gather around a vision or a shared passion, e.g. international football, Nazism, communisim, Mormanism, capitalism, etc. Holding fast to a core conviction is one of the techniques used to gather the group. Having a common enemy is another...and so on.
However, that doesn't seem to me to be the Biblical mandate for disciples of Jesus. I perceive Jesus' call to be one to gather around him; not his church, not his book, not his teachings (or the theology about him). Rather his call is to become "one" with him as he is "one" with the Father. Holding fast to our traditional "message" has it's place as a starting point...but the adhering to the message should always give way to embracing the Person.

Chuck

[Dave McClung]

My country is a district with 13 churches. Bound by culture, history and language even. Whatever will change, chances are, those 13 churches will keep doing things together pretty much like they are now. We'll keep having district camps for children and youth, the district will keep being the owner of the church buildings (though it would be quite interesting if by Manual resolution the district would cease to exist, we'd probably have to set up a new judicial structure). I actually don't think OUR specific problems are at the district level. For all practical purposes, that's the highest level we have and it is only one level above the local church.

Hans
If you read carefully, my suggestion referred specifically to the U.S. and Canada. My view is that the Church of the Nazarene in the rest of the world is doing quite well. What I have suggeted for the U.S. and Canada is much like the Church of the Nazarene operates in the rest of the World.

All of the "World Mission" regions report to Louie Bustle. Each World Mission Region reports to a Regional Director. If the suggestion I have made were adopted, the primary difference to the rest of the world would be that those Regions would be placed on an equal basis with the U.S. and Canada.

The "business" structure seems to be working for the Church of the Nazarene in the rest of the world. Why not apply the lessons learned there to the U.S. and Canada.

[Billy Cox]

What do the General Superintendents responsible for each world region do?

[Dave McClung]

No doubt reorganization has its value. As a member of the USA/Canada Mission Evangelism Department that meets every month and goes over this kind of thing adnazium I have a bit of appreciation for the discussion. As I see the business model advanced year in and year out with little success I grow weary of it all. Yes we have lost our vision and trying to run a world wide organization with a committee with any real success IN TODAY'S WORLD is all but impossible. I must add that we have not only lost our vision but we have lost our message and they are not the same. I would see the vision as how to thrust the message to its intended target, the world. Now with the message so in a muddle who cares about the vision or the delivery system? The training in Dave’s program is strangely missing or in the case at hand attention to our schools. All the rest I agree with knowing that a committee as a rule is reduced to its lowest denominator yet with out the product or message well understood what is the use of the rest?

Chuck, I am very interested in hearing your ideas for going forward. The choices are:

1. Keep doing what we have been doing.
2. Adopt something like my suggestion.
3. Do something different.

You don't seem to favor either 1 or 2, so let's hear your ideas for #3.

If I understand your idea, it is that the Church of the Nazarene has to change at the local church level without changing the denominational level. If that happened, it would be a "revolution."

The last time the Church of the Nazarene experienced revolution was with the Bible Missionary Church revolution of the late 1950's. Many on this board are probably unaware of what happened then.

In the 1950's, a fairly large number of Nazarenes believed the Church of the Nazarene was headed in the wrong direction. They gave up on trying to change the denomination and revolted. Glen Griffith (I think he was ds of Iowa District) and Elbert Dodd, ds of the Louisiana District, left the Church of the Nazarene and started the Bible Missionary Church. They encouraged the abandonment of the Church of the Nazarene. Several thousand Nazarenes followed them. It was a bad experience.

Anyway, share with us your ideas concerning what needs to happen and how it will be accomplished.

[Hans Deventer]

All of the "World Mission" regions report to Louie Bustle. Each World Mission Region reports to a Regional Director. If the suggestion I have made were adopted, the primary difference to the rest of the world would be that those Regions would be placed on an equal basis with the U.S. and Canada.

Dave, I'd love the equal basis but the situation is a little more complicated than you are suggesting.

A Phase 3 district, where ever in the world, does NOT report to Louie Bustle. We get no money from him = he has no say.
The Regional Director and office are just branches of Kansas City regarding the phase 3 districts (so we sent them our statistics, for instance), and regarding a Phase 3 district, the RD is kind of like a staff member to the GS in jurisdiction. It's more of a partnership situation than an hierarchical one.

In matters of jurisdiction, we deal directly with the GS. For instance, there was a request regarding exceptions to the application of a Manual provision from a local church. Our DS wrote the GS and he gave permission for some experimenting in this field. Neither the field director nor the regional director played any role in this.

So if our field director will chair the next district assembly, he does so because the GS has appointed him to do so. Not the RD.

The British have fought for this situation for a long time!

Back in 1995 we became a Phase 3 district and Franklin Cook, our RD at the time, explained the new situation to us quite clearly, I have to say.

So for us to get a regional superintendent would be quite a change.

[Dave McClung]

What do the General Superintendents responsible for each world region do?

They travel from place to place acting as chairperson for district assemblies where they ordain elders. They exercise influence, but do not "manage." Where ever they travel in World Areas, the Regional Director travels with them (with a few rare exceptions).

[Hans Deventer]

Dave, I owe you an apology. I've been replying to details but your proposal is way more valuable than to deserve that. I will respond more seriously but I first need to process my pictures.

[Wesley Smith]

Hans, your thoughts re. the need to just think through the need for such a resolution are right on. We might just be able to motivate some dramatic change, but for it to be successful it will initially require people to commit to the "what" more than the "how" up front. Thanks, Wes

[William Hunter]

Of our current generals, I think Jerry Porter might be the only one we have who could possibly fill the position Dave lines out for us.





Dave, I do not know you, however for several months I have wondered and contemplated what it would be like if a person of your experience, background, gifts, talents, and leadership abilities were at the top of our organizational structure. In fact just a few weeks ago as I read one of your post I thought "man I wish he could be elected to the top". I am in no way trying to stroke your ego, as I know you have no need of such, that is merely the specific thought that has entered my thinking process several times recently. I personally do not know many(any) "clergy" who have the qualifications to lead our great church in the ways you have outlined. I therefore would be far more apt to favor a mature godly person with your qualifications to lead us, than a great preacher/pastor/evangelist/D.S./"clergy".

Please know, as God helps me, I personally pledge to be a part of the solution in the days ahead, and not a mere grumbler of the way it is. So, please to all my naznet family, if you see me being "merely" negative, cynical, pessimistic, and/or counter productive, nail me to the wall - thanks, David

[David Pettigrew]

Of our current generals, I think Jerry Porter might be the only one we have who could possibly fill the position Dave lines out for us.

He's not a current general, but I see David Busic as a good candidate for a position like this.

[Dave McClung]

Dave, I owe you an apology. I've been replying to details but your proposal is way more valuable than to deserve that. I will respond more seriously but I first need to process my pictures.

Apology accepted, but not required.

As I drafted the memo, I really struggled with how much detail to put in it. My ideas are a lot more detailed than I have stated in the memo. I felt that there needed to be enough detail to allow people to understand what I am thinking, but not enough detail to get bogged down.

Certainly the details of how to do things differently at the district level need lots of discussion, but the central thought of my memo is the question of whether or not our denomination would be most effective with a single leader or a committee as the leader.

I am unaware of any organization that has thrived for long periods of time with a committee as its leader. Perhaps some one can point to an example.

[Jon Twitchell]

Can someone tell me how we ended up with 6 GSs?

I agree completely with Dave... It seems that we would be organizationally more effective with one key leader. (Having said that, I would expect that we would continue to have accountability structures and boards that would help flesh out the vision and practice... the General Board, so to speak.)

[Dave McClung]

...As I see the business model advanced year in and year out with little success I grow weary of it all. ..

Chuck, I don't understand this sentence in your post. Where has the "business model" been advance with little success?

Every major corporation in the world uses that model. Every major military organization in the world use that model. Most nonprofit organizations use that model. Even the church organization that you mentioned (Assembly of God) use that model as does the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthidox Church, most other major denominations.

[William Hunter]

Chuck, this is pretty pessimistic. I do not agree that we have lost our message. I've served almost 33 yrs. in the front line of the church, the local church. I listen to other pastors talk as we are together. I have little indication that we have lost our message.

What I do find are pastors who are trying to find a way to get their congregations moving into what Christ is doing today. Yes, we too often today deal with Nazarenes who do not want any change, or some who have some serious character issues that exhibit themselves in such a phrase as, "No one can tell me what to do our how to do it." In our "me" centered culture there needs to be strong and clear Biblical teaching what God defines as submission.

Man, if I thought your pessimistic view was the way it is, I'd be looking for another church. Yes, we have some spiritual issues to deal with; but that is the price of ministering to people who are need of that part of the Great Commission, "teaching them to obey everything I have commanded." I must agree with my DS when he says that the greatest need of the church today is adult spiritual development. That has to focus on what Christ commanded and a strong effort toward making the local church a prayer saturated church. There are so many programs that are often billed as the "key" to church growth. I am tired of all the hype and those who try to guard their own little kingdoms, even among some HQ leadership. What Christ has commanded and prayer at a level most Nazarenes seem to know little of seems the better route to go rather than such pessimizm.

And yes, I truly believe there must be the kind of whole structural change such as Dave is talking about. He has provided an excellent place for discussion. I think most of his ideas need a sound hearing. Plus, I think that part of the issue of the lack of a sound vision denominationally and locally that stokes the fire in people to get up and move toward what Christ is doing today.

I think we have gotten to where we are today because the well meaning last few generations have let down in prayer and strong discipling in ALL 3 parts of the Great Commissionl. Our older generations, it seems at times, just do not want to connect with the lost, unless of course the lost first become like the rest of us---which is part of the problem. I'm not condemning any generation, but I seem to have noticed some things that seem to keep us mired and stuck while Christ moves foward into a needy world.

Anyway, rather than pessimizm and guarding the past, we need to put everything on the table and take a hard look at all levels of the church at such suggests as those brought to us by Dave.




No doubt reorganization has its value. As a member of the USA/Canada Mission Evangelism Department that meets every month and goes over this kind of thing adnazium I have a bit of appreciation for the discussion. As I see the business model advanced year in and year out with little success I grow weary of it all. Yes we have lost our vision and trying to run a world wide organization with a committee with any real success IN TODAY'S WORLD is all but impossible. I must add that we have not only lost our vision but we have lost our message and they are not the same. I would see the vision as how to thrust the message to its intended target, the world. Now with the message so in a muddle who cares about the vision or the delivery system? The training in Dave’s program is strangely missing or in the case at hand attention to our schools. All the rest I agree with knowing that a committee as a rule is reduced to its lowest denominator yet with out the product or message well understood what is the use of the rest?

[Dave McClung]

Can someone tell me how we ended up with 6 GSs?

I agree completely with Dave... It seems that we would be organizationally more effective with one key leader. (Having said that, I would expect that we would continue to have accountability structures and boards that would help flesh out the vision and practice... the General Board, so to speak.)

The Manual of the Church of the Nazarene 1905-06 shows that there was one General Superintendent -- Dr. P.F. Bressee

The Manual of the Pentecostal Church of the Nazarene 1907 shows that The Chruch of the Nazarene joined with the Association of Pentecostal Churches of America. The 1907 Manual shows two General Superintendents -- Dr. P.F. Bressee and Dr. H.F. Reynolds.

The Historical Statement in our current Manual shows that Dr. Bressee and Dr. Reynolds continued as the General Superintendents after the "Uniting" in 1908 that we claim as the birth of the Church of the Nazarene. The statement also mentions an "Assistant General Superintendent, Dr. Ruth."

If one wanted to know the date that the number of General Supreintendents expanded, he or she could go through the old Manuals. I believe the sixth was added in the 1950's.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Can someone tell me how we ended up with 6 GSs?

This is a carryover from pre-downsizing of HQ days. The tendency in those days was to attempt to provide from the top down everything that was needed or desired for all the other levels of the church - local, district and regional. Services generally were based at HQ, or NPH, as funding was available or attainable. GSes were expected to be at every district assembly, and new districts were springing up all over the place. Since the number of GSes couldn't possibly get to all the assemblies, the obvious answer was to increase the number of GSes. There actually was a proposal to increase the number to eight. Then someone took a look at the unobvious answer - that maybe district assembly didn't absolutely have to have a GS. That, combined with a new movement to downsize the admniistrative hierarchy, and especially to not increase financial obligations of an ever burgeoning number of retired GSes and their families, caused the consideration of not increasing the number, but finding alternative ways of using the number we had - six.

To answer your question even more specifically, we got from one to six as different general assemblies decided to increase the number - largely because the earlier number couldn't get to all the district assemblies and do the other administrative things they thought we needed GSes to do.

Hopefully someone with a better handle on history will correct/expand on my response.

[Dave McClung]

As I have read some of the responses here and the ones I have received by email, I have realized that there isn't a common understanding of the role of a Chief Executive Officer. It appears to me that most people think of a CEO as a "boss" -- someone who makes all the decisions for an organization.

The Church of the Nazarene doesn't need a "boss."

The primary role of a Chief Executive Officer is vision casting. Vision casting involves creativity, analysis and communication. Some decision making is involved, but the deciding function is much less important than the others.

I am not suggesting that we need a dictator. I am suggesting that we need a leader who has passion for the lost, organizational skills to manage resources on a global scale, and communication skills to share the passion across the denomination.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Actually, i don't remember when we got our sixth GS. Mother always taught us that we had five Generals, as did the US Army, at that time. Naturally, that changed, when we got a sixth one.

So far, as I know, each ASOG is independent, but they get their license through some type of ASOG organization. That is the way it is around here.

I still cannot quite understand how we would operate without DS's and GS's. But, so far as their height in the church, they are only elders, as is many of our pastors. It seems that things might be more technical, otherwise.

[Jon Twitchell]

Thank you all for the history lesson.

How about the history of rotating GS jurisdictions? It seems to me that this structure is also a hindrance to efficiancy, as each GS must take time to learn the dynamics of particular areas and transition their responsibilities from one to another.

Even if we ended up keeping the current structure of districts, it also seems that it would be beneficial for a GS to continue a relationship with a district and its superintendent longer than 2 years.

[Dave McClung]

Thank you all for the history lesson.

How about the history of rotating GS jurisdictions? It seems to me that this structure is also a hindrance to efficiancy, as each GS must take time to learn the dynamics of particular areas and transition their responsibilities from one to another.

Even if we ended up keeping the current structure of districts, it also seems that it would be beneficial for a GS to continue a relationship with a district and its superintendent longer than 2 years.

One of the concepts that my suggestion challenges is the concept that only a General Superintendent can ordain. That single concept is the driver of much of our organizational structure. The logic goes like this: Only a General Superintendent can ordain a person; therefore, a General Superintendent must be at every District Assembly.

Because there are too many districts for five General Superintendents to cover them all, we must have six General Superintendents.

My suggestion implies that we would accept that a Regional Superintendnet could ordain a person.

[David Pettigrew]

I see the roll of gifted communicator as essential in this job description, Dave - a general who is a great preacher/prophet. Therefore, someone who is an excellent administrator, but cannot adequately communicate their vision, would not be the right person for the job.

[Jon Twitchell]

One of the concepts that my suggestion challenges is the concept that only a General Superintendent can ordain. That single concept is the driver of much of our organizational structure. The logic goes like this: Only a General Superintendent can ordain a person; therefore, a General Superintendent must be at every District Assembly.

Because there are too many districts for five General Superintendents to cover them all, we must have six General Superintendents.

My suggestion implies that we would accept that a Regional Superintendnet could ordain a person.


What's interesting is that our Manual already stipulates this:

To ordain, or appoint others to ordain, in connection with the ordained ministers present, those who have been duly elected to be elders or deacons. (433.5-33.6)

(emphasis mine)

We had this conversation several months ago, in regards to the inequitable arrangement between the US and the other world areas. It seems as though US Districts expect a GS present at District Assembly as a God-given right, while non-US districts must be content with one ever other year. In my mind, this is actually a sin that US Nazarenes should repent of.

[Kevin Rector]

I've been thinking a lot about what to say in regards to your proposition. First of all, I like it.

I see several different resolutions in your proposal and I think that the best thing to do would be to tackle the organizational structure of our denomination.

1. I would propose 16 regions based partially on church demographics and partially on geography. I don't know enough about our denomination's demographics and geographical dispersal to give reasonable suggestions on how the boundaries for these regions would be laid out. I chose 16 rather than 13 because this would be approximately one region for every 100k members. This would not need to be hard and fast and so the number is somewhat arbitrary; yet it allows for slightly smaller regions than 13 would which might alleviate some of the fears about the districts being abolished while keeping the number of general board members (see below) manageable and reasonable.

2. Instead of a "regional director" the region would be headed by a bishop (when shaking things up it's often good to change terminology) that would be elected for 6 years by the region by whatever method the region chooses. The bishop who be responsible for the oversight of the region and could employ assistants if he/she wanted.

3. Each region would have a regional board composed of elected lay and clergy members from the region. It would be up to each region to determine how best to elect the board and how best to organize it, and how often to meet.

3. The sixteen bishops as well as one lay person from each region would compose the general board. The general board would elect from the ordained clergy of the denomination one person to be the presiding bishop for a six year term. If this presiding bishop is elected from among the members of the bishopric, the bishop so elected will appoint his/her successor with the approval of the regional board for the region so affected.

4. The presiding bishop would be responsible for planning and communicating the denominations goals, mission, and vision. The presiding bishop would be the chairman of the general board. The presiding bishop could serve for no more than three six year terms and must retire at the first regular general board meeting after turning 80 years of age. A two-thirds vote of the general board could suspend the mandatory retirement age for any specific presiding bishop (if someone is really awesome we don't want to force them out).

5. Districts as they currently exist would be subsumed into the regions. The assets, debts, and any other obligations of the district would be taken over by the region. During the transition from the districts to regions the region would be responsible for the existing DSes until they find other employment or church placements. Some regions may wish to hire some of the DSes as assistants to the bishop, or as administrators in some capacity (see #6).

6. Regions would be free to organize in whatever method is effective for themselves. So for instance a region might create a newly defined "district" and use it as a sub-organizational category, or they might not. This is designed to promote flexibility on the regional level The region could have whatever employees or offices that it deems necessary for the fulfillment of the denominational mission.

7. End the regionalism of Nazarene colleges and universities. Each school would set its tuition rate for members of the Church of the Nazarene and that rate would be effective regardless of where the student came from. Educational apportionments would be paid directly to the general church. The general board (using whatever committees it sees fit - perhaps a committee consisting of one representative from each school) would distribute the funds to the school in whatever method it determined to be most in keeping with the mission of the denomination.

These are just a few ideas, and I have a lot more. I'd love to sit over coffee and hash these out, but that probably would happen with us all being so widely dispersed.

For the record, I think that we should do this internationally, not just in the US.

Maybe we could have a new forum called Denominational restructure where we could have several threads dealing with each possible component of a resolution so that we can go over each thoroughly.

[David Pettigrew]

3. The sixteen bishops as well as one lay person from each region would compose the general board. The general board would elect from the ordained clergy of the denomination one person to be the presiding bishop for a six year term. If this presiding bishop is elected from among the members of the bishopric, the bishop so elected will appoint his/her successor with the approval of the regional board for the region so affected.

4. The presiding bishop would be responsible for planning and communicating the denominations goals, mission, and vision. The presiding bishop would be the chairman of the general board. The presiding bishop could serve for no more than three six year terms and must retire at the first regular general board meeting after turning 80 years of age. A two-thirds vote of the general board could suspend the mandatory retirement age for any specific presiding bishop (if someone is really awesome we don't want to force them out).

I've thought this would be a great system for a long time, though I've never fleshed it out like this. I love the idea of the general board choosing the leadership, rather than 1,000 Nazarenes with ballots in their hands.

[Chuck Millhuff]

Explain the A of G and thier holding to thier toungs etc and thier growth.


There is no doubt that we began as an American outgrowth of the American Holiness Movement. Wesley of