Do you support this recommendation?

[Dave McClung]

There has been a lot of discussion of the post I made concerning "turn around" of the Church of the Nazarene. While the post included a lot of ideas, it really made only one recommendation. Now that you have had some time to think about it, do you support the recommendation:

Resolved, That one individual be authorized to communicate the denominational vision for the Church of the Nazarene.

Yes or No

[Kevin Rector]

I voted no, and the only reason was because I don't think that this resolution would actually do anything substantive. The board of General Superintendents would simply determine that one more role for the chair of the board would be to fill this role. Yet that person would still only speak from the plurality of opinion of the board.

Having said that, if I were a delegate to the assembly (I'd be as likely to grow a third eye as to I would to being elected a delegate to GA) and this were the best resolution offered towards to goal of a single vision caster, I'd vote for it.

[Ian Gentles]

I voted no, we dont need a pope like figure

[Gary Swartzlander]

I voted no, we dont need a pope like figure

No one has suggest a pope like figure, although, can you imagine the Catholic Church if all the cardinals were recognized as the official voice of the church?

I can't think of another organization or company that identifies multiple individuals as being their voice.

[Dale Cozby]

Dave the questions I have with this:

Mandatory retirement of this individual could mean a vision that lasts less than 4 years. I think we should first lift the 70 yr old limit. But then do we do it only for this person or more positions?

Second if this was the resolution, how would it be implemented within the framework of the existing general board system? I see a chairman having more power but that is about it.

Third, would this person be elected by the GA or chosen from the college of Cardinals(General board) by the cardinals.

Fourth, would this person be subject to a vote of confidence later?

Just some thoughts.

[Hans Deventer]

I voted no, we dont need a pope like figure

Dave wrote: "one individual be authorized to communicate the denominational vision for the Church of the Nazarene".

Is that a pope? If that were the only thing the pope did and claimed to be, I would not have much of a problem with accepting the leader or the Roman Catholic Church.

[Paula Karr]

As a non-Nazarene, I didn't vote. However, when I read the resolution, my first thought was that you were appointing a media representative or spokesperson "to communicate the vision." Isn't your meaning to actually authorize someone to be ultimately responsible for defining and directing the carrying out of the vision?

Paula

[Dave McClung]

Dave the questions I have with this:

Mandatory retirement of this individual could mean a vision that lasts less than 4 years. I think we should first lift the 70 yr old limit. But then do we do it only for this person or more positions?

Second if this was the resolution, how would it be implemented within the framework of the existing general board system? I see a chairman having more power but that is about it.

Third, would this person be elected by the GA or chosen from the college of Cardinals(General board) by the cardinals.

Fourth, would this person be subject to a vote of confidence later?

Just some thoughts.

All good questions, but it is my view that if we are going to make meaningful change in the Church of the Nazarene, we first must have some consensus about the general direction. Once we agree concerning the objective, the details of how we get there can be discussed.

[Hans Deventer]

Dave the questions I have with this:

Mandatory retirement of this individual could mean a vision that lasts less than 4 years. I think we should first lift the 70 yr old limit. But then do we do it only for this person or more positions?

You'd want to have people in office till death releases them? Not sure if that is such a good idea.

Second if this was the resolution, how would it be implemented within the framework of the existing general board system? I see a chairman having more power but that is about it.

You have read the proposal regarding the regional superintendents?

Third, would this person be elected by the GA or chosen from the college of Cardinals(General board) by the cardinals.

Let's hope we get rid of the GA asap. BTW, cardinals are clergy, the General Board isn't all clergy. Seems like the comparison doesn't fit.

Fourth, would this person be subject to a vote of confidence later?

Seems like a good thing to me.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

All good questions, but it is my view that if we are going to make meaningful change in the Church of the Nazarene, we first must have some consensus about the general direction. Once we agree concerning the objective, the details of how we get there can be discussed.


That's the thing though, Dave, I'm not sure what teeth there are in the general nature of the simple sentence you have at this point.

Don't we already do it this way at times?

I mean, our last General Secretary went ahead and did this sometimes - sending out letters as the voice of the Church of the Nazarene.

I still haven't voted because the statement seems too simple. Of course, the more detail you add, the more possibility there is for disagreement, but it just seems too general at this point, with the possibility of being weaved in to what's already happening.

Perhaps it could still be simple if the resolution were to change the wording in the Manual from "six" to "one".

[Dave McClung]

That's the thing though, Dave, I'm not sure what teeth there are in the general nature of the simple sentence you have at this point.

Don't we already do it this way at times?

I mean, our last General Secretary went ahead and did this sometimes - sending out letters as the voice of the Church of the Nazarene.

I still haven't voted because the statement seems too simple. Of course, the more detail you add, the more possibility there is for disagreement, but it just seems too general at this point, with the possibility of being weaved in to what's already happening.

Perhaps it could still be simple if the resolution were to change the wording in the Manual from "six" to "one".

I accept that all of us want for the vision for the Church of the Nazarene to origionate ate from God. As a church, we should never leave God out.

At the local church level, we have adopted an orginazional structure that assumes that the Senior Pastor has the authority to communicate the vision for the local church.

At the district church level, we have adopted an organizational structure that assumes that the District Superintendent has the authority to communicate the vision for the district.

At the General Church level, we have adopted an organizational structure that only a committee has the authority to communicate the vision for the denomination. Assuming that we wanted to change that, there are several different options:

1. Elect a chairman of the Board of General Superintendents who has authority to communicate the vision.

2. Replace the current Board with a singel General Sueprintendent.

3. Perhaps there are other options.

[Chris Patton]

I voted yes. As much at it would frighten me that the "wrong" person would enter that position, I think it is necessary. As it is now the shape and direction of the church happens much by default. People with strong voices draw conclusions and claim to speak for the whole of the church in ways that damage others in the body (I refer you to discussions on these boards about conflicts with professors). If we are going to be a body with a large umbrella (theologically, etc.) that is inclusive then we need someone to say so and some of this schizophrenia can stop (in schizophrenia each personality thinks it is the DOMINANT one, the large umbrella image recognizes diversity and allows for it). If the Nazarene church is going to choose one particular strand of theology (missional, fundamentalism, 19th century holiness, Wesleyan) and cut the others off, then let it be done by one person who will take responsibility and do the deed, instead of attempts being made from all corners to force their view, such that no one is sure what the view really is, and fear becomes a factor in discussions and thought processes.
Perhaps if there were ONE person who made decisions about the vision for the denomination (with advice, I'm sure) then we could move forward and persons could decide whether they want to be a part or not.
I am sure this sounds harsh. I love the church and don't want people to leave. But I also don't think it is productive to have no clear picture of who we are and where we are headed such that people will draw their own pictures--usually ones we don't like, but how do we tell them different?

Bring on the Nazarene Pope. Long live Pope Phineas I.

[Donna B Moore]

I dont mind one person communicating the vision, as long as the vision was agreed upon by more than that one person.

[Dave McClung]

I dont mind one person communicating the vision, as long as the vision was agreed upon by more than that one person.

I agree that accountability has to be part of the solution. I don't think that anyone is suggesting that the denomination needs a dictator.

My own thinking is more like the model with which I am most familiar -- a CEO reports to a board. The board is responsible for the overall direction, but the CEO is responsible for communicating the vision.

[Ryan Scott]

Mandatory retirement of this individual could mean a vision that lasts less than 4 years. I think we should first lift the 70 yr old limit. But then do we do it only for this person or more positions?


I don't think this would be an issue. I get the distinct impression that a position with this sort of individual power would be well chosen by the General Assembly.

We see in the selection of the General Secretary (albeit only by the General Board) a person with solid experience, but also a good amount of time to learn and master the position before the required retirement.

It is easier to elect people to be General Superintendents who have little time left to serve because it is a board that speaks as a group and not as individuals.

I think people understand the requirements of this position and would be more open to avoiding the short term person.

[Doug Kitchen]

I agree that accountability has to be part of the solution. I don't think that anyone is suggesting that the denomination needs a dictator.

My own thinking is more like the model with which I am most familiar -- a CEO reports to a board. The board is responsible for the overall direction, but the CEO is responsible for communicating the vision.



Dave,
I think provides an interesting electoral model.

"X" number of regional superintendents who form a "board of directors", elected by the stakeholders (the general assembly). This board elects and oversees the chief theological officer. They can appoint/unappoint as needed. CEO's usually have an agreement in place determining the minimum term but can be asked to step down (or even fired)

I think X should be 1 RS/ 100,000 members (as a minimum) but no more than 1 RS/200,000 members.

Doug Kitchen

[Bob Evans]

I voted yes. I am not all that familiar with the ceo model as I have never worked in corporate business but in most rescue missions the director or the head of development becomes the standard bearer for what the mission is trying to do in the community. They don't always involve themselves in the nuts and bolts of carrying the vision out but there the one in front of the staff, in churches, businesses, among individuals, and in communities clearly defining what the mission is trying to do and asking for support. It needs to be the right man [or woman] with accountability built into the system but someone needs to lead the charge.

[Steven Martinez]

If history has taught us anything it is that when one person has such power that the potential for disaster is too great. As the Church, we can never afford an Enron or Worldcom. My problem with this proposal is that it is not formulated in a church dynamic. Dave has admitted that he is basing this model on the buisness/ceo model. Although there are similarities, I always fail to see how the Church and a buisness are the same. We do not have share holders, we do not have stock and we do not have a profit margin to concern ourselves about. I understand that the issue is one of vision. My problem has been that God has already given us a vision (Matthew 28). The role of the Church is to keep this vision while identifying those called to minister and service so that the vision is caried out (Acts 1 and Acts 6 for example).
My personal opinion, is that the beginings of the CoN were based on this premise. The roles of the GS are to simply serve the Church in the roles of ordination (ministry) and to preside over the General and District Assemblies (service). It is not in their job discription to be vision casters. Their job is to maintain the vision that was given to us by Christ. I believe that many of the problems that we have in the CoN have occured when we began to run like a buisness rather than a Church. For example, anytime the General Sec can write a letter to the president of a country to say that as a whole we support (or do not support) a specific policy, then we have already lost our vision. We should write letters to leaders of this world and tell them our vision. The last thing we need, imho is a ceo. We need servants to keep and encourage the local churches to maintain the vision given to us 100 years ago. As far as I am concerned, the quadinal theme of "Making Christlike disciples in the nations" is our vision and shall always remain our vision.

[Kevin Rector]

Dave,
I think provides an interesting electoral model.

"X" number of regional superintendents who form a "board of directors", elected by the stakeholders (the general assembly). This board elects and oversees the chief theological officer. They can appoint/unappoint as needed. CEO's usually have an agreement in place determining the minimum term but can be asked to step down (or even fired)

I think X should be 1 RS/ 100,000 members (as a minimum) but no more than 1 RS/200,000 members.

Doug Kitchen

This is very similar to the proposition I put forth in the other thread.

[Gary Swartzlander]

I always fail to see how the Church and a buisness are the same. We do not have share holders, we do not have stock and we do not have a profit margin to concern ourselves about.

Steven, I am going to approach this from the very angle that you argue against, but I think it's worthy of consideration.

You stated that we do not have share holders. I believe we do, they are our members at the most basic local level. We are responsible to bring a quality product to them, if we don't they take their business elsewhere. It's a tough logic to accept, but I believe it's real.

Secondly, you offer that we don't have stock, again, I believe we do. Our stock is what we offer both in our theology and in our witness in our communities. Our theology and our witness are what makes us valuable to others in our community and what our people use to draw others into our communities of faith.

Thirdly, I believe we do have a profit margin. Our profits are in our people more than in our money, but we don't have one without the other. Our profits are in people served in our communities by food pantries, clothing centers, day cares, by other imaginative and God driven ministries that our local churches are led to develop. As we see in far to many of our US and Canadian churches, those who do not develop and live out plans to make an impact on their communities do not thrive. We may need to define our profits in ways we aren't used to, but I believe we do need to be profitable in order to bring dividends at the end of the journey.

As always, new terms and goals are always needed to redefine old terms and goals, this I believe is one of those times.

[Gina Stevenson]

Although there are similarities, I always fail to see how the Church and a buisness are the same. We do not have share holders, we do not have stock and we do not have a profit margin to concern ourselves about. I understand that the issue is one of vision. My problem has been that God has already given us a vision (Matthew 28). The role of the Church is to keep this vision while identifying those called to minister and service so that the vision is caried out (Acts 1 and Acts 6 for example).
Well, if the analogy is carried out a bit further than just a CEO, is not the "profit" those "won" through carrying out this vision? And perhaps what a CEO would do for an organization, given we have our vision already in place (as you said, Matthew 28), would help refine the working out of that vision, since we do have to be concerned with our methods, tho' the message does not change.

And, if they're basically there to ordain and preside over DA's ... goodness, isn't that a lot of salaries, considering this does not occur on a daily basis? [or, are worldwide DA's consuming that much time now?]

We need servants ............. [to facilitate] "Making Christlike disciples in the nations" .......................

Agreed!

[Steven Martinez]

Well if people at Naznet have a problem with the term "win," I would hate to see the reaction to new believers as profit margin. Again, we can make analogies or metaphors but the facts remain that we cannot dump our stock as it were nor can we chose to cut profits or downsize. We are not a buisness. Why do we want a buisness model of more beurocricy then there is already?

[Ryan Scott]

I think we have to have a denominational vision separate from any sort of biblical mandate. The biblical commands, whichever one sees as primary, are for the Church. We're not talking about selecting someone to cast a vision for the people of God, we're selecting someone to cast a vision for our denomination's place in the world. If that place is the same place as everyone else, we might as well not exist.

I happen to believe we have some peculiarities that are worth representing, but that a lot of the denomination is happy to simply blend in and look like every other Christian out there. We need someone who can capitalize on our distinctive place and help us to live that out faithfully in this world.

[Gina Stevenson]

Well if people at Naznet have a problem with the term "win," I would hate to see the reaction to new believers as profit margin. Again, we can make analogies or metaphors but the facts remain that we cannot dump our stock as it were nor can we chose to cut profits or downsize. We are not a buisness. Why do we want a buisness model of more beurocricy then there is already?

Well, Steven, I didn't actually mean to use this word "win," nor the word "profit," with people, making them feel like some project, rather than worthy individuals just because they are. This is just "board room talk." Each individual's worth is, as a current ad keeps pointing out re various things/activities: priceless.

CAME BACK TO SAY: Looks like Mr. Scott and I were writing about the same time. He said it well; maybe, as I suggested before where I spoke up about something, I'd just best read the theology board ... not post. ;)

[Gary Swartzlander]

Well if people at Naznet have a problem with the term "win," I would hate to see the reaction to new believers as profit margin. Again, we can make analogies or metaphors but the facts remain that we cannot dump our stock as it were nor can we chose to cut profits or downsize. We are not a buisness. Why do we want a buisness model of more beurocricy then there is already?

I don't wish to get into a word game, and in the end I'm confident we both wish the very same thing for our denomination.

However (ok, someone slap me for doing this) Churches all over the United States are making those decisions to dump members, cut the impact they are making on their communities and winning less people to the Lord. Our statistics bear that out. No matter how we define it, unless we supply vision and leadership a large percentage of our churches will continue to decline.

[Dale Cozby]

You'd want to have people in office till death releases them? Not sure if that is such a good idea. Not exactly the only other option. Perhaps the person could be given a term limit of say 10 yrs regardless of age. I think we turn out some good productive people just because they hit the magic number of 70.

You have read the proposal regarding the regional superintendents? Yes I did, but that proposal would be a much larger and sweeping proposal than this one.

Let's hope we get rid of the GA asap. BTW, cardinals are clergy, the General Board isn't all clergy. Seems like the comparison doesn't fit. Your right, but the resolution doesn't clarify if that person must be ordained or not. Why not a CEO of a corporation if it isn't clear? We have godly laymen. That is the nature of the General board is it not? I mean if we are going in a new direction.....and we have no Moses to lead us...uh wait.. he wasn't a priest but he was a sheep herder in his previous career. ;)

[Dave McClung]

..., given we have our vision already in place (as you said, Matthew 28), ..


Agreed!

Gina
Matthew 28 describes the mission. The vision involves a plan to carry out the mission. See this post:

http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?t=18266

[Wesley Smith]

Dave,

I voted "Yes!"

Would you explain what you mean by "communicating the vision?" I am "wishing" that this person would be more than a "communicator." Lots of people could fill that bill. Just trying to understand here. Does this phrase suggest we might still have 6 Generals but only one of them would have the job of communicating the vision?

Who develops the vision? Does the one person communicating the vision have authority to do more than communicate? Is enforcement of vision a piece of his/her responsibility?

Friend,

Wes

[Dave McClung]

Dave,

I voted "Yes!"

Would you explain what you mean by "communicating the vision?" I am "wishing" that this person would be more than a "communicator." Lots of people could fill that bill. Just trying to understand here. Does this phrase suggest we might still have 6 Generals but only one of them would have the job of communicating the vision?

Who develops the vision? Does the one person communicating the vision have authority to do more than communicate? Is enforcement of vision a piece of his/her responsibility?

Friend,

Wes

I was trying to save words. Perhaps I should have asked, "If you had to choose between a system in which one individual is authorized to communicate the denominational vision or a system in which no one is authorized to communicate the denomination vision without the prior approval of all six General Superintents, which would you choose?" I thought that question was too biased to be helpful.

I have found the responses to be helpful, particularily the responses that have explained why they voted no.

It is good to have friends that give thoughtful input.

[Hans Deventer]

Not exactly the only other option. Perhaps the person could be given a term limit of say 10 yrs regardless of age. I think we turn out some good productive people just because they hit the magic number of 70.

Dale, all these rules are lousy. The problem is that we don't have a good review system, and hence we come up with some arbitrary rules that at least have some air of equity around them. But we don't address the real issue.

[Steven Martinez]

[FONT=Comic Sans MS][SIZE=3]I was trying to save words. Perhaps I should have asked, "If you had to choose between a system in which one individual is authorized to communicate the denominational vision or a system in which no one is authorized to communicate the denomination vision without the prior approval of all six General Superintents, which would you choose?"

Dave,
Let me ask this as a clarification. Why do you think we need to change? What is the specific example that comes to mind that enforces to you that this change is necesary? Is this change for change sake? I understand the concept of vision leadership but I am failing to grasp why our GSs are the ones to give it. Why should our vision (the end in mind) be from the top when the local church could do a beter job of making a vision for each community?
Reading the manual, has lead me to believe that it is the local pastor who is called to be a visionary while the GSs are called to maintain the mission of our core values (Christian, Holiness, Missional) while "Making Christlike Disciples." Looking at our history, we must understand that our polity is a distinction that reflects our theological distinctions. We are not quite Anglican and we are not quite Congregationalist. It seems to me that our founding parents believed in a governing (serving) body but had no desire to eliminate the role of vision from the local church. I see the problem of our denomination as that the local church looks toward KC for its vision instead of within itself. An example of this is the schilling of books at assembly from NPH. Essentially we are being told that we need all these great books because they will give us the vision from HQ. I agree with Ryan's post above about blending in. However this blending in is the exact thing our Leaders desire. We want to be Evangelicals more than Nazarene. Our distinction, imo, is maintained on the local level where relational holiness is lived on a day to day level. At the same time, one of our best distinctions is the fact that we do not have to agree on everything to maintain our unity.
I agree it is easier to find one voice when there is only one voice. However, when has a Nazarene ever done anything easier? :basic02
Personally, I would like to go back to three GSs and then see more authority in Regional leadership to act like Bishops but have a group of elected "Bishops" to serve as our highest leadership for the sake of accountability and encouragement/support. Even Jesus sent the Disciples in pairs.
Blessings to You Dave

[Hans Deventer]

Dave,
Let me ask this as a clarification. Why do you think we need to change?

Right now, we elect 6 people to lead us. The election system never takes into account if these people can actually work together as a team, or have anything like a common vision of the direction the church should go. In fact, I would be willing to argue that some are purposely elected to "balance out" others. In other words, to avoid we're getting anywhere.
I'm sure all agree on Matthew 28, but it seems that mission alone is not enough, we need a more unified vision on how to get there.

Dave's proposal, as I understand it, suggests that after careful consultation, at the end of the day, one person needs to have the authority to say: "and this is how we are going to achieve our goals".

The BoGs itself apparently realised the problem, which is why their first attempt is to unify the leadership of Headquarters. 6 captains on a ship simply doesn't work.

The other direction of course would be to consider them as some kind of consultants to the districts and the local churches, and state that the development of vision on how to work out our mission is a local affair.

I would think that this is the real issue to be discussed: what is the best role of a GS?

[Chris Patton]

The system we have now seems more set up to focus on NOT communicating anything that someone might disagree with, than working to communicate something that is specific enough to be distinctive.

[Houston Thomas]

Why should our vision (the end in mind) be from the top when the local church could do a better job of making a vision for each community?
Reading the manual, has lead me to believe that it is the local pastor who is called to be a visionary while the GSs are called to maintain the mission of our core values (Christian, Holiness, Missional) while "Making Christlike Disciples."

I agree. The vision of the COTN resides in the local level. The COTN has never been set-up to follow a corporate (in the sense of communal) vision or guideline.

In fact, that is one of the things that appeals to me about the COTN. The local church is given freedom to their own vision.

Right now, we elect 6 people to lead us.

Do we elect them to lead us or serve us?

I would think that this is the real issue to be discussed: what is the best role of a GS?

Completely agree.

[Dave McClung]

...Dave,
Let me ask this as a clarification. Why do you think we need to change? What is the specific example that comes to mind that enforces to you that this change is necesary? ...

Steve

I wrote a lengthy response, but decided to hit the "delete" button. I have pledged that I won't be a complainer. My response sounded like I was complaining.

Rather than air my complaints, let me suggest that you do just a little research. Go to the online statistics that show the growth rate of local congregations in the U.S. Eliminate the top 10%. You will observe that the bottom 90% of Nazarene congregations in the U.S. are in serious decline. The decline is serious enough that I have concern for the future. Here is a link: http://app.nazarene.org/FindAChurch/viewReport.jsp?reportId=536882&orgId=16979

While it is true that the Church of the Nazarene is growing dramatically outside the U.S. and Canada, that growth is fueled with cash flow from the U.S. congregations. If we don't pay attention to the health of the denomination in the U.S., we won't be able to continue supporting the growth outside the U.S.

[Gina Stevenson]

Gina
Matthew 28 describes the mission. The vision involves a plan to carry out the mission. See this post:

http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?t=18266


OK, we mixed up mission and vision ... closely related words. Sorry. I guess I think of an organization's "mission statement" containing their vision, usually ... such as connecting those within our reach with Christ. Mission statements don't typically, tho', say how it's going to be done, I guess, do they? :o

[Ryan Scott]

Not exactly the only other option. Perhaps the person could be given a term limit of say 10 yrs regardless of age. I think we turn out some good productive people just because they hit the magic number of 70.

I think it would be ok to do away with the age limit, so long as we implemented another rule that required 1/3 of the General Superintendents to be under 50 at their election.

I know I'm biased because I'm young, but I've seen too many local congregations where an entire generation gets cut out of leadership because the older generation holds all the leadership until they die and then transfer those roles to their grandkids. We can't afford to cut out every other generation.

[David Pettigrew]

A "yes" voter here.

The reason the CotN ever had more than one GS to begin with is because of various groups, each with their own leader, coming together. Rather than Bresee telling Reynolds or Jernigan "you will now serve under me", they shared leadership for the sake of unity. It would be like the Nazarenes and Wesleyans uniting today and trying to decide who was in charge, which colleges to keep open, which publications to support, etc. I'm sure we'd do just like they did back then - come up with a system to try and please everyone, but that would risk pleasing no one.

So many things we do today are done for no other reason than the compromises of 100 years ago. Is this a good enough reason to keep doing them?

[Ryan Scott]

While it is true that the Church of the Nazarene is growing dramatically outside the U.S. and Canada, that growth is fueled with cash flow from the U.S. congregations. If we don't pay attention to the health of the denomination in the U.S., we won't be able to continue supporting the growth outside the U.S.


I'm not sure this is necessarily true. True, we might have less US money going to other countries, but I've talked to a few young leaders from different places and most of them say, "our biggest problem is that we depend on the US church for money; we need to be self-sufficient." Bangladesh is the perfect example of how this works with little funding from the West.

I'm more worried that the Church in general is becoming irrelevant in the US than that membership or giving is shrinking. I have firm belief that the Church of the Nazarene would be just fine without our money. It would be different, perhaps more different than some of us would like, but I don't think that should be a major reason for our desire to change.

[Hans Deventer]

Do we elect them to lead us or serve us?

Of course they are servant leaders. ;)

[Billy Cox]

I'm not sure this is necessarily true. True, we might have less US money going to other countries, but I've talked to a few young leaders from different places and most of them say, "our biggest problem is that we depend on the US church for money; we need to be self-sufficient." Bangladesh is the perfect example of how this works with little funding from the West.

I'm more worried that the Church in general is becoming irrelevant in the US than that membership or giving is shrinking. I have firm belief that the Church of the Nazarene would be just fine without our money. It would be different, perhaps more different than some of us would like, but I don't think that should be a major reason for our desire to change.

Well if a sense of urgency is the first toward radical change, then the news that the 'golden goose' is ill might serve to do just that.

Is Bangladesh a 'sending' country or is it simply self-sufficient? If it is the latter, then it is not a sustainable model seeing as how there huge areas of the world in which the only Nazarene presence is prevenient grace.

[Grandma Carolyn]

There has been a lot of discussion of the post I made concerning "turn around" of the Church of the Nazarene. While the post included a lot of ideas, it really made only one recommendation. Now that you have had some time to think about it, do you support the recommendation:

Resolved, That one individual be authorized to communicate the denominational vision for the Church of the Nazarene.

Yes or No




Dave how is it different from having One Pope? Now, don't think I'm dumb for asking the question but I'm sure there are people who will ask that.
gc

[Steven Martinez]

Steve

I wrote a lengthy response, but decided to hit the "delete" button. I have pledged that I won't be a complainer. My response sounded like I was complaining.

Rather than air my complaints, let me suggest that you do just a little research. Go to the online statistics that show the growth rate of local congregations in the U.S. Eliminate the top 10%. You will observe that the bottom 90% of Nazarene congregations in the U.S. are in serious decline. The decline is serious enough that I have concern for the future. Here is a link: http://app.nazarene.org/FindAChurch/viewReport.jsp?reportId=536882&orgId=16979

While it is true that the Church of the Nazarene is growing dramatically outside the U.S. and Canada, that growth is fueled with cash flow from the U.S. congregations. If we don't pay attention to the health of the denomination in the U.S., we won't be able to continue supporting the growth outside the U.S.



I understand your concern. It is my concern as well. I have done research as well ( I worked in Archives for two years) and it seems that the various problems and controversies stem from one of our greatest strength... the local church and the apostolic authority to give vision. Some have used it for ill while some have used it for good. I feel the biggest problem is that most do not use it period. I guess where I disagree is that I see American companies failing all around. For example, the auto industry is a mess. I thought it was interesting when Diamler bought out Chrysler and then had to sell it because it was never going to profitable. Why would one of the best companies in the world with some of the best visionaries fail? The answer lies on the local level. The American worker is not willing to do what it takes to make a quality car at affordable prices. There philosophy is to make as many cars as possible and hope the recalls will be minimal. What happens when the lose money? The CEO gets bought out (makes money) while the employees get let go. Obviously the company does not blame the CEO for lack of vision but blames the employees for lack of production.
In the CoN, the problem seems to me the lack of production on the local level rather than the lack of vision. I agree with you Dave that there is some serious problems and that we have to make changes (like I said before, I believe we should downsize back to 3 GSs while increasing the regional leaders authority) however, I think reducing the BoGS to one person is not the answer, and I am affraid that by making such a move, we will essentially be placing blame on our GSs rather than the local pastors/boards/congregations who chose to sit rather than go.

By the way, I thank you for these threads. Personally it proves to me that we must make change from the grass roots and not depend upon HQ to see the changes that need to be made. I too do not wish to be a complainer. And I hope that I have not come off that way to you. Please forgive me if you have felt offended by my coments. I respect you so much. You have gone through so much at your church (your former pastor was a fellow student with me at NTS and it freaked me out when I heard, I cannot imagine how you guys felt) and it fills me with JOY that you are growing!
Blessings

[Ryan Scott]

Is Bangladesh a 'sending' country or is it simply self-sufficient? If it is the latter, then it is not a sustainable model seeing as how there huge areas of the world in which the only Nazarene presence is prevenient grace.


I mentioned the story I heard from Eurasia Regional Director Gustavo Crocker on another thread, but just to sum up. The Church of the Nazarene in Bangladesh began because of a layperson who was converted in India. He went home and began to work. When things became organized, the district there told the Regional office that they wanted to be self-sufficient as soon as possible, so they wanted their funding to be cut in by a third after one year, in half after two years, and completely after three.

The result was a fully-formed, self-supporting, phase three district in a very short time (I think just 8 years or so from the very beginning). They've never had a missionary.

I'm not saying it should be a model, but more as proof that "if we leave, nothing will get done" is not a valid argument.

In talking with friends from Africa they've said, "yes, we're making great progress in reaching people with the love of Christ, but we're ignoring any sort of self-sufficiency. If the US funding cut off tomorrow, we would lose most everything we've gained."

So I'm not saying we need to stop, but we need to do more to encourage well-rounded growth in other areas. Some of that comes from just taking our hands off and allowing Nazarenes in different areas to develop their own identity. These things exist and are happening, but not with much attention or fervor.

[Dave McClung]

Dave how is it different from having One Pope? Now, don't think I'm dumb for asking the question but I'm sure there are people who will ask that.
gc

The Pope is accountable to no one but God. A single General Superintendnet would be accountable to a board elected by representative government and also to God.

[Mike Schutz]

If we are wondering what a single "point person" would look like, most of the other Protestant denominations have this type of organizational structure. They are each unique due to other characteristics, but a single person does not necessarily result in rulings Ex Cathedra.

[Billy Cox]

I mentioned the story I heard from Eurasia Regional Director Gustavo Crocker on another thread, but just to sum up. The Church of the Nazarene in Bangladesh began because of a layperson who was converted in India. He went home and began to work. When things became organized, the district there told the Regional office that they wanted to be self-sufficient as soon as possible, so they wanted their funding to be cut in by a third after one year, in half after two years, and completely after three.

The result was a fully-formed, self-supporting, phase three district in a very short time (I think just 8 years or so from the very beginning). They've never had a missionary.

I'm not saying it should be a model, but more as proof that "if we leave, nothing will get done" is not a valid argument.

In talking with friends from Africa they've said, "yes, we're making great progress in reaching people with the love of Christ, but we're ignoring any sort of self-sufficiency. If the US funding cut off tomorrow, we would lose most everything we've gained."

So I'm not saying we need to stop, but we need to do more to encourage well-rounded growth in other areas. Some of that comes from just taking our hands off and allowing Nazarenes in different areas to develop their own identity. These things exist and are happening, but not with much attention or fervor.

Your point is well taken. I have on more than one occasion heard a missionary chafe against denominational strictures at a faith promise banquet or deputation service.

Institutions operate with a currency called control. I fail to be surprised when an institution does not go out of its way to erode its own hold on things. Since day one, the organizational side of the church has sought the 'via media' between experiencing the power of the Holy Spirit while trying to keep the Spirit from coloring outside of the lines.

I suppose that the institution is necessary to do things larger than a living room, but it occasionally forgets whether it is the tail or the dog.

[Billy Cox]

So many things we do today are done for no other reason than the compromises of 100 years ago. Is this a good enough reason to keep doing them?

Oh, but that's our heritage you're talking about discarding. :rolleyes:

[Wesley Smith]

My support of such a resolution is more "general" than it is "particular." Restructuring our denomination has been a significant focus in my personal life and ministry for many years. My change efforts drew a visit to my local church (Anchorage, AK, 1st Church) from a GS in 1984! At that time I was told that I was the first pastor who had merited such a visit simply on the basis of local ministries. We were transitioning from a Sunday School and traditional Sunday evening service to a major worship celebration on Sunday morning and small groups throughout the city on Sunday evenings and through the week. Our changes were unanimously "disallowed" by the Board of General Superintendents. No sour grapes. Just to say that I've been in a restructuring mode for nearly all my ministry.

Generally speaking, I support Dave's paper simply because we have got to start somewhere and I've not come across any other person or movement where restructuring is a serious focus.

There are three or four major concerns/crises facing our denomination.

1. Flat line and declining attendance in North America. Included in this point is the overall aging of the church. Craig Rench recently shared a recent statistic that 55% of our churches in the latest reports did not add one new member or show any growth at all. These churches either maintained or declined.

2. The general state of deterioration in our church facilities. While this may not seem significant, in my opinion it may be our greatest reason for maintenance and decline.

3. Over taxation. It is a rare conversation with a pastor, staff member, or other leader in a church where the subject does not drift to the tightening budgects in the local church. Just yesterday a staff member told me that his pastor has stated for seven years in a row that there are no funds to give raises of any kind. I have a pastor friend from another denomination whose leadership has decreased budgets/taxes/franchise fees from over 20% to 10%. He states that the net impact has been significant growth in local churches resulting in, now, more funds to share with the various concerns of his denomination.

4. I also am very concerned about the vision and commitment we are able to evoke from young and new pastors. My conversations indicate less hardcore loyalty to past practices within our denomination. Not to be negative, but we are already losing most of our Nazarene graduates from our Universities to other more vibrant denominations and non-denominational churches.

A restructuring from top to bottom is essential. And I don't even like that statement. Where is the top and where is the bottom? In light of the condition of our denonination it actually amazes me that there is any disagreement and it amazes me that there is not an intentional rush from our denominational leadership to cooperate with and give leadership to restructuring!

Friend,

Wes

[Billy Cox]

This thread is all the evidence I need to state that what we call this 'one individual' will be important.

Most people have no idea what a CEO really does, so they think of a CEO as a dictator in a business suit. The CEO metaphor will also be a non-starter for people who think that the church is already too enamored with corporate management philosophy.

Most evangelical protestants have no idea what the Pope does, so they think of a Pope as a religious dictator who wears ornamental robes and funny hats. If the pope metaphor gains any kind of currency in our discourse, then the topic is dead.

Many Nazarenes place the word 'bishop' in the same category as 'pope'.

Perhaps we are stuck by default with the title of 'superintendent'.

[John Kennedy]

Kind of reminds me of the joke that used to be heard in Free Methodist/Wesleyan circles: One of the big reasons the two denominations didn't merge was because the Free Methodists persisted in calling their GS's bishops, and the Wesleyans persisted in calling their bishops GS's.

[Steven Martinez]

This thread is all the evidence I need to state that what we call this 'one individual' will be important.

Most people have no idea what a CEO really does, so they think of a CEO as a dictator in a business suit. The CEO metaphor will also be a non-starter for people who think that the church is already too enamored with corporate management philosophy.

Most evangelical protestants have no idea what the Pope does, so they think of a Pope as a religious dictator who wears ornamental robes and funny hats. If the pope metaphor gains any kind of currency in our discourse, then the topic is dead.

Many Nazarenes place the word 'bishop' in the same category as 'pope'.

Perhaps we are stuck by default with the title of 'superintendent'.
This is a great point.
I think that whomever recieves this task first will be given the title of "sacraficial lamb."

[Eric Vail]

The Pope is accountable to no one but God. A single General Superintendnet would be accountable to a board elected by representative government and also to God.

The Pope is one bishop among bishops.

I would like to see any person elected to be the sole GS start making dictatorial demands and see how long she/he has anyone listening.

In the politics of the church, people always find ways to stop those who need to be stopped. I don't think we need to be so concerned about a single leader.

I also think that anyone who the church could agree is the caliber of person to be this lone GS would have enough sense and humility to know that they don't want the position. It would be terrifying to be placed there. When elections take place, the delegates have a decent track record of not electing those who look hungry for the power. By that point in people's careers in the church, folks know what you're made of.

[Paul Whitaker]

The Church of the Nazarene has a long history of outstanding laymen who spoke with a unifying vocabulary which aided various 'organizational problems' within our denomination. Dr Howard Hamlin, Wes Mieras, The Pasadena Reed family, Bob Collier in Canada, Robert Parker, Dave McClung have all taken control of institutions or departments which were/are having problems. Their track record and history have done nothing but improve the situations they were sent to overhaul.

One CEO at the top with the 6 General Superintendents would make an awsome team. The GSs could continue to do the 'pastoral' duties. The CEO would have a big chore in the beginning but would face less pressure as the organization of his position enables such.

Dave and others have a track record of improving the administration of entities which so desparetly needed help. Dave, with his love of the church and expertise, would be an ideal candidate. If not Dave as CEO then we could have possibly others.

We choose laymen in the church now who have positions of responsibility and leadership in the operations of the church.

Just an old lover of our church - hoping to see us get on a fast track to accomplishing those things we were designed for.

[Michael Gentry]

Call me "confused" if you want ... call me "naive" if you want ... I do believe the Church of the Nazarene has to keep their focus, but any "denominational vision" is worthless unless the local church embrace it.

It's amusing to me, but I'm easily amused that we have to have "Mission Statements" to say in essence, "We are here to win the lost" ... hehehe, of course we are, why do we need to state that? Surely the members know that? Or do they? hmmm, maybe we need to say it anyway.

Just a thot.

[Emmanuel Reinbold]

4. I also am very concerned about the vision and commitment we are able to evoke from young and new pastors. My conversations indicate less hardcore loyalty to past practices within our denomination. Not to be negative, but we are already losing most of our Nazarene graduates from our Universities to other more vibrant denominations and non-denominational churches.
Wes

Wes,

As one of the young pastors who is struggling with the hardcore loyalty to the past practices in our denomination I will speak to this.

My generation is not prone to supporting a system, especially one that is so broken. As I see my church struggling considerably with the heavy burden of sending 30% of our funds elsewhere, and being able to pay my salary(which is not sufficient for my young family) the utilities on the building that we own free and clear, and our budgets, we managed to run in the red the entire year last year... even though giving was up significantly.

In our situation, the district is taking half of our budgets, this year they cut our general budget and upped the district budget. The overwhelming majority of the budget is just going to support the district system. We don't have a campground, and only $25k out of the 213k budget is going to support churches or ministries on the district (excluding the NYI, NMI, and SSM).

I have tried to address with the leadership my concerns, and have been warned by other pastors that I risk being blackballed in the Nazarene system if I keep talking.

Before stumbling onto these posts, I had basically come to the conclusion that if God releases me from my current assignment, I will be leaving the denomination. With my ministry ahead of me, I struggle to think that I could spend my entire minstry fighting a system that is broken, has been broken for years, and keeps the local church in such financial bondage!

My generation's loyalty is to the mission of making disciples, not to a denominational system that has DS's making 4 and 5 times more than the majority of pastors that they serve.

My hope from reading this posts is that the denomination that has been my family heritage for many years will acknowledge that the system is broken, and that I can come to the end of my life of ministry on this earth and be thankful that I was able to serve in a denomination that took its mission seriously!

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Before stumbling onto these posts, I had basically come to the conclusion that if God releases me from my current assignment, I will be leaving the denomination. With my ministry ahead of me, I struggle to think that I could spend my entire minstry fighting a system that is broken, has been broken for years, and keeps the local church in such financial bondage!

Where would you go?

[Emmanuel Reinbold]

Where would you go?

probably the Wesleyan church. I am currently completing my master's degree through Indiana Wesleyan at half of the discounted price that NNU offered a Nazarene pastor...

Their budget system is 11% I believe, and they tend to take much better care of their pastors! Not all of their churches are growing (nor are ours) but the structure is more appropriate for growth.

[Gary Swartzlander]

Wes,

As one of the young pastors who is struggling with the hardcore loyalty to the past practices in our denomination I will speak to this.

My generation is not prone to supporting a system, especially one that is so broken. As I see my church struggling considerably with the heavy burden of sending 30% of our funds elsewhere, and being able to pay my salary(which is not sufficient for my young family) the utilities on the building that we own free and clear, and our budgets, we managed to run in the red the entire year last year... even though giving was up significantly.

In our situation, the district is taking half of our budgets, this year they cut our general budget and upped the district budget. The overwhelming majority of the budget is just going to support the district system. We don't have a campground, and only $25k out of the 213k budget is going to support churches or ministries on the district (excluding the NYI, NMI, and SSM).

I have tried to address with the leadership my concerns, and have been warned by other pastors that I risk being blackballed in the Nazarene system if I keep talking.

Before stumbling onto these posts, I had basically come to the conclusion that if God releases me from my current assignment, I will be leaving the denomination. With my ministry ahead of me, I struggle to think that I could spend my entire minstry fighting a system that is broken, has been broken for years, and keeps the local church in such financial bondage!

My generation's loyalty is to the mission of making disciples, not to a denominational system that has DS's making 4 and 5 times more than the majority of pastors that they serve.

My hope from reading this posts is that the denomination that has been my family heritage for many years will acknowledge that the system is broken, and that I can come to the end of my life of ministry on this earth and be thankful that I was able to serve in a denomination that took its mission seriously!

Well said!!

[Michael Gentry]

Wes,

As I see my church struggling considerably with the heavy burden of sending 30% of our funds elsewhere, and being able to pay my salary(which is not sufficient for my young family) the utilities on the building that we own free and clear, and our budgets, we managed to run in the red the entire year last year... even though giving was up significantly.

In our situation, the district is taking half of our budgets, this year they cut our general budget and upped the district budget. I have tried to address with the leadership my concerns, and have been warned by other pastors that I risk being blackballed in the Nazarene system if I keep talking.

Before stumbling onto these posts, I had basically come to the conclusion that if God releases me from my current assignment, I will be leaving the denomination. With my ministry ahead of me, I struggle to think that I could spend my entire minstry fighting a system that is broken, has been broken for years, and keeps the local church in such financial bondage!

My generation's loyalty is to the mission of making disciples, not to a denominational system that has DS's making 4 and 5 times more than the majority of pastors that they serve.


Emmanuel: I do understand. I am a 3rd generation Nazarene. I am also 57 years old, so if I am to get any retirement I have to finish out to 65 in the church - by that I mean I can't afford to change denominations at this point in life. It is frustrating to see pastors of other groups who have the same size church or smaller making a lot more money that I make. (OK, no one give me a sermon here on love of money!!! I do not love money, but it helps meet my expenses, without it I can't meet my expenses!!!)
At least 1/2 of my 34 years of ministry I have had to work a part time job to survive. I have only had two new cars in that time. In 1986 I bought a Buick Century ... I sold it in 2007, drove it for 21 years and rarely had a second car during that time. In 2007 I bought a new Hyundai, but am paying for it over 72 months to be able to have it. For the first 15 years in my ministry vacations were taken with my father-in-law and mother-in-law. We got a long great. All my wife and I had to do was have money for souvenirs thank God; otherwise we would have been staying home. I'm saying, it's tough!

Hey, be sure and don't check the "benefits" of the d.s., you'll really get depressed LOL.

I do want to tell you to be sure and pay your Pensions Budget in full. I won't explain here, but send me a message at... sereph@cebridge.net ... and I will explain further if you don't already know about that one. :)

I will close with this ... I believe that if the delegates we have elected for this General Assembly will vote and lobby for things they have put on Naznet, it wil have a big impact on what happens. My prayer is they will have the "guts" to actually do something and quit just talking!!! It's time for action. My fear is that one again we will have nothing done. (PS: This is why I am sure my name never gets on the ballot ... I WANT CHANGE! And for the most part, change is not allowed.

I may have just got myself blackballed! (PS: that also does happen ... I won't explain that here either, but send me an email at sereph@cebridge.net and I will explain that one too LOL :)

[Ryan Scott]

It seems the Wesleyan Church is doing quite well in attracting Pastors. I know of almost a dozen now who have or are looking to head in that direction. They also have a really great plan for starting new congregations, which means being able to offer new pastors exciting opportunities right off the bat.

I'm not looking elsewhere, but it's easy to understand why it's an attractive option for many.

[Wesley Smith]

The current direction of this thread is totally relevant to our need for restructuring. If we make a habit of restructuring with an eye towards turning the leadership of the denomination over to the next generations, we will survive indefinitely. If we do not, well, the last person out should turn out the light.

Any fantasy we might embrace about keeping things the way they are will ultimately result in diminishing, not enhancing, our future potential. We may nurture some personal need by continuing to do things the way we've always done them, but that will only accelerate our being an aging denomination in both clergy and laity.

On the other hand, the surest way to renew, restore and revive is to restructure! Restructuring with the purpose of handing something vibrant and meaningful to those who follow will both enrich the mission and upgrade the productivity and product!

I have not heard of people who have been blackballed because of their organizational philosophies. Usually such distancing results from lack of productivity on the home front. What is getting obvious and interesting is the growing reality that productivity on the home front is being diminished due to over taxation.

Personally, I do believe that there is a growing interest in restructuring from our upline leaders. They are asking questions and they seem to be listening. Patience and persistance MUST be the order of the day for all leaders on the local level.

Friend,

Wes

[Ryan Scott]

I do believe that there is a growing interest in restructuring from our upline leaders. They are asking questions and they seem to be listening.


I agree, but I also think that change from the top down is practically impossible. Changes can be made, but I doubt enough change can be accomplished to satisfy the problems people see.

I think it's important that we've noted the flexibility inherent in the system at the local level (even the district level as well). Perhaps we should be encouraging people to explore these options in their own setting. I am encouraged by the innovative ideas of some local congregations and the recent news about restructuring in Germany. While I don't think we should abandon efforts for change at the General level, we shouldn't put all our hope there.

[Wesley Smith]

Ryan,

Perhaps the example of a "franchise" would be appropriate here. No local franchise can do much about overall policies and practices without authority and permission from those in ownership/management. In regards to the level of changes many of us are seeking, changes are not possible without the change in the basic, current structure of the denomination.

On the local level, I have little ability to determine the amount of my shares for others (budgets). If it is true that Wesleyan budgets are 11%, I applaud that and have a bit of sanctified envy!

On the local level, I have no ability to implement the policy that one General will have the authority to communicate denominational vision.

On the local level, I have no ability to shift from District management to Regional management.

On the local level I have no ability to shift to a cluster arrangement under the leadership of a strong local pastor.

While, in my opinion, what is happening, ie. the restructuring movement, is basically a local initiative, it will only be implemented with GS and GA authority and support.

Friend,

Wes

[Roland Hearn]

I voted "yes" as it is the only reasonable way forward. Of course I am talking about a senior or individual General Superintendent who among other responsibility is the vision caster for the church. That vision isn't his (or hers but please accept "his" as a generic pronoun not simply a masculine one) alone but he is the one who has the most significant grasp on its implications and whose voice is heard above the others.

[Ryan Scott]

But the freedom for local congregations in the Manual is much more than a franchise model.

It seems the bigger issue on a local level would be getting the members of the congregation to go along with some changes that look radically different than the traditional Nazarene formula.

I have a feeling that getting people to buy into changes is much more important that any of the four broad changes you listed above. The Manual ensures that you don't need (much) permission from up the chain to do things differently, but you do need a lot of permission from the people in the congregation.

[David Pettigrew]

On the local level, I have little ability to determine the amount of my shares for others (budgets). If it is true that Wesleyan budgets are 11%, I applaud that and have a bit of sanctified envy!

Friend,

Wes

While I agree with much of your post, on this one you certainly have the freedom to send in whatever percentage you want. Many of our churches are already doing this. Here are the penalties for doing it this way:

1) Staff issues - technically, you're not "allowed" to hire ministerial staff if you don't pay all of your assigned budgets. In practice, many churches just do it anyway.

2) Career - it's very difficult to make an upward (or, sometimes, even a lateral) move if you are a pastor and your church doesn't pay budgets. So, laymen, if you have a successful pastor and you're afraid to lose them, here's a way to tie them down!

3) You probably won't be considered for any district board positions.

4) You don't get a certificate and a free pen at District Assembly.

So, I'm not advocating any of the above. Trust me, my church pays every penny in full each year. My point is no one is going to come change the locks on your church if you send in 11%.

My friend is on staff at a large church in the west, and that's as specific as I'll get. They have a full staff. They are paying 11% this year (a 10% tithe and a 1% offering), and basically just telling the district and general church to deal with it.

[Michael Gentry]

3) You probably won't be considered for any district board positions.

4) You don't get a certificate and a free pen at District Assembly.



Hey!!!!! I didn't get my free pen this year!!!!!:basic02:laughing

[Emmanuel Reinbold]

I know that the doors won't be locked if the budgets are not paid in full, but you are still made to feel guilty :) The issue is the expectations are there and you are "punished" as a pastor if you do not fulfill the expectations. As I stated before, my generation is not much into fulfilling expectations just because, we have to know the reasons and see the benefits. The missionary support we understand, the district overhead not so much... but the expectations are there, and it does not set an example of committement to our congregations to not fulfill our obligations, yet to expect them to fulfill their responsibilty to give to the church. If we all just chose to pay 11% then the structure that exists would be forced to cut, and most likely would cut from the ministry that we support rather than from the overhead (their salaries) that we struggle with. By the way, I didn't get a pen either :basic02

[David Pettigrew]

Hey!!!!! I didn't get my free pen this year!!!!!:basic02:laughing

Michael, I love your signature. It brings back a lot of good memories. I lived at 900 W. 6th in Cisco, Texas when I graduated from high school.