How committed are we to Internationalization?

[Dennis M. Scott]

Those of us committed to electing someone from outside the US to the office of GS would do well to be equally committed to having the same for leading US districts. Often as not, whoever takes the helm of a district hat risen from that district. Language and cultural differences would not be more significant for a DS than a GS. Proven growth leaders would likely be even more helpful at the DS level than GS.
I suggest that in the event of a US District vacancy, the presiding GS be prepared to offer names of international leaders to fill that vacancy. Often district assemblies ask the GS for names during the voting process, and certainly when vacancies occur between assemblies the district council seeks such help. Historically, the Board of GSes does not appoint from within a district anyway. (I have not served on any such district council, so I admit that GSes may have already been doing that.)

And yes, I admit US-centric to think someone from outside the US would be willing to serve a US district. Such, however, is part of the dilemna of internationalization. If we are not willing to implement policies at the local and district levels, having an international GS is mere showcasing and tokenism.

And in case you're wondering, more than a third of pastors in New England were born outside North America. Admittedly, few are at the helm of predominantly white, NA congregations.

[Cindi Hammons]

Central Ohio District has a District Secretary (Asst. DS) who was born in England and lived for many years in France. He's a great guy whom I like very much. Our DS position will be opening up at the next Assembly. Hmmmm?

That being said, in general, I disagree with you that it would be a good thing to have an international DS. What do we hear from growing districts in non-US areas? They want local leadership, not American white men leading them. Also, I think DS's must have a real grasp on the culture of the area. They are dealing with the nuts and bolts of daily life in the local church, and sometimes, even someone from the US who is outside the local culture has a difficult time dealing with the local issues. Compound that with someone who may not speak English fluently, or understand the subleties of a local area....like Appalachia! :) People down here are different, I tell you! How many times to we "see" Hans (who speaks amazingly good English) shaking his head in amazement and saying that he just doesn't "get" us? Ha! I'm not saying it couldn't work in some specific instances, I just think in general that it is not a good idea. I'm not in any leadership position, so my opinion really doesn't matter much.

Wow Dennis. It is very unusual that I disagree with you.

[Hans Deventer]

Wow Dennis. It is very unusual that I disagree with you.

Same sentiment and surprise here. As much as I like internationalization, I'm not so sure if it's a good a idea to elect a pastor from India in the position of a US district superintendent. Nor the other way around, BTW.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Central Ohio District has a District Secretary (Asst. DS) who was born in England and lived for many years in France. He's a great guy whom I like very much. Our DS position will be opening up at the next Assembly. Hmmmm?

That being said, in general, I disagree with you that it would be a good thing to have an international DS. What do we hear from growing districts in non-US areas? They want local leadership, not American white men leading them. Also, I think DS's must have a real grasp on the culture of the area. They are dealing with the nuts and bolts of daily life in the local church, and sometimes, even someone from the US who is outside the local culture has a difficult time dealing with the local issues. Compound that with someone who may not speak English fluently, or understand the subleties of a local area....like Appalachia! :) People down here are different, I tell you! How many times to we "see" Hans (who speaks amazingly good English) shaking his head in amazement and saying that he just doesn't "get" us? Ha! I'm not saying it couldn't work in some specific instances, I just think in general that it is not a good idea. I'm not in any leadership position, so my opinion really doesn't matter much.

Wow Dennis. It is very unusual that I disagree with you.

All I am suggesting is that the objections you raise are only compounded in the office of General. A DS has only "one" culture to learn - allright, I acknowledge the River Rats vs City Slickers in Central Ohio - and a GS faces dozens of cultures, erupting in decisions that pertain to all of us. There definitely are challenges in internationalization, and allowing leadership to grow into each scenario is part of that. My question was, "How committed are we to Internationalization?" There are similar adjustments to gender, ethnic, cultural, educational and perhaps even economic differences. Some are committed to internationalization - and other trendy concepts - until it affects where we live. I am calling that tokenism.

And you are endeared by disagreeing with me. Many extremely intelligent people regularly stand on your side. :o

[Hans Deventer]

There are similar adjustments to gender, ethnic, cultural, educational and perhaps even economic differences. Some are committed to internationalization - and other trendy concepts - until it affects where we live. I am calling that tokenism.

That I agree with. So you're really calling for the recognition that our own districts lack diversity in leadership and do not reflect the membership, and hence it is easy to call for internationalization?

[Dave McClung]

Those of us committed to electing someone from outside the US to the office of GS would do well to be equally committed to having the same for leading US districts. Often as not, whoever takes the helm of a district hat risen from that district. Language and cultural differences would not be more significant for a DS than a GS. Proven growth leaders would likely be even more helpful at the DS level than GS.
I suggest that in the event of a US District vacancy, the presiding GS be prepared to offer names of international leaders to fill that vacancy. Often district assemblies ask the GS for names during the voting process, and certainly when vacancies occur between assemblies the district council seeks such help. Historically, the Board of GSes does not appoint from within a district anyway. (I have not served on any such district council, so I admit that GSes may have already been doing that.)

And yes, I admit US-centric to think someone from outside the US would be willing to serve a US district. Such, however, is part of the dilemna of internationalization. If we are not willing to implement policies at the local and district levels, having an international GS is mere showcasing and tokenism.

And in case you're wondering, more than a third of pastors in New England were born outside North America. Admittedly, few are at the helm of predominantly white, NA congregations.

As chairman of the Board of Pensions and Benefits, let me point out one of the biggest barriers to internationalizm -- retirement plans. The retirement plans in the Church of the Nazarene are national plans. That is the reason I have been contending that the Church of the Nazarene should adopt a policy that clergy compensation is the responsibility of the local congregation. Localizing retirement plans would allow a pastor or other clergy person to move from one country to another easily.

[Dennis M. Scott]

That I agree with. So you're really calling for the recognition that our own districts lack diversity in leadership and do not reflect the membership, and hence it is easy to call for internationalization?

There are justifications for internationalization other than representation. I am convinced that there is no reason to assume that the most effective leadership pool is necessarily that of North America. Just because North America has the most Nazarenes doesn't mean necessarily that the best leadership - or whatever leadership the Lord wants - must come from the largest pool. Those of us who live in democracies are pretty committed to some sort of representative government. Although electing bodies (assemblies) are to be representative, the Manual does not dictate that elected leaders are to be. It might be good for us to not restrict selection of leaders to either a representative or quota model.

[Dennis M. Scott]

As chairman of the Board of Pensions and Benefits, let me point out one of the biggest barriers to internationalizm -- retirement plans. The retirement plans in the Church of the Nazarene are national plans. That is the reason I have been contending that the Church of the Nazarene should adopt a policy that clergy compensation is the responsibility of the local congregation. Localizing retirement plans would allow a pastor or other clergy person to move from one country to another easily.



That makes sense to me. Of all the means of discouraging clergy from moving from one country to another, retirement planning might be one of the silliest. I am very aware of the serious nature of the concern, however. It is not likely this issue is going to lessen. Internationalization in the church - as it is in the world - is happening.

What presently happens to a pastor say from Brazil, who serves there for fifteen years, and then moves stateside where he pastors for another fifteen before retiring?

[Gary Swartzlander]

I'm sort of beating the old drum here, but how does Internationalization (big word for a Friday afternoon) help strengthen and grow the local church?

I understand and appreciate and support very much the need to have leadership of the denomination be selected from candidates the world over, and the world headquarters to represent the world, but how does that and how can that impact the hundreds (or more) of ineffective churches that represent our denomination in the United States?

Can the 2 issues be handled simultaniously or do they require separate solutions from different groups?

If this has been addressed I'm not grasping the solution or proposed solution. The issues facing the church around the world are best left to those with that understand that stuff, what frustrates me so much is the ineffectiveness and attitudes of local churches in our communities.
(I understand I'm painting with a broad brush, but there is plenty of evidence that many churches just aren't getting it done in their communities.)

Seems to me that we can only be as strong internationally as we are strong locally, both in the US and overseas.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Gary,

Yours is a most honest question. I've multiple responses. In some places in the world, the church is growing so remarkably it almost seems nothing could stop it. That probably isn't going to transfer to a stateside church by simply bringing in a pastor from that world area. Other places in the world, the church is growing significantly, and more seems to depend on pastoral leadership. That kind of pastor might possibly be able to help your congregation do the things that apparently the Lord honors to bring about growth - but undoubtedly it will require more than just bringing in such a pastor. If you haven't already, be sure to read Howie Shute's response to Dave McClung's proposal - in another thread. He shares his burden for the NA church. That's a sort of "numerical increase" response.

Another possibility is that having such a pastor or DS might open the eyes of your congregation about Chrisitan issues to which your congregants are presently "blind." We all have such spiritual blindnesses. If someone thinks they don't, that itself is a pretty good indication that they in fact do have them. That would be a definite benefit to any congregation, but it may or may not contribute to numeric increase. Likely there are a number of things the Lord would do for us that have little to do with numeric increase. A word of caution: in some communities, bringing in pastoral leadership from some world areas will not be met positively. That may in itself be something a congregation would have to resolve. Some present members of a local congregation might even find someplace else more comfortable to worship. Whether or not that is a benefit . . .

Perhaps the most direct benefit is that having such a pastor will take us far down the road to becoming world Christians. There is a difference between being a denomination with churches around the world, and being a denomination of churches with members who think like world Christians. We're past the time when world evangelism meant paying for someone else to evangelize somewhere else in the world. Two things have happened: travel abilities now enable NA believers to go and participate - and they are. Additionally, the world has relocated stateside, and everywhere else in the world. As they relocate, they are extremely responsive to the Gospel. The answer isn't to bring pastors from every nation to reach immigrating populations, but for Christians worldwide to begin to think like world Christians right where they are, reaching across cultural and ethnic lines. What a powerful impact a church could make in most NA metropolitan areas if they had several hundred believers who started to think like and act like world Christians.

My question in this thread is, "How committed are we to Internationalization?"

Twenty some years ago, I asked that same question of an advisory board, and they said, "How about if we just keep sending money, food and clothing." I really don't know if it's any different today.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Nor the other way around, BTW.

Can you elaborate a little?

[Hans Deventer]

Can you elaborate a little?

Sure! In general, I much prefer indigenous leadership. But Kansas City still very much does it's own thing and sends the world mainly American regional directors. It's getting a little better, but the region still doesn't have a voice. Which makes me support Dave's proposal, because the very minute the US also has a regional director or regional superintendent, the problem is solved. For the US regions will never ever allow themselves to be ruled by a person appointed by Kansas City, though they don't seem to have as much problems with it when it comes to the other regions.

So I would never vote for a person to become GS if (s)he never been exposed for a long time to a non-North American culture. Which means, if we'd have to elect an American, I'd support a guy like Chuck Sunberg. If you're able to defend a proposed resolution from Germany regarding alcohol, you've become a world citizen. You understand.