Why trust God with 6 but not 1?

[Dave McClung]

Now that I have been collecting responses to my "turnaround" post for several weeks, there seems to be some resistance to my idea that one person should have the authority to articulate the vision of the Church of the Nazarene.

The most frequent objection seems to be that it would put too much power in the hands of one person. Usually, after that statement is made, the question is asked, "What if we put the wrong person in that role?"

Help me understand. We can trust God to help us elect six leaders, but we can't trust him to help us elect just one?

[Bob Evans]

I have no problem with one, two,or a dozen as long as it is an elected position or an appointed position with regular review. There will still be so many layers between the one two or 6 that the local church will probably not even notice.

[Dennis M. Scott]

I'm in favor of one person being able to do that. Those same people, however, who ask about choosing the wrong one, probably now say, "Hey, I don't like them all, but I guess I can find one I can at least tolerate!" :laughing

I really suspect it's the other way: "What if the only one doesn't like me?" They really have hit on a real issue. Some people don't especially want to listen to someone else cast vision and lead: they want someone to listen to them so they can influence leadership. The biggest challenge won't be to change from six to one, but rather to change from telling leadership what to do/say and start following the leader.

Again, this isn't just about changing structure. We can change structure: the real change we need is something we need God to do. That can happen even without the structural change.

[Ryan Scott]

I also get the feeling that some people are scared about having one because the obvious example of one is the Pope, who is in charge or setting and maintaining orthodoxy. That isn't the purpose of the leader of the Church of the Nazarene. That person is put in charge of directing and empowering the denomination for ministry in all our various diversities.

We don't or shouldn't be worried about one person deciding who we are or what we believe. One person cannot do that and, I suspect, a person elected to that position would know better than to try.

[Hans Deventer]

Help me understand. We can trust God to help us elect six leaders, but we can't trust him to help us elect just one?

Dave, people have experiences. Calling a pastor should also mean we trust God to help us find the good fit, but it doesn't always work out that way.

I think it will be crucial for your proposal to clarify what exactly the power of this one person is. It that remains vague, I don't think the resolution will pass.

[Crystal Lutton]

Hmmmm my objections would be because I don't think Biblical design shows "one" person in sole ultimate leadership. Even Paul answered to the Jerusalem Council. They might not have always liked his answers ;) But he wasn't a lone gun out there like we sometimes want to imagine him with our Western invidivualism. The Council seems to have been fashioned directly after a Minyan. And there are some decisions (like death penalty) where the elders were REQUIRED to NOT have a unanimous vote (it would make suspect that there was an agenda).

More than one brings balance, accountability, multiple temperaments and personalities represented in the leadership. What happens if someone has a conflict with that one person in charge--what if it's just a personality conflict?

I would suggest that asking 1 person to fill the role is asking more than we should ask from any 1 person. I'm reminded that God's plan for Israel was to have Judges--plural. When they asked for a King he warned them and they suffered the consequences for insisting. He let them suffer the consequences.

I think that the question in the OP is the wrong one. I can trust God to help me elect the one right person; I would suggest God doesn't want to have "one" right person. God is present in community. A leadership community is much more likely ime to discern, express, and act the will of God.

[Dave McClung]

Hmmmm my objections would be because I don't think Biblical design shows "one" person in sole ultimate leadership. Even Paul answered to the Jerusalem Council. They might not have always liked his answers ;) But he wasn't a lone gun out there like we sometimes want to imagine him with our Western invidivualism. The Council seems to have been fashioned directly after a Minyan. And there are some decisions (like death penalty) where the elders were REQUIRED to NOT have a unanimous vote (it would make suspect that there was an agenda).

More than one brings balance, accountability, multiple temperaments and personalities represented in the leadership. What happens if someone has a conflict with that one person in charge--what if it's just a personality conflict?

I would suggest that asking 1 person to fill the role is asking more than we should ask from any 1 person. I'm reminded that God's plan for Israel was to have Judges--plural. When they asked for a King he warned them and they suffered the consequences for insisting. He let them suffer the consequences.

I think that the question in the OP is the wrong one. I can trust God to help me elect the one right person; I would suggest God doesn't want to have "one" right person. God is present in community. A leadership community is much more likely ime to discern, express, and act the will of God.

Crystal, thanks for your feed back. It helps me understand the thinking of those who don't agree with me.

I would ask a simple question. Can you give me an example of any organization that is effective in the accomplishment of its mission that is managed by a group rahter than by an individual? I have not been able to come up with such an example.

As for your looking to Old Testament Israel for guidance, would you agree that prior to the time that Israel sought a King, God led Israel through one prophet at a time? Prior to the time that Israel sought to have a King, the leader was always an individual. When God's people needed to accomplish great things, consider how God did things. Didn't God call Moses, Joshua, Gideon, Samuel, and dozens of other people to lead his people? I suggest that throughout the Bible, both Old Testament and New Testament, when God did great things, he used leaders to organize the willing people. I invite you to give examples of times when God moved a mass of people to do great things without having a leader.

[Crystal Lutton]

Crystal, thanks for your feed back. It helps me understand the thinking of those who don't agree with me.

I would ask a simple question. Can you give me an example of any organization that is effective in the accomplishment of its mission that is managed by a group rahter than by an individual? I have not been able to come up with such an example. Our congregation??? Would that suffice?

The Senior Rabbi and myself do not make major decisions without consultation and agreement. There are areas delegated to each of us--he does most of the preaching and I don't tell him what to preach and I run the office and he doesn't tell me what stock paper to get ;) But we have operated for several months without an active board (long story) and we have made the decisions together. If there is not unity we do not pursue that path.

Our board generally operates as a minyan. If there is not full agreement on major things we do not do them. Everyone goes home and prays for another month until the issue can be discussed again. Granted, there is a humility that must be present for this to work because there is the potential for one person to hold the group hostage, but that would be an absence of submission and that has no place on a ministry leadership team. And it would set a dynamic of people being petty and vindictive. That would indicate the wrong people in the position.

As for your looking to Old Testament Israel for guidance, would you agree that prior to the time that Israel sought a King, God led Israel through one prophet at a time? I've heard very strong scholarship for the idea that there were several prophets at one time each in different areas.

Prior to the time that Israel sought to have a King, the leader was always an individual. When God's people needed to accomplish great things, consider how God did things. Didn't God call Moses, Joshua, Gideon, Samuel, and dozens of other people to lead his people? None of them acted alone--Moses went to Pharaoh with Aaron :) The Jewish community and mindset is not the same as what we live in America today. The community stood in agreement with the leader or the leader had no one to lead. The people didn't have to hope to "vote" according to God's will. Think of Moses' father in law who told him he was going to burn himself out if he continued doing it all himself--he set up a structure of more personal and interconnected leadership.

I suggest that throughout the Bible, both Old Testament and New Testament, when God did great things, he used leaders to organize the willing people. I invite you to give examples of times when God moved a mass of people to do great things without having a leader. I'm not suggesting the absence of leadership and mass chaos from which God will organize a denomination. I'm suggesting that when Jesus left the "Council" took over.

To be perfectly honest . . . if one leader were to rise from the ranks of the CON who made everyone happy and was able to speak for everyone within . . . I would flee the denomination.

[Hans Deventer]

More than one brings balance, accountability, multiple temperaments and personalities represented in the leadership.

Yes. And paralysis.

What happens if someone has a conflict with that one person in charge--what if it's just a personality conflict?

The others are the judge.

307.12. Any official act of a general superintendent may be nullified by a unanimous vote of the remaining members of the Board of General Superintendents.

That is a very old part of the Manual.

[Crystal Lutton]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding then . . . would this be one person who casts the vision; or one spokesperson who represents it? Because if we change from a "Board" of 6 to a single leader, doesn't this get nullified:
307.12. Any official act of a general superintendent may be nullified by a unanimous vote of the remaining members of the Board of General Superintendents.

[Hans Deventer]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding then . . . would this be one person who casts the vision; or one spokesperson who represents it? Because if we change from a "Board" of 6 to a single leader, doesn't this get nullified:

No, there is still a board, only, with one of the six designated to cast the vision. (As I understand Dave's proposal.)

[Dennis M. Scott]

No, there is still a board, only, with one of the six designated to cast the vision. (As I understand Dave's proposal.)

Yes, but that's not the way I understood it earlier.

[Crystal Lutton]

So the idea is to trust one person to cast a vision and the others have to work out the details of a vision they did not cast? Are they expected to embrace it fully or just be practical? What if they don't embrace it at all? It seems this makes the members of the board "workers" instead of "leaders". And does that provision from the manual mean that the one "act" of casting a vision can be overruled by the rest of the board if they don't like the vision? Or would they be stuck with it and have to make it work?

For anything this idea may solve it seems it would open the potential for a myriad of new problems. I suppose it would need to be decided if what it fixed was so broken that the rest was worth it.

[Crystal Lutton]

Okay--read the statement in light of that further explanation and have an amended thought :)

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.I didn't copy the point 1 of electing the visionary leader, but that seems to be a given for these two ;)

I do agree with the notion that has come in response to this that whatever vision is cast must have an international mind behind it. I still maintain the goal of "casting" an international vision is too great a task for any one person.

I do, however, believe that compiling, uniting and orchestrating one single vision from the multiple area visions would be something one person could be charged with--assuming approval from the board and if the individual was open to evaluation of the vision for major gaps.

Casting a vision is great for a corporation--and when a visionary leader arises who people get behind who is either the owner or leader of a corporation there are tangible ways by which to evaluate their leadership. Profits, growth, etc. Having been part of a megachurch I'm very opposed to any model that treats the Church like a corporation.

However, building on the idea of a vision caster . . . if each area were to bring their vision and one person were chosen with the gifts necessary to be able to discern the interconnections of it all and present it in one unified vision that could be embraced by the full board . . . That would be wonderful.

It's really quite possible it's a communication issue--that may be what you were intending all along :) I didn't get that from a reading.

So that's my thought for what it's worth :basic02

[Hans Deventer]

So the idea is to trust one person to cast a vision and the others have to work out the details of a vision they did not cast?

I don't understand the question. One gets to have the final say. Why do you presume others have no say at all?

Are they expected to embrace it fully or just be practical? What if they don't embrace it at all?

Embrace fully. And if not, there's always the option to resign, right?

It seems this makes the members of the board "workers" instead of "leaders".

No, they had their input and are to lead in their own areas. In fact, with budget power, they have a lot more power than they have today. They can lead more than they ever could in the current situation.

And does that provision from the manual mean that the one "act" of casting a vision can be overruled by the rest of the board if they don't like the vision?

Yes. But the great thing is, there is no longer 1 or 2 who can stop the board from doing anything at all.
BTW, the General Assembly can also overturn an action by a GS or the entire board.

For anything this idea may solve it seems it would open the potential for a myriad of new problems. I suppose it would need to be decided if what it fixed was so broken that the rest was worth it.

Crystal, honestly, if you don't see what needs to be fixed, no explanation of the proposal will help and the discussion is useless.

Please say so right away. There's nothing as frustrating as explaining something when after a while, you find you've not been addressing the real issue. We've had that at our District Assembly this weekend. No fun.

[Crystal Lutton]

Crystal, honestly, if you don't see what needs to be fixed, no explanation of the proposal will help and the discussion is useless. I have already responded above you. Sorry that a misunderstanding on my part caused you any distress.

I do see a need for change. My point you responded to with the above is that the solution is always going to come with the potential for problems and the ultimate issue comes down to whether the solution creates more problems than it is worth. In fact, Hans, your very answers are many of the concerns that I have as I work this issue over in my head.

I see potential for that to be the case here--as I've already stated rather clearly. I also see that there is room for addressing some of the potential problems with altered wording and anticipation of them. Pointing out the potential problems is not a dismissal of the suggestion. Must the idea be either outright supported or rejected? I thought things were in a discussion stage--I didn't realize I was voting on anything.

[Billy Cox]

Now that I have been collecting responses to my "turnaround" post for several weeks, there seems to be some resistance to my idea that one person should have the authority to articulate the vision of the Church of the Nazarene.

The most frequent objection seems to be that it would put too much power in the hands of one person. Usually, after that statement is made, the question is asked, "What if we put the wrong person in that role?"

Help me understand. We can trust God to help us elect six leaders, but we can't trust him to help us elect just one?


Dave,

I perceive that people at all points on the theological spectrum dread the idea of an activist GS taking the denomination in a direction that they do not agree with. Just imagine how different the denomination would be if Paul Cunningham or Jesse Middendorf could speak with one voice for the denomination without having to do a bunch of behind-the-scenes horse trading to get five other equally opinionated people on board with a decision.

Having a committee of six GS's might ensure gridlock, but it also ensures that the Nazarene 'tent' remains large and with many points of entry. Even with the current system, the election of GS's seems to be an effort to elect individuals who will counterbalance the prior GA's choices for GS.

I think that the antidote to this way of thinking is to somehow get people to put mission/vision above ideology. I'm not sure how that comes to pass...and it would not be the first time that someone has tried to manufacture such a moment.

[Billy Cox]

BTW, the General Assembly can also overturn an action by a GS or the entire board.


Curious... Has this ever actually happened? I suspect not since the BGS cannot really do anything worthy of repealing.

[Hans Deventer]

Curious... Has this ever actually happened? I suspect not since the BGS cannot really do anything worthy of repealing.

I don't know, you'd have to ask Stan Ingersol. The other day Dave did write about a situation where the GA made a decision against the clear wish of the BoGS, but that is not yet the same, of course.

[Hans Deventer]

I see potential for that to be the case here--as I've already stated rather clearly. I also see that there is room for addressing some of the potential problems with altered wording and anticipation of them. Pointing out the potential problems is not a dismissal of the suggestion. Must the idea be either outright supported or rejected? I thought things were in a discussion stage--I didn't realize I was voting on anything.

Sure! Thanks for explaining, I feared we were not on common ground but we are. Great!

[Mike Schutz]

Wondered if anyone else would express this concern:

There are times when the Board of General Superintendents need to make decisions concerning theological issues. The most well-known of these may be the decision in the early 1980s regarding Dr. Rob Staples and his presentation on the relationship between Holy Spirit baptism and entire sanctification and whether or not it was in compliance with Article X. This was in response to a question from the Trustees at NTS concerning Dr. Staples' tenure. The Trustees asked the Generals for a ruling.

As many folks know, this was an important decision for our current conversations about Article X.

In this case, I do trust God to work through six persons more than one.

[Dave McClung]

Curious... Has this ever actually happened? I suspect not since the BGS cannot really do anything worthy of repealing.

In 1964, a commission recommended the creation of MidAmerica, Mt. Vernon and the Nazarene Bible College.

The Board of General Superintendents and the Boards of all of the Liberal Arts Colleges recommended against it.

Dr. Williamson, one of the Generals, came down on the floor of the General Assembly an made a plea to support the recommendation. The General Assembly voted with Dr. Williamson.

[Dave McClung]

Dave,

I perceive that people at all points on the theological spectrum dread the idea of an activist GS taking the denomination in a direction that they do not agree with. Just imagine how different the denomination would be if Paul Cunningham or Jesse Middendorf could speak with one voice for the denomination without having to do a bunch of behind-the-scenes horse trading to get five other equally opinionated people on board with a decision.

Having a committee of six GS's might ensure gridlock, but it also ensures that the Nazarene 'tent' remains large and with many points of entry. Even with the current system, the election of GS's seems to be an effort to elect individuals who will counterbalance the prior GA's choices for GS.

I think that the antidote to this way of thinking is to somehow get people to put mission/vision above ideology. I'm not sure how that comes to pass...and it would not be the first time that someone has tried to manufacture such a moment.

I am at Nazarene Bible College for the board meeting. Several District Superintendents are here. They all say that my post is being discussed on their districts. Many are coming up with their own recommendations. It will be interesting to see how many different versions come out.

[Paul Whitaker]

I have been thinking about this and am reminded of President Bush when looking for a VP asked Dick Cheney to help search for a VP. We all know that after all of the considerations - Cheney was chosen.

We have one who has been devoted to this task, devoted to the Church.

If the church is seeking one anointed person to be in the top position I think we have one who is capable, qualified, experienced and dedicated to the survival and rejuvenation of The Church of the Nazarene.

Dave McClung would fit this position admirably.

Just consider the positions he has held in the past when working with struggling institutions.

[Hans Deventer]

Wondered if anyone else would express this concern:

There are times when the Board of General Superintendents need to make decisions concerning theological issues. The most well-known of these may be the decision in the early 1980s regarding Dr. Rob Staples and his presentation on the relationship between Holy Spirit baptism and entire sanctification and whether or not it was in compliance with Article X. This was in response to a question from the Trustees at NTS concerning Dr. Staples' tenure. The Trustees asked the Generals for a ruling.

As many folks know, this was an important decision for our current conversations about Article X.

In this case, I do trust God to work through six persons more than one.

It seems we REALLY have to clarify the resolution. Let's imagine Mike, that you or I was the chair of the Board. Would you make that decision on your own? Or think I would? If so, we've chosen the wrong person and not made clear our intentions in the resolution.

[Charles W Christian]

Yes. And paralysis.



The others are the judge.

307.12. Any official act of a general superintendent may be nullified by a unanimous vote of the remaining members of the Board of General Superintendents.

That is a very old part of the Manual.

Hans --
More than one CAN bring paralysis, but it can also bring a sense of community and depth! Are you saying you'd be better off without your wife?? After all, if it were just you making all the decisions, it would not bring any paralysis of analysis -- you'd just make all your decisions and that would be that. But doesn't having to work in community help in other ways -- even if it can take longer sometimes?

Having responded this way (slightly - but only slightly - tongue in cheek), I would say in response to Dave's question (name an organization that has succeeded without one person casting the vision), that we have ALREADY had one person casting the vision: Jesus Christ. It is Jesus we follow. What flows from there, whether overseen by a few or many in some aspect of it, is really a matter of making sure that we have mechanisms in place to effectively carry out the vision of that One. The Church of the Nazarene is part of the whole Church -- the "Church catholic." So, does our present structure lend itself to carrying out Christ's (our Head's/our "CEO") vision, or not? In many ways, I think you are right in seeing that there are places where our structure can be tweaked (sometimes more than tweaked!) to ensure that we are doing our part in the Church universal to carry out Christ's vision. However, I do not think that means we should automatically have one vision-casting GS; rather, I think it means that regardless of how many overseers we entrust to our neck of the woods (i.e., the Church of the Nazarene) they should be able to best facilitate the carrying out of the mission of Christ.

In other words, I think too much is being made of "one vs. six." It is a bit redundant (IMO) since the One has already cast His vision. I think that you are RIGHT in seeing serious administrative shortfalls, and I am supportive of changes in that regard in general.

By the way, the Eastern Orthdox Church may be an example of a group (Patriarchs) who have overseen a "successful" organization throughout history (about 2000 years).

God bless,

Charles

[Roland Hearn]

Dave, I totally agree with your suggestion. It seems to work for most denominations and organizations. The suggestion that having a single leader would mean an individual acting alone with supreme power is a naive understanding of the concept. No leader acts alone if they wish to be effective as a leader. It would be certain that a person at this level understands the principles of leadership. And yes there could be a bad and ineffective leader but we seem to cope with that at district level when it happens. The suggestion of a single GS no way implies that they wouldn't be accountable to a board of elder leaders and the General board and the General Assembly. I think it is the only way to go if we are going to be effective.

Paul did feel accountable to the council of Jerusalem but James was considered the single individual leader of that council. As I understand the proposal it would not be dissimilar to that idea.

[Hans Deventer]

Hans --
More than one CAN bring paralysis, but it can also bring a sense of community and depth! Are you saying you'd be better off without your wife??

Thanks, Charles, for allowing me to point at the fundamental difference. Yes, I would be better off without my wife, far better in fact, if like the GS's, I would have gotten my wife by a vote from the General Assembly. Or would you prefer that method regarding your wife yourself?

Thankfully, we got to choose one another. That is the point exactly.

In other words, I think too much is being made of "one vs. six." It is a bit redundant (IMO) since the One has already cast His vision.

Yeah. And has a billion interpretations of that. Thanks again for pointing out why it doesn't work that way.

The CotN in the US is dying. If there comes a vision that asks for fundamental changes, that need not be the right one. However, not changing anything guarantees being the wrong decision. So there is always a risk. But the alternative if far worse.

[Steven Martinez]

Well, I am one who is not in favor of having one GS. It is not because of the Pope, I actually like the Pope... good theologian. My problem is that I trust God but not people. At least , I do not trust people who have shown a tendency to keeping the "old guard" rather than casting vision for the future. If we chose the leader by lots, I would feel much better about it.
At the same time, everytime I think about this proposal I get the feeling that this idea is nothing more than trying to imply Regan Conservativism to our governing structure. Small government with large excutive power. Lower taxes with a more laize fare aproach to budgets (you can't cut it then you get cut) with a raise in state/regional power. Of course the vision will then trickle down from the top down. All that is missing is a chicken in every pot. If I personally oppose this understanding on a political scale, why would I embrace it on a Church scale? I know that most buisness who desire liberal capitalism prefer this method of control but do I want the rich to get richer (USA) while the rest suffer from lack of support? I just don't buy it.

[Crystal Lutton]

Yes, I would be better off without my wife, far better in fact, if like the GS's, I would have gotten my wife by a vote from the General Assembly. Or would you prefer that method regarding your wife yourself?

Thankfully, we got to choose one another. That is the point exactly.I would daresay there are a lot of advocates for arranged marriages who would disagree with you. Many can well argue that choosing for yourself based on love and agreement is statistically more likely to result in divorce.

And the replacement disciples were "elected" by casting lots. That out of them emerged a leader can hardly be seen as support for one person in charge--especially when their very Hebraic existence would have "leader" mean more "representative" than "decision maker". He summed up and clarified the letter that was written in Acts but they all wrote it.

[Hans Deventer]

I would daresay there are a lot of advocates for arranged marriages who would disagree with you.

And they'd be wrong. For regarding my own marriage, I know better.

You know, it's long story but when we decided to "go steady", I wasn't in love. I had been, but wasn't anymore. I just knew and said we could talk really well and believed the rest would follow and love would return. And it did.

[Charles W Christian]

Hans -
About your "billion interpretations" of Jesus' vision quote above....

Are you then suggesting that we should just have ONE interpretation - that of the ONE person who is the GS? You don't see the value in having a consensus among overseers about the vision of Christ?

Back to the marriage analogy -- isn't there a verse about "two are better than one"....? This has to do with community and visioning together, and all those things that make individualists uncomfortable. Ahhh....that may be part of the problem here!

Charles

[Hans Deventer]

Hans -
About your "billion interpretations" of Jesus' vision quote above....

Are you then suggesting that we should just have ONE interpretation - that of the ONE person who is the GS?

Charles, if an organisation (again, the church is certainly more bit not less) is a group of people who work together to achieve a common goal, which I think it is, then that goal needs not be specified to the last tiny detail, but it does have to be clear enough for the group to be able to work together towards achieving it.

Like in our local church, we're very good at "each for himself and God for us all", not hindered by any form of coordination. Which practically gets us nowhere. Thankfully, we recently did adopt a mission statement and are now trying to work that out practically. That helps.

Also, and I think I have written that several times by now, it is not about being the vision of one GS. Remember that the board can still vote down any solitary action from a member, if the rest of the board agrees. So the chair will still have to work with the board to cast the vision. Only, one or two won't be able to stop it if the rest agrees.

You don't see the value in having a consensus among overseers about the vision of Christ?

I see wonderful value of that. If there is that consensus, that is. Otherwise, I only see paralysis and ineffectiveness.


Back to the marriage analogy -- isn't there a verse about "two are better than one"....? This has to do with community and visioning together, and all those things that make individualists uncomfortable. Ahhh....that may be part of the problem here!

Charles, you may want to stop reading in my posts what isn't there. It greatly enhances the value of your remarks.

[Billy Cox]

At the same time, everytime I think about this proposal I get the feeling that this idea is nothing more than trying to imply Regan Conservativism to our governing structure. Small government with large excutive power. Lower taxes with a more laize fare aproach to budgets (you can't cut it then you get cut) with a raise in state/regional power. Of course the vision will then trickle down from the top down. All that is missing is a chicken in every pot. If I personally oppose this understanding on a political scale, why would I embrace it on a Church scale? I know that most buisness who desire liberal capitalism prefer this method of control but do I want the rich to get richer (USA) while the rest suffer from lack of support? I just don't buy it.

Some questions come to mind. Should the General Church operate as a business or as a government? One could say 'neither', that the General Church should operate as a church, but what local church has authority over thousands of other church (including property ownership), collects money from them and redistributes the money to support churches in other parts of the world?

Although I personally see why having one GS would be a good thing, I think that the general and district levels of the Church of the Nazarene are more analagous to a government than to a business. If I recall correctly the Manual even uses government terminology.

You should understand that practically every government has *one* elected executive. There are plenty of executive leadership models that don't resemble the government of Adolf Hitler or Robert Mugabe.

[Steven Martinez]

Some questions come to mind. Should the General Church operate as a business or as a government? One could say 'neither', that the General Church should operate as a church, but what local church has authority over thousands of other church (including property ownership), collects money from them and redistributes the money to support churches in other parts of the world?

Although I personally see why having one GS would be a good thing, I think that the general and district levels of the Church of the Nazarene are more analagous to a government than to a business. If I recall correctly the Manual even uses government terminology.

You should understand that practically every government has *one* elected executive. There are plenty of executive leadership models that don't resemble the government of Adolf Hitler or Robert Mugabe.

The Scriptures relate the people of God as a government rather than a buisness. I have no problem with a government model for it is scripturally based. However in the NT, the governing body was the Council at Jerusalem made of the Apostles and others. I for one have never used the dictator as a reason to oppose the one GS. But, history has shown that even countries of "noble" intentions can make griveous actions against the people of their own country. Again, read what I write. While I do oppose the idea of one GS, I certianly oppose the governing structure of Regan Conservatism.

[Crystal Lutton]

And they'd be wrong. For regarding my own marriage, I know better.

You know, it's long story but when we decided to "go steady", I wasn't in love. I had been, but wasn't anymore. I just knew and said we could talk really well and believed the rest would follow and love would return. And it did.Yet, Hans, you present the union only from your perspective. That you chose your wife. Where was God in this? Was your wife not a participant? Had all three of you not been in agreement I do not believe you would be married today. Three in agreement, not one. Plural unity.

[Hans Deventer]

Yet, Hans, you present the union only from your perspective. That you chose your wife. Where was God in this? Was your wife not a participant? Had all three of you not been in agreement I do not believe you would be married today. Three in agreement, not one. Plural unity.

Had I not agreed, it would not have happened. As simple as that.

As to the story, it seems it needs to be retold for proper understanding.

I met Hannie at a Youth for Christ summer camp in June 1978. I went there with a good friend of mine and he hooked up with a girl there. Now Hannie was this girl's friend at the camp, because they both came from the same province. This way, my friend and I hang out with Hannie and her friend called Marjo (which is why our daughter is called Marjo, incidentally). After camp, love grew from my side. So we kept in contact (she lived 45 miles away from me) and through time, I really fell in love with her. So I told her. But she had been dating for some time with several guys and none worked out so she kind of had had it for some time. We agreed to remain friend though, we could talk well together. Fast forward to late 1979. She had trouble at her work and my sister worked at a hospital in Dordrecht and said they needed docter's assistants there. So Hannie applied but got a job as a nurse, which was OK. We managed to find her a place to stay in our city. By that time, we were friends, but I was no longer in love. I had come to accept that it would not work out, but figured that a good friendship had value too. Don't throw away the baby with the bathwater! Since she now lived in the same city where I lived and didn't know many people, I helped her settle and introduced her at the local YfC coffeebar. We had some more contact because of that. Then, in Jan 1980, she told me she'd fallen in love with me and asked if we could start dating. At that point, as I explained before, I was no longer in love. Had taken me more than a year to get over, but I had gotten over it. So I was surprised and didn't really know what to do but figured that the key thing to marriage is being able to communicate well. And of course she was a good friend so I thought that love would return and said yes.
Well, love did return. We got engaged in December that year and got married in August 1981.

Looking back, it is easy to see God's hand in this. But you rarely see it when it's happening so at that time, you do what you think is best.

The bottom line is (as it is in all of the world's history, with perhaps some exceptions) that no matter what God's intentions may have been, it is still people that need to agree to work it out. If I had turned away from her in 1978 when she said no, all of this would never have happened. I chose to keep the relationship going. And have never regretted it. And so far, I can honestly say I have never been tempted to look for anyone else and any other woman/lady I've known simply doesn't live up to Hannie, and some not even remotely (to say the least). So I am quite positive that an arranged marriage would NOT have worked out. I have no problem seeing more roles than my own in here, that's obvious. But an arranged marriage diminishes my own choice to zero, and considering the above, that is something I would never have done.

In fact, I don't think it is how God wants us to be. He's not the one who simply say: "Obey and get with the program, buddy!". He's always trying to get people to cooperate, and to make right choices from their own conviction. He's not walking all over me. If the Bible teaches us anything about God and our relationship with Him, it is that He takes us very seriously indeed. Even if we want to destroy ourselves. Love doesn't force.

So the whole arranged marriage thing has a very un-god-like ring to it.

[Crystal Lutton]

Hans, I'm not suggesting that you should have had an arranged marriage. I am saying that you alone did not create your marriage. Yes, without your consent it would not be. But without her consent it would not be. Without God's blessing it either would not be or would not be good. You cannot marry yourself--you cannot be married alone. Your marriage was born out of and exists in plural unity. All of ours do. None of us alone can take full credit for the existence of or state of our marriage.

that no matter what God's intentions may have been, it is still people that need to agree to work it out.This is exactly my point! It is not the right question to ask if we've been electing the wrong people. What I'm suggesting is that we've either had the wrong criteria and God has been working with us anyway, or the right people just haven't been taught how to work in plural unity to seek God's ultimate will for our denomination. Picking one of those imperfect people chosen by wrong criteria, or picking one of those imperfect people because the entire group won't agree to work it out, is not something I can see as the ideal or only solution. I see much greater value in reconsidering criteria and/or teaching them how to work together towards agreement in what the Lord is leading.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

One more vote here, against having one GS. I am totally against this. We need a body of people in this position.
It should be very "seasoned" ministers. Many younger people are like I first thought of our young son in laws-like little puppies, that grabs hold of something, and jerks and tears and growls at it, because it is new to him, and something that he has not yet experienced. This is not ignorance. It is lack of knowledge, for having not yet experienced enough to be a leader in a place that high. Also, our daughter's husbands, even though good Christians, were not seasoned enough, old enough or mature enough to be ready to become grandparents.
Remember, this is my opinion. Please, still love me and pass your opinion, without scolding me. Try to learn that I have a dry sense of humor.

And, in my opinion, we have what I call a great ZION, and it seems to have been discussed as something that has things very badly wrong with it.
With people that are Christians, we sometimes, speak of what we did, but, it is like a sentence that seems to have no noun-and in the English language, we know that "You" is the unstated noun. I would imagine, that was the way, it was with Hans.
As a Christian, God was the unspoken third person, in his choice to marry Hanny.

[Crystal Lutton]

With people that are Christians, we sometimes, speak of what we did, but, it is like a sentence that seems to have no noun-and in the English language, we know that "You" is the unstated noun. I would imagine, that was the way, it was with Hans.
As a Christian, God was the unspoken third person, in his choice to marry Hanny.Thank you, Anne. I actually did assume that--I would hardly assume someone walking in faith as I see evidence even on the board from Hans would "discount" God in such a serious decision. My attempt was to emphasize that this was a decision that had agreement from three in unity. Even one GS fully and humbly submitted to the Lord needs, I truly believe, others with whom he is having to seek unity. Love God does not exist as a commandment apart from love your neighbor. I believe that one GS *could* come up with a wonderful and Godly vision for the COTN. I believe that a group would come up with a *better* and more fully Godly vision.