Three Specific Steps to Renewal

[Dave McClung]

Three Specific Steps to Renewal

Now that my post about “turnaround” has been widely discussed, I feel that it is time to be more specific about the resolutions to be proposed at the General Assembly next year. I have boiled my thinking down to three specific steps. I invite your comments and suggestions.

Objective: To make changes to the Manual of the Church of the Nazarene which will allow the Board of General Superintendents to lead a renewal of the Church of the Nazarene.

Step One: Free the Board of General Superintendents from tasks that absorb their time and energy so that they can devote their attention to renewal.
1. Each district should be authorized to elect a chairperson to chair the district assembly. General Superintendents would no longer be required to attend every district assembly.


2. Ordination should be done by the chairperson of the district assembly if the chairperson is clergy. If the chairperson isn’t clergy, then by the chairman of the Ministerial Credentials Board. General Superintendents would no longer be required to attend every district assembly.

Step Two: Reorganize the Board of General Superintendents to facilitate renewal.

1. Define the role of the chairperson of the Board of General Superintendents to include Vision Casting for the entire denomination. Every department of Nazarene Headquarters and the other General Superintendents will be accountable to the chairperson for the purposes of implementation of the denominational vision.

2. Also provide that there will be continuity in the role of chairperson so that the chairman remains in that position until the Board of General Superintendents votes to change. There should not be automatic rotation.


3. Each General Superintendent who is not the chairman shall have responsibility for Vision Casting to specific geographic areas. The whole world will be divided up by the Board of General Superintendents so that those in every geographic area will be accountable to one G.S. for the purpose of implementation of the vision. There should be continuity in the assignments so that changes are made only when determined by the Board of General Superintendents.

4. Each General Superintendent will have full budgetary authority for Nazarene operations within the geographic area for which the G.S. has responsibility.

Step Three: To state clearly to the Board of General Superintendents that we expect them to be bold in leading our denomination toward renewal. We should adopt a resolution confirming our confidence in them and pledging our support in their steps to:

1. Clearly articulate Nazarene Doctrine in a way that pulls Nazarenes to a common understanding of the essentials and an expressed freedom on the nonessentials.

2. Call all Nazarenes to a life of Holiness.

3. Force us to reexamine everything we do to most effectively use the resources that God has entrusted to us to the accomplishment of the denominational vision.

[Hans Deventer]

Each district should be authorized to elect a chairperson to chair the district assembly. General Superintendents would no longer be required to attend every district assembly.

Ordination should be done by the chairperson of the district assembly if the chairperson is clergy. If the chairperson isn’t clergy, then by the chairman of the Ministerial Credentials Board. General Superintendents would no longer be required to attend every district assembly.

I agree. It is better than to keep the requirement and change DA's to bi-annual events. BTW, that chairman of the DMCB is the DS ex officio.

213. The district superintendent shall be ex-officio chairperson of the District Advisory Board (221.2) and the District Ministerial Credentials Board (227.1).

But the crucial thing is to set the generals free regarding their time. I've often wondered if we make the best use of their talents by having them chair district assemblies, and the answer can't be any other than "no", in my not so humble view.

Define the role of the chairperson of the Board of General Superintendents to include Vision Casting for the entire denomination. Every department of Nazarene Headquarters and the other General Superintendents will be accountable to the chairperson for the purposes of implementation of the denominational vision.

Dave, will the principle that the decision of one GS can be overturned by a vote of all the others be maintained? I think it is important for the checks and balances.

Also provide that there will be continuity in the role of chairperson so that the chairman remains in that position until the Board of General Superintendents votes to change. There should not be automatic rotation.

Agreed.

Each General Superintendent who is not the chairman shall have responsibility for Vision Casting to specific geographic areas. The whole world will be divided up by the Board of General Superintendents so that those in every geographic area will be accountable to one G.S. for the purpose of implementation of the vision. There should be continuity in the assignments so that changes are made only when determined by the Board of General Superintendents.

The problem is, it is the BoGS that has decided upon the current bi-annual rotation system. It used to remain fixed for the quadrennium, but somewhere in the early 90's that was changed. I actually wrote the BoGS about it, pleading for the quadrennial change. How do you want to accomplish a longer tenure?

Each General Superintendent will have full budgetary authority for Nazarene operations within the geographic area for which the G.S. has responsibility.

That's a change for sure. I support it.

Step Three: To state clearly to the Board of General Superintendents that we expect them to be bold in leading our denomination toward renewal. We should adopt a resolution confirming our confidence in them and pledging our support in their steps to:


Clearly articulate Nazarene Doctrine in a way that pulls Nazarenes to a common understanding of the essentials and an expressed freedom on the nonessentials.

Call all Nazarenes to a life of Holiness.

Force us to reexamine everything we do to most effectively use the resources that God has entrusted to us to the accomplishment of the denominational vision.


Yes! Considering all the discussions on NazNet and elsewhere, they'd also have to lead us in understanding and explaining Holiness though. We do need a unified vision in this area as well.

[Dave McClung]

Dave, will the principle that the decision of one GS can be overturned by a vote of all the others be maintained? I think it is important for the checks and balances.



Yes. If these changes were adopted the group would still have authority over the individuals.

The most important change in the suggestions is budgetary authority. At this time, the budgets are set by the General Board and the General Superintendents have no authority to reallocate them even if mission requirements make it advisable. Several of the Generals have mentioned to me that their effectiveness is really limited because they do not have the authority to respond to immediate needs with funding.

[Ryan Scott]

You may want to tighten the language on the budgetary statement though. It should stipulate budget control over monies from the WEF. I'd hate to see some fight over local or district monies collected.

[Dave McClung]

You may want to tighten the language on the budgetary statement though. It should stipulate budget control over monies from the WEF. I'd hate to see some fight over local or district monies collected.

Yours is a good point. I agree that the language would need to be clear enough that everyone would understand that a G.S. does not have authority to spend the funds of a local church.

Still, I would guess that the average Nazarene is unaware that the General Superintendents as individuals have no budget authority, except for the budget of their own office -- their travel expense.

Even as an entire board, the funds under thier control are very limited. When it comes to budget, the Division Heads have a lot more authority than do the General Superintendents.

Spending Authority is established by the General Board, not the Board of General Superintendents. A small portion of the budget is available for use by the Board of General Superintendents for unbudgeted items, but the needs always exceed the money available. If a General Superintendent has the authority to make budget decisions between General Board sessions (essentially that means move money from one line of the budget to another line of the budget) the church would be a lot more efficient. That is what I mean by budget authority.

[Kevin Rector]

Spending Authority is established by the General Board, not the Board of General Superintendents. A small portion of the budget is available for use by the Board of General Superintendents for unbudgeted items, but the needs always exceed the money available. If a General Superintendent has the authority to make budget decisions between General Board sessions (essentially that means move money from one line of the budget to another line of the budget) the church would be a lot more efficient. That is what I mean by budget authority.

Perhaps then all that needs happen is the General Board needs to loosen the purse strings a bit.

I like the idea of a board of approval having control over the budget. In my local church our church board has approval authority for spending money but I:

A) have authority to ask for changes which are almost always approved and b) given a certain amount of discretionary monies for spending.

I'm not sure I'd want it to be much different at the district or general level.

[Dave McClung]

Perhaps then all that needs happen is the General Board needs to loosen the purse strings a bit.

I like the idea of a board of approval having control over the budget. In my local church our church board has approval authority for spending money but I:

A) have authority to ask for changes which are almost always approved and b) given a certain amount of discretionary monies for spending.

I'm not sure I'd want it to be much different at the district or general level.

The difference is that your board meets once a month or more frequently if needed. The General Board meets once a year. Even a mail ballot requires 30 days.

The truth is that The General Board is so overworked during the short time they are in town that no one really knows what was done until the minutes are printed up. Each committee considers a different part of the plan for the year at the same time. The parts only come together in the plenary session. During the plenary session there is such time pressure that no one dares speak up and ask that two reports go back to committee to reconcile differences. To do so would cause everyone to miss their planes. In theory the General Board is great. In practice it isn't effective. Ask anyone who has ever served on the General Board.

I served for four years.

[Kevin Rector]

The difference is that your board meets once a month or more frequently if needed. The General Board meets once a year. Even a mail ballot requires 30 days.
The truth is that The General Board is so overworked during the short time they are in town that no one really knows what was done until the minutes are printed up. Each committee considers a different part of the plan for the year at the same time. The parts only come together in the plenary session. During the plenary session there is such time pressure that no one dares speak up and ask that two reports go back to committee to reconcile differences. To do so would cause everyone to miss their planes. In theory the General Board is great. In practice it isn't effective. Ask anyone who has ever served on the General Board.

I served for four years.


Thanks for the insider info. I (along with most other Nazarenes) know virtually nothing about the workings of the general board. It's not even very easy to find out who serves on the general board. I for one would like to see more transparency and openness on that level.

As for how the board works that is problematic and needs to be considered.

I'm all for the "CEO" or "CEOs" (in our case) having more fiscal control. That's what happens in the corporate world and quite frankly they need that ability as the day to day operators. I'm just not sure it needs to be done via GA so much as by the board granting them fiscal control. That seems to be the issue, a board that is holding the strings too tightly and already has the authority to fix this issue.

[Kevin Rector]

Dave, I could understand however a resolution directing the general board to give more control the BGS since they seem to not have thought of doing it on their own.

[Dave McClung]

Thanks for the insider info. I (along with most other Nazarenes) know virtually nothing about the workings of the general board. It's not even very easy to find out who serves on the general board. I for one would like to see more transparency and openness on that level.

As for how the board works that is problematic and needs to be considered.

I'm all for the "CEO" or "CEOs" (in our case) having more fiscal control. That's what happens in the corporate world and quite frankly they need that ability as the day to day operators. I'm just not sure it needs to be done via GA so much as by the board granting them fiscal control. That seems to be the issue, a board that is holding the strings too tightly and already has the authority to fix this issue.

Nope, wrong again. It is the General Assembly that determines the division of duties between the General Board and the Board of General Superintendents. The Manual provides that the Board of General Superintendents will have input before the Budget is Adopted by the General Board, but not afterward.

For those who don't understand the issue, let me give an illustration. Suppose the budget for the year provides that Nazarene Headquarters will buy a new comptuer system for $250,000 and doesn't provide that the Church of the Nazarene will enter a new country in Africa. During the year, circumstances change so that there is an immediate opportunity to enter the new country. The Board of General Superintendents does not have the authority to delay the purchase of the computer and use the money to enter the new country. They need to have that kind of flexibility.

[Kevin Rector]

Nope, wrong again. It is the General Assembly that determines the division of duties between the General Board and the Board of General Superintendents. The Manual provides that the Board of General Superintendents will have input before the Budget is Adopted by the General Board, but not afterward.

For those who don't understand the issue, let me give an illustration. Suppose the budget for the year provides that Nazarene Headquarters will buy a new comptuer system for $250,000 and doesn't provide that the Church of the Nazarene will enter a new country in Africa. During the year, circumstances change so that there is an immediate opportunity to enter the new country. The Board of General Superintendents does not have the authority to delay the purchase of the computer and use the money to enter the new country. They need to have that kind of flexibility.


Good to know. I always assumed the general board operated as a "board of directors" so to speak. I also assumed that meant the board held the purse strings (by the authority of the GA). So again I stand corrected.

[Eric Vail]

1. Clearly articulate Nazarene Doctrine in a way that pulls Nazarenes to a common understanding of the essentials and an expressed freedom on the nonessentials.


Back in the forum on the original proposal the discussion started with--and focused almost exclusively on--a single leader who would cast vision for the mision of the church and the infrastructure necessary to accomplish it. I mentioned that we were struggling as much within the CotN with a lack of theological direction as with missional-structural direction. Thus, we need leadership at the top with two different (yet interdependent) sets of skills in: 1) administration and 2) theology.

Again the focus of the discussion has been about a structural, financial leader. I was shocked (and frightened) to see this point thrown in when so many of the qualities we are talking about this person having are administrative skills.

We need to be very careful that we realize how different (even though interdependent) the skills of administration and theological reflection/articulation are. I argued in the other forum (and I still believe it) that if we are going to give one GS (or more) the authority to speak on our behalf about doctrine, then we must make an earned Ph.D. in a theological discipline a requirement. That type of intensive honing of the skills of theological reflection and articulation would be necessary to wade through the voices within our denomination, moderate debates, and point ways forward.

We should not assume that just because someone is ordained that she or he is ready to do any task within the church. E.g., I know many school teachers who think they can do a better job than their principle or superintentant. However, there is good reason those people don't get those jobs without at least a masters degree in school administration or curriculum, etc. So with clergy, ordination is not magic (nor is an M.Div.). We should expect those who are doing very critical tasks in the higher levels of our structure have the specific training available for that type of work.

Lastly, there has been discussion on this thread and the 1 vs 6 thread about fears related to one leader. It seems that a big concern is that a lone GS would be a dictator. Or, that this lone CEO figure would lead according to a 1950's or 60's model of management. I know those models of management have been (are) present within the way headquarters has operated long after they were replaced within the marketplace. However, we do not need to assume that a lone CEO would make decisions without incorporating people within the broader church into the discussion. We've seen a good model for what I am talking about with Tom Oord using naznet as a place to discuss his proposal for article X. By talking about it with others, he's making his final proposal stronger and more palatable (instead of dictating). By the time people would be at the point in their careers where they would be getting elected, people would have a good sense of what type of leader they are.

[Dave McClung]

Back in the forum on the original proposal the discussion started with--and focused almost exclusively on--a single leader who would cast vision for the mision of the church and the infrastructure necessary to accomplish it. I mentioned that we were struggling as much within the CotN with a lack of theological direction as with missional-structural direction. Thus, we need leadership at the top with two different (yet interdependent) sets of skills in: 1) administration and 2) theology.

Again the focus of the discussion has been about a structural, financial leader. I was shocked (and frightened) to see this point thrown in when so many of the qualities we are talking about this person having are administrative skills.

We need to be very careful that we realize how different (even though interdependent) the skills of administration and theological reflection/articulation are. I argued in the other forum (and I still believe it) that if we are going to give one GS (or more) the authority to speak on our behalf about doctrine, then we must make an earned Ph.D. in a theological discipline a requirement. That type of intensive honing of the skills of theological reflection and articulation would be necessary to wade through the voices within our denomination, moderate debates, and point ways forward.

We should not assume that just because someone is ordained that she or he is ready to do any task within the church. E.g., I know many school teachers who think they can do a better job than their principle or superintentant. However, there is good reason those people don't get those jobs without at least a masters degree in school administration or curriculum, etc. So with clergy, ordination is not magic (nor is an M.Div.). We should expect those who are doing very critical tasks in the higher levels of our structure have the specific training available for that type of work.

Lastly, there has been discussion on this thread and the 1 vs 6 thread about fears related to one leader. It seems that a big concern is that a lone GS would be a dictator. Or, that this lone CEO figure would lead according to a 1950's or 60's model of management. I know those models of management have been (are) present within the way headquarters has operated long after they were replaced within the marketplace. However, we do not need to assume that a lone CEO would make decisions without incorporating people within the broader church into the discussion. We've seen a good model for what I am talking about with Tom Oord using naznet as a place to discuss his proposal for article X. By talking about it with others, he's making his final proposal stronger and more palatable (instead of dictating). By the time people would be at the point in their careers where they would be getting elected, people would have a good sense of what type of leader they are.

I agree with you on everything you said except the requirement for a PhD. I have not observed a close correlation between that particular degree and the skills required. I certainly agree that the leader of our denomination should be skilled in theology, but I don't honor the PhD the same way that you do.

[Eric Vail]

I agree with you on everything you said except the requirement for a PhD. I have not observed a close correlation between that particular degree and the skills required. I certainly agree that the leader of our denomination should be skilled in theology, but I don't honor the PhD the same way that you do.


I realize that what I've suggested will never happen. I also realize that a Ph.D. is no more magic than getting a diploma for any other degree. People in every field have varying levels of competency. Also, there are those coming out of every type of degree program who have drifted through their program puting in the minimum effort, not really having developed the skills and knowledge base that are expected of someone with their credential.

What I am baffled by within our church is our distorted theology of the church and our distorted theology of ordained ministry. I can't think of any other organization where you would spread so many people with formal training and practical experience in one specific area into so many places within the structure. I don't see businesses that ask their accounting departments to design their next marketing campain, or ask their sales people to run the HR department.

Unless the curriculum has changed significantly at NTS in the last three years, they are training women and men to be pastors of local churches. The courses required in the M.Div. program on bible, theology, history, counseling, misions, preaching, spiritual formation, etc. are designed to give people a broad set of tools for them to use in leading a local congregation. (By the way, only 3 credits out of the 90 are specifically about leadership and administration of a local church.) D.Min. degrees are an extension of that training which usually focus on a specific aspect of ministry in the local church (e.g., preaching). Ph.D. programs are of an entirely different nature. The purpose is to learn methodologies for formulating research questions, for examining the issues of a given topic, discerning between what types of conclussions are defensible given the data, formulating those arguments, etc.

I think we could get distracted by the details (what skills various degree programs are trying to develop in people). What is more fundamental in this discussion is that we operate as the body, an organism. There are many people in our midst who have specific skills and training for specific tasks. We have business people, lawyers, disaster response people, social workers, counselors, pastors, theologians, teachers, etc. We need to be calling and using the right people for the appropriate function within the body. In many positions within our church, we aren't using the people who should be used. Much of this is due to our inflated sense of what ordination is about. Thus, my real call is to a deeper cultural change in how we view ordained and lay ministry within the body--how we start using those with the specific training in certain areas to accomplish tasks in those areas.

[Hans Deventer]

We need to be calling and using the right people for the appropriate function within the body.

You're actually trying to follow the Scriptures? Wow!

In many positions within our church, we aren't using the people who should be used. Much of this is due to our inflated sense of what ordination is about. Thus, my real call is to a deeper cultural change in how we view ordained and lay ministry within the body--how we start using those with the specific training for tasks in those tasks.

Amen. But that goes far beyond what Dave is trying to accomplish.

I think he's trying to set the stage for a change, rather than indicating where the change needs to be as you are doing.

[Dave McClung]

I realize that what I've suggested will never happen. I also realize that a Ph.D. is no more magic than getting a diploma for any other degree. People in every field have varying levels of competency. Also, there are those coming out of every type of degree program who have drifted through their program puting in the minimum effort, not really having developed the skills and knowledge base that are expected of someone with their credential.

What I am baffled by within our church is our distorted theology of the church and our distorted theology of ordained ministry. I can't think of any other organization where you would spread so many people with formal training and practical experience in one specific area into so many places within the structure. I don't see businesses that ask their accounting departments to design their next marketing campain, or ask their sales people to run the HR department.

Unless the curriculum has changed significantly at NTS in the last three years, they are training women and men to be pastors of local churches. The courses required in the M.Div. program on bible, theology, history, counseling, misions, preaching, spiritual formation, etc. are designed to give people a broad set of tools for them to use in leading a local congregation. (By the way, only 3 credits out of the 90 are specifically about leadership and administration of a local church.) D.Min. degrees are an extension of that training which usually focus on a specific aspect of ministry in the local church (e.g., preaching). Ph.D. programs are of an entirely different nature. The purpose is to learn methodologies for formulating research questions, for examining the issues of a given topic, discerning between what types of conclussions are defensible given the data, formulating those arguments, etc.

I think we could get distracted by the details (what skills various degree programs are trying to develop in people). What is more fundamental in this discussion is that we operate as the body, an organism. There are many people in our midst who have specific skills and training for specific tasks. We have business people, lawyers, disaster response people, social workers, counselors, pastors, theologians, teachers, etc. We need to be calling and using the right people for the appropriate function within the body. In many positions within our church, we aren't using the people who should be used. Much of this is due to our inflated sense of what ordination is about. Thus, my real call is to a deeper cultural change in how we view ordained and lay ministry within the body--how we start using those with the specific training for tasks in those tasks.

Eric
I fully support the idea that our church leaders should be educated appropriately.

My difference comes when we look at the issue from the other direction. If we were to limit our options to only those people who have a PhD and are clergy, the field gets very, very small.

Having been President of one of our schools that has a good many PhD's on the faculty, I would observe that the discipline that is necessary to obtain the PhD often requires that a person's knowledge becomes very deep in a fairly narrow area. I would further observe that the thought process taught in PhD programs tends to relate more to research than to making executive decisions. I have known only a few individuals who had a PhD and were also effective executives. That isn't putting anyone down. It is just accepting that different skills are involved in high level research and in day to day managment of organizations.

One other point is that an effective organizational leader doesn't have to be an expert in the area being organized. I have managed a number of companies where I was not personally qualified to do the work. For example, at one point I was president of a company that did process engineering. I am not an engineer. Why was I the president? Because nothing in the educational track of a process engineer prepares her or him to be an executive. I suggest the same is true of those who are PhD and clergy. Nothing in that educational track prepares one to be a successful executive.

[Ryan Scott]

It sounds like we're up to two people now. Someone to administer the organization and someone to set the theological vision?

Don't we have an administrator now in the General Secretary? Couldn't we change that position to give it the authority necessary for a visionary leader?

Theology may be a different area, as it is not necessarily a single-vision model, but a greater conversation among the membership.

[Crystal Lutton]

Suppose the budget for the year provides that Nazarene Headquarters will buy a new comptuer system for $250,000 and doesn't provide that the Church of the Nazarene will enter a new country in Africa. During the year, circumstances change so that there is an immediate opportunity to enter the new country. The Board of General Superintendents does not have the authority to delay the purchase of the computer and use the money to enter the new country. They need to have that kind of flexibility.
I know that legalities come into play when someone designates funds for a specific use, but I can't imagine a justification for gridlock to this level when it's simply internally designated funds. Unless the legalities are related to our non-profit status and our annual budget that is reported. Perhaps you can clarify that?

[Eric Vail]

I have known only a few individuals who had a PhD and were also effective executives. That isn't putting anyone down. It is just accepting that different skills are involved in high level research and in day to day managment of organizations.

One other point is that an effective organizational leader doesn't have to be an expert in the area being organized. I have managed a number of companies where I was not personally qualified to do the work. For example, at one point I was president of a company that did process engineering. I am not an engineer. Why was I the president? Because nothing in the educational track of a process engineer prepares her or him to be an executive. I suggest the same is true of those who are PhD and clergy. Nothing in that educational track prepares one to be a successful executive.



I can concede everything you've said here. I reacted because the discussion has been about having an executive at the top; but then the first sub-point under your third step to renewal was about doctrine (clarifying it and deciding what's essential). I'm all in favor of having someone who we can look to in order to guide us and who has the authority to get resources where they need to be. Let's keep having that discussion and streamlining proposals, remembering that theologians perhaps aren't always the best executives nor are executives always the best theologians.

Let us honor the fact that there are men and women in the church of the Nazarene whose calling and life's work is to help our laypeople and preparing-clergy wrestle with scripture, the church's tradition, and theology. Let's not forget that these people who do this work in classrooms around the world should be called to the table to help us corporately wrestle with these same issues.

You are right that many of these people are specialists. It would take a lot of them pooling their knowledge to have a complete picture. (I'd also like to think that each of them has a tool kit of skills to be able to research that in which they are not yet an expert.) It is also clear how linguistically-culturally situated each person's perspectives are on these matters. I suppose I would need to trust that any leader who had the authority to articulate our articles for us, etc. would first commission multi-national groups of our denomination's "teachers" to weigh in on those matters.

[Eric Vail]

Let's keep having that discussion and streamlining proposals, remembering that theologians perhaps aren't always the best executives nor are executives always the best theologians.


Dave, I keep thinking about this discussion between us. It seems that each of us wants the GS to be the champion of what we hold most dear, or the realm in the body in which we function (I mean "us" to include "all in the church"). We either want the person to be good at that which we want them to be good at or we don't want to give the person oversight for that which most concerns us.

You've said (and Hans has repeated) that God does use the people elected above our expectations for them or in other ways than we predicted. I have wanted to put in place certain controls and safeguards to ensure things get done "right." However, I still have the statemtent from the response from Africa in my head: 'it is amazing what we've accomplished in America without God.' Somewhere there has to be a uniting between preparation and genuine annointing. Regardless of whether we have 1 or 6, we have to trust that it is God who will lead. Without that, it does not matter how many or who we have as GS.

[William Hunter]

I think the confusion and ineffectiveness you bring up here shows us all that there needs to be some real change of substance in our structure. We have too many layers of structure, and it seems leadership is spread so far out, as with financial issues, that little of positive change really happens. Most of the time it seems we just play word games and put out, a great cost, "propaganda," but nothing really changes that makes our denomination more effective, efficient, and more cost effective. I think we waste too much money that is taken out of the local church. We need to leave as much in the local church as possible so that the front line of the church can do all it can to reach lost people.

I've mentioned this before, but not one time in all these 32 plus years of ministry has my local church gotten a report from a Dist. NMI Pres. or CC chairperson concerning the denominational mtgs. they attended reperesenting our district. Now, local churches on the dist. paid their way. Why do we not get some return of ideas and insights that might help us on the local level, rather than just the local churches of these two people? All that money spent and the local church on the district gets no return on it.

We put our people up in the very finest hotels instead of good hotels, give them expensive gifts, when much of that money could have been spent on missions, or left in the local church. It reminds me of the movie, "Dave" where we find the govt. spending millions to help those who purchased a new car to feel good about their purchase. Some of what we do fits this type of misuse of finding.

I love my denomination and its mission and doctrine, but I see we are in despeate need of significant structural change if we are to fulfill the Great Commission and to strengthen the local church and get it back into the business of drawing people to Christ and discipling them.




The difference is that your board meets once a month or more frequently if needed. The General Board meets once a year. Even a mail ballot requires 30 days.

The truth is that The General Board is so overworked during the short time they are in town that no one really knows what was done until the minutes are printed up. Each committee considers a different part of the plan for the year at the same time. The parts only come together in the plenary session. During the plenary session there is such time pressure that no one dares speak up and ask that two reports go back to committee to reconcile differences. To do so would cause everyone to miss their planes. In theory the General Board is great. In practice it isn't effective. Ask anyone who has ever served on the General Board.

I served for four years.

[Steven Martinez]

Step One: Free the Board of General Superintendents from tasks that absorb their time and energy so that they can devote their attention to renewalEach district should be authorized to elect a chairperson to chair the district assembly. General Superintendents would no longer be required to attend every district assembly. Ordination should be done by the chairperson of the district assembly if the chairperson is clergy. If the chairperson isn’t clergy, then by the chairman of the Ministerial Credentials Board. General Superintendents would no longer be required to attend every district assembly

Please do not be offended by this Dave. But as someone who is ordained, it is very significant to have a GS presiding over the ceremony. One of the big reasons why I desire a non US GS is so that they might travel to areas such as Cuba to lay hands on their elders and deacons. For many who are ordained, this is not just a show or a meaningless gesture. It is very significant to their ministry. I will never forget Dr, Diehl laying hands on my head and the words he spoke.

[Crystal Lutton]

I've been praying about this topic and wanted to come back to it. I want to add to something that Eric is touching on in his words on page 2. There seems to be a conflict being presented between the ideas of "group government" and "sole leader" with group government representing deadlock and conflict and sole leader representing the only way something can actually get accomplished. Yet I can't help but sit back and see the comparison between Greek democracy and Roman rule. When I speak of group leadership I'm speaking of a minyan, not a democracy. I'm suggesting that those who are meeting need to be so fully submitted to the Lord's leading that their own agenda is irrelevant.
However, I still have the statemtent from the response from Africa in my head: 'it is amazing what we've accomplished in America without God.' Somewhere there has to be a uniting between preparation and genuine annointing. Regardless of whether we have 1 or 6, we have to trust that it is God who will lead. Without that, it does not matter how many or who we have as GS.This is exactly it!

When 1 is the sole responsible party they claim to be lead by the Lord and they may be or not. When 6 are devoted to hearing from the Lord and seeking inaction until unity the Lord is given the opportunity to move in amazing ways. This is a more eastern way of viewing leadership. I would suggest until we embrace it we will not be able to be "global" in effectiveness as our very leadership methods will not understand half of the world (with most of the people).

[Hans Deventer]

When 1 is the sole responsible party they claim to be lead by the Lord and they may be or not. When 6 are devoted to hearing from the Lord and seeking inaction until unity the Lord is given the opportunity to move in amazing ways. .

Well, if it is "'amazing what we've accomplished in America without God" then apparently, we've not been able to have these 6 operate in the way as you described above. Did we elect the wrong persons? Were they not tuned in to the Holy Spirit enough, because their agenda's had not become irrelevant? So it seems. And if so, how can we elect the right ones? Or have them behave like you indicate?

[Crystal Lutton]

Hans--I think that is the absolutely correct question to be asking!!! THAT is where I believe we need to start. I wouldn't say that we've been electing the wrong people, etc., but I have found in my experience that people have to be taught how to think in a different way or they will be consistent in thinking the way they've always been taught. Western thinking infuses our existence. The idea of thinking in a different way is, well, something most people don't think about. I would like to see a qualifier for GS that they be humble enough to learn a new idea like inaction until unity, that they be open to understanding how to work to full agreement on an issue. It's an idea that has been working in the business world for some time. It's the difference between compromise and conflict resolution. In compromise everyone wins but everyone also loses. In conflict resolution the goal is for everyone to totally win.

Can we have outside experts come in and take time to teach our GS candidates these skills? Can we have people who work in the field of conflict resolution help a board navigate the waters of seeking resolution and total unity? If we are going to acknowledge that each GS has specific giftings that prepare them for their serving on the board--and for which God has them there--why ask more of them than God has prepared them to give? Why not bring in an advisor to help network all of their giftings and skills?

If the goal was agreed to by all of the GS's that the best interest of the denomination was their purpose and casting a vision was their responsibility--one that was the Lord's vision for the entire denomination--I believe it could be accomplished (with training/advisement in the areas they aren't already trained). Though I have also been wondering if the church business might be enough for the GS board and if we might be better served by a special committee of representatives from each area working with an adviser for the purpose of casting a denominational vision. Perhaps if they don't have to work together for anything other than that purpose they would be able to resolve things with more focus and without it bleeding into other areas.

[Eric Vail]

Please do not be offended by this Dave. But as someone who is ordained, it is very significant to have a GS presiding over the ceremony. One of the big reasons why I desire a non US GS is so that they might travel to areas such as Cuba to lay hands on their elders and deacons. For many who are ordained, this is not just a show or a meaningless gesture. It is very significant to their ministry. I will never forget Dr, Diehl laying hands on my head and the words he spoke.

When we were a young, small denomination it was completely practical for the GS's to ordain all the clergy. As we grow, that will become increasingly problematic. In all of the oldest church traditions I can think of off hand, it is the bishops who do the ordaining (those at the level of our DS's). We are quite out of the ordinary as a tradition in only entrusting our highest leaders with that role.

[Steven Martinez]

When we were a young, small denomination it was completely practical for the GS's to ordain all the clergy. As we grow, that will become increasingly problematic. In all of the oldest church traditions I can think of off hand, it is the bishops who do the ordaining (those at the level of our DS's). We are quite out of the ordinary as a tradition in only entrusting our highest leaders with that role.

Trust me, I understand the arguement. However, it has been our tradition for 100 years. Is it ok to keep our traditions? The "everyone else does it this way" arguement is not always the best onne. Many of older denominations are also having some of the greatest difficulties in regards to ordination. For example the Orthodox and the Catholics fail to ordain women, the Anglicans are debating the idea of allowing practicing homosexuals. In my opinion, one of the most positive avenues in the Church of the Nazarene is our practice of ordination. I would argue that is one of the few sacred rituals that the entire denomination values.

[Ryan Scott]

Personally, I'd rather be ordained by someone who knows who I am and knows me for more than five minutes before hand. The power of ordination is the fact that the people of God are commissioning one to be a leader of God's people. I think that becomes just as profound if a DS has their hands on your head, the same person who walked with you through the process and actually understand what you've been through to get to that point.

[Steven Martinez]

Personally, I'd rather be ordained by someone who knows who I am and knows me for more than five minutes before hand. The power of ordination is the fact that the people of God are commissioning one to be a leader of God's people. I think that becomes just as profound if a DS has their hands on your head, the same person who walked with you through the process and actually understand what you've been through to get to that point.

You must remember that those people are with you as well. You get to chose a person to pray for you. I chose my first pastor who lead me in my journey. The creditial board secratary was my pastor in college and many of my profs from PLNU were there as well. I would have said that I thought the same but when the moment arrived it was sureal.
Everyone is different. However, until one has participated in the ritual it is difficult to speak on the subject. It is like describing your wedding to a person who is not married.

[Ryan Scott]

I'm not doubting the experience, I'm just saying it wouldn't be different if a different set of hands were on your head. It's a community giving ordination, not the individual.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

In my opinion, the Gen. Supts. are basically doing what they are supposed to do. Also, I feel they should continue to do the ordinations of elders.
It is wonderful to be in an ordination serivce. It brings something like cold chill bumps, as you see these people, that are trying to the best of their ability, to turn their life over to following the maste, so completly and being a servant in the COTN.

There are some of the "old landmarks" that I wish would not be torn down. These things don't mean as much to the younger generation, as it does to older people, who have seen the Hand of God in so many things in our zion over the years.

I feel that God has a hand in the election of our Generals, also.
Each time we elect them, we could all possibly, think of someone, that we would have rather seen elected. But we have to leave that in the hands of God, pray and trust Him, for the fruits that are borne from His servants.

[Steven Martinez]

I'm not doubting the experience, I'm just saying it wouldn't be different if a different set of hands were on your head.
Again, this is your opinion.

It's a community giving ordination, not the individual.

This is very true. However, individuals carry certain stigmas, emotions, and importance in the community. As a 1st generation Nazarene, it was significant to have a GS involved. I have never been to a GA and although I worked at HQ it was kinda of cool to bump into GSs from time to time. To be perfectly honest, if it were not for GSs being at District Assemblies, the majority of the Church would never see a GS. When the Pope visits a city people flood the streets. Why? Because they see him as a significant member of their body. Are Nazarenes any different?

[Hans Deventer]

To be perfectly honest, if it were not for GSs being at District Assemblies, the majority of the Church would never see a GS. When the Pope visits a city people flood the streets. Why? Because they see him as a significant member of their body. Are Nazarenes any different?

I haven't noticed difference in attendance at District Assemblies at all if the GS was present or not. If the GS isn't here, we have our field director, Rev. Philip McAlister, chair the meetings. He's a good preacher and wise in knowing where to lead and where to let us do our thing. We like him.

Frankly, I think the majority of the Dutch Nazarenes don't care one bit if they get to see a GS or not. We can barely interest them in district affairs, just forget about regional stuff, let alone general stuff. The only real problem is that if you can't yet be ordained in year X, you'll have to wait 2 years for the next opportunity. It's the backdrop of being a non-US district. On the other hand, there are advantages as well so we're not complaining :basic05

In short, the answer for my district is "yes".

[Dave McClung]

I haven't noticed difference in attendance at District Assemblies at all if the GS was present or not. If the GS isn't here, we have our field director, Rev. Philip McAlister, chair the meetings. He's a good preacher and wise in knowing where to lead and where to let us do our thing. We like him.

Frankly, I think the majority of the Dutch Nazarenes don't care one bit if they get to see a GS or not. We can barely interest them in district affairs, just forget about regional stuff, let alone general stuff. The only real problem is that if you can't yet be ordained in year X, you'll have to wait 2 years for the next opportunity. It's the backdrop of being a non-US district. On the other hand, there are advantages as well so we're not complaining :basic05

In short, the answer for my district is "yes".

When I am in London, I really enjoy going to Buckingham Palace and observe the guards with the tall hats as they march back and forth. It makes a good show, but in truth, they aren't guarding anything. They are there for the show.

It is the same for General Superintendents at the time of ordination. If one looks back in our history, the G.S. was really a gate keeper to the ministry. They spent a lot of time getting to know the candidates and exercised their own judgment about whether or not a person was worthy of being ordained.

It has now reached the point that a few years ago, one of them actually ordained the wrong person!!! It was the wife who was supposed to be ordained and he ordained the husband. That couldn't happen if the ordination was anything more than a ceremony.

Sure there is entertainment value in the guards at Buckingham Palace, but one would be mistaken if they thought the guards were actually protecting the Royal Family.

I agree that there is emotional value in a GS ordaining an ordinand, I am merely questioning if at this time in our history, we can afford a ceremony without substance.

[Dennis M. Scott]

You must remember that those people are with you as well. You get to chose a person to pray for you. I chose my first pastor who lead me in my journey. The creditial board secratary was my pastor in college and many of my profs from PLNU were there as well. I would have said that I thought the same but when the moment arrived it was sureal.
Everyone is different. However, until one has participated in the ritual it is difficult to speak on the subject. It is like describing your wedding to a person who is not married.

It's been nearly thirty years since I was ordained. I am grateful for the ways in which the Lord has worked through all our General Superintendents, including the one who ordained me. I am, however, of the other persuasion, and would have preferred to have been ordained by those who knew me a little better: specifically my DS and the pastors/elders with whom I served then, and do even still. For me, the issue is more about getting the job done than obtaining the Church's recognition for it. Few are the times the General is able to know what's been going on, anyway.

As for the apostolic connection, it really doesn't argue long. It's no stronger or weaker due to assembly election.

[Ryan Scott]

Again, this is your opinion.


I agree, it is my opinion, but I'm troubled by what the other opinion may say about our understanding of ordination. I'm not trying to insult your opinion, but I may need further explanation to fully understand it.

It seems to me that if we've elevated the position of GS to such a place where they alone can represent the Church, we've elevated our denomination too highly. We need to understand that it is the Church ordaining us, not the Church of the Nazarene. The denomination is merely the man-man conduit through which the people of God recognize and affirm their leaders.

I just don't believe it means something different to be ordained a Nazarene that it does to be ordained Catholic or in an independent congregation. Obviously there are different beliefs and requirements in different places, but the act itself is the same: the people of God choosing for themselves leaders who they publicly affirm and pledge support.

Again, I may need further explanation to understand your opinion that a GS is somehow more appropriate as the officiant at ordination than someone else. Whoever it is does not act for themselves, or even the denomination, at least in my understanding of ordination. So long as the body (in some cases, just a congregation, in our case a district assembly) affirms the leader, it shouldn't matter whose hands complete the ritual or who leads the prayer.

[Hans Deventer]

Again, I may need further explanation to understand your opinion that a GS is somehow more appropriate as the officiant at ordination than someone else. Whoever it is does not act for themselves, or even the denomination, at least in my understanding of ordination. So long as the body (in some cases, just a congregation, in our case a district assembly) affirms the leader, it shouldn't matter whose hands complete the ritual or who leads the prayer.

Agreed. You always hear the sentence "by the power vested in me ....." which means that the GS is merely representing the church at this point. And indeed people are "ordained minister in the church of Christ" if I recall correctly, not in the Church of the Nazarene.

[Steven Martinez]

I agree that there is emotional value in a GS ordaining an ordinand, I am merely questioning if at this time in our history, we can afford a ceremony without substance

Dave,
This is where it becomes difficult to discus. I am going to assume that you did not mean that the rite of ordination is worthless but when you say it like this and you yourself have not participated in the rite itself it makes you look ignorant.
When I worked in Archives, it was not uncomon for people to trace their ordintion roots. Many were trying to find connections to Bresse and Reynolds and even to Wesley themselves.
I admit that traditions can become simply a show. However, for people such as myself, I trying to find my tradition. I am new to the CoN. Many on this thread have been Nazarenes longer than I have been alive. Maybe some of the rituals or pracices seem outdated or without substance to some but they are not to others. For example, you looked at the Royal Guards and say it is all for show. What about the Royal Guard who has to work for years to be able to get to that point. Is it merely a show for them? Is it perhaps the greatest honor and accomplishment for those soliders?

[Kevin Rector]

Personally, I'd rather be ordained by someone who knows who I am and knows me for more than five minutes before hand. The power of ordination is the fact that the people of God are commissioning one to be a leader of God's people. I think that becomes just as profound if a DS has their hands on your head, the same person who walked with you through the process and actually understand what you've been through to get to that point.

I agree with this point. I'll probably be ordained this summer and I honestly would rather be ordained by my DS than our presiding GS. Our GS is a fine person, but we've never met and have no history.

However, my DS and I have a relationship. We go fishing and golfing together. I've slept at his house. He's dined at my table. It would be incredibly moving to be ordained by him.

Please understand, I'm sure that it will be moving to be ordained by the GS too (ultimately it's the action not the person doing it that has significance), but I completely understand the argument in favor of the DS performing the ordination.

[Hans Deventer]

This is where it becomes difficult to discus.

Steven, I really think it is difficult to discuss anyway because theology and personal experience get mixed up.
You have your experience which is great! I'm greateful that it was such a meaningful event for you. Nothing wrong here are at all, on the contrary. But it seems some others look at it differently. Being a matter of preference and feeling, certainly at the emotional level, that isn't strange, in fact, these differences are to be expected.

But then we start to talk at a theoretical level. And experiences start to influence that. And THAT is where it becomes difficult to discuss imho.

[Steven Martinez]

Steven, I really think it is difficult to discuss anyway because theology and personal experience get mixed up.
You have your experience which is great! I'm greateful that it was such a meaningful event for you. Nothing wrong here are at all, on the contrary. But it seems some others look at it differently. Being a matter of preference and feeling, certainly at the emotional level, that isn't strange, in fact, these differences are to be expected.

But then we start to talk at a theoretical level. And experiences start to influence that. And THAT is where it becomes difficult to discuss imho.

Hans, thank you for your understanding and dialogue in this subject. My statement that you were quoting had to do with Dave's comparison to the Changing of the Guard to Ordination. If I didn't feel that I "knew" Dave then I would have found the comment to be quite offensive. IMO it was a bad metaphor/comparisson that he used.

In regards to Ryan and your question: The reason why I support the GS being present in the ordination stems from the idea that the GS represents the entiriy of our Denomination as well as the our representation to the Church Universal. The ArchBishop of Canturbery, the Pope in Rome, the various Orthodox Patriarchs, Bishops in the Methodist traditions as well as the General in the Salvation Army all of these people represent to the Church and the world their denomination. Our General Superintendents do the same. Since we elect them on a general level (yes I know this is not a perfect system especially with the US bloc) they are our recognized general leadership. To me, when they are present at an ordination, they bring with them the entire General Assembly, in other words the entire Church of the Nazarene, the entire Church Universal. I tend to be a high church person rather than a congregationalist. It is my belief that the CoN can at times be too congregationalist with an individual "me first" mind set. It has been our tradition for 100 years for the GSs to be presiding over the ordination service, it is part of our identity. Personally, I can understand Ryan and Kevin's remarks because if I could choose who presided over my ordination I probably would have chosen someone else. However, there are times where I feel that we have to hold to the understanding that it is not about individual tastes as much as a universal flavor. I do not see ordination as a meaningless tradition but one of the few traditions where the majority of our church can still agree upon the value and importance of the action. Maybe I am wrong. If you guys do not agree with the value of the GS then I can respect that. Everyone should have their opinion and their own experience on the matter. However, I just want everyone to see where many (not all) who are in favor of not having a GS present or those who could not see why it was important were not ordained. I would like to know how Kevin's experience goes this summer!

In regards to theory and experience, I do not see how one can specualte theoretical and devoid themselves of their experience. Especially in this example. We are discussing two different theories but we must be honest that we also have two distinct experiences as well. In scientific method we propose hypothesises but these hypothesises are not void of experience. They begin with assumptions from our experiences. For example, it would be impossible to speculate a theory that if a threw a ball it would disappear. I have no experience of these two events being related. I agree that it is difficult to discuss when emotion and rationality mix but not reason and experience.
Hans, as an American I am deeply sorry that we have not valued our international brothers and sisters. If a GS failed to show up for an ordination service in the US there would be heck to pay. I understand where the value of a GS might seem lower to the Dutch Nazarenes since essentially they come to your country once every other year and expect you to act like an American District. Please forgive us.

[Ryan Scott]

I guess that's where we differ. I just can't connect representing a denomination as representing the whole of the Church.

[Steven Martinez]

I guess that's where we differ. I just can't connect representing a denomination as representing the whole of the Church.

Ok, but do you acknowledge that you might? How many baptists, catholics, orthodox or Salvation Army will be a part of the credentials board? How many of them will be at the assembly that ordains you? How many of our brothers and sisters of other denomination will be a part of your calling into ministry? Do they get a say? Or will you accept the fact that they will validate your ordination because your denomination represented the Church Universal? We are ordained into the Chuch, yet it is one denomination that takes authority and responsibility in making it happen.

[Ryan Scott]

I mean that being the head of a denomination doesn't make one any more apt to represent the Church than anyone else. If the body of believers to which I belong has decided to bestow its blessing and support in ordination, the individual who performs the ritual doesn't matter. Whoever it is speaks with the authority of the community behind them. I don't think it would be wise to have a twelve year old kid do it, but at the same time, I don't think the General Superintendent represents more spiritual authority than a DS, a pastor, or a faithful layperson.

I don't think it's bad to have the General Superintendents do ordinations, but when there aren't enough to go around and people in other parts of the world have to wait years to be ordained, it's a system I can do without. The authority doesn't change.

I, too have heard many a person say that their ordination was among the most formative experiences of their lives. I don't doubt the powerful experience to which you profess, but I dare say it would have been the same experience if some authority other than the GS was the one performing the ritual. I can't prove that, but neither can you deny it.

We'll probably have to remain apart on this.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Every ordination service I have ever been to, what the GS said had very much substance. Let's not forget "all of the old landmarks."

Thank the Lord I won't be here to see each church operating just like a coffee house. I would like the quiet and sanctity of a sanctuary sometimes. Many already have these other things at different times of the week. But, I think some churches like this would be good, and would help people, that shrink from church attendance, to possibly be drawn into the fold of Christ.

[Hans Deventer]

Hans, as an American I am deeply sorry that we have not valued our international brothers and sisters. If a GS failed to show up for an ordination service in the US there would be heck to pay. I understand where the value of a GS might seem lower to the Dutch Nazarenes since essentially they come to your country once every other year and expect you to act like an American District. Please forgive us.

Steven, I appreciate what you are saying, but it's actually getting better. The room that de German District got to change their district leadership system being a nice point in case. Also, the fact that we're a growing district in a Western society seems to give our leadership the idea that those crazy Dutch must be doing something right, so let's not mess with them too much. ;) It does give us room, now if only our DS becomes a little more bold in using it. But he's making progress.

[Ann Smith]

(You must remember that those people are with you as well. You get to chose a person to pray for you. I chose my first pastor who lead me in my journey. )

This is not always the case. My husband was not asked to chose the person to pray for him when he was ordained.
Ann

[Gene Tatsch]

Three Specific Steps to Renewal

.........

1. Clearly articulate Nazarene Doctrine in a way that pulls Nazarenes to a common understanding of the essentials and an expressed freedom on the nonessentials.

2. Call all Nazarenes to a life of Holiness.

3. Force us to reexamine everything we do to most effectively use the resources that God has entrusted to us to the accomplishment of the denominational vision.

I'm new to the naznet, I'm a follower of Jesus, and a 30 year member of CotN. As our foundation, we have the New Testament teachings (especially the Great Command and the Great Commission) which the CotN should be preparing/assisting/equipping me to carry out ever more accurately.

I'm disconcerted to see much discussion (even on a thread calling for spiritual renewal) on strategies for tweaking the structure of an organization. I'm troubled as I think of how we'll face the Father in review/judgement. What can we do to disciple each other to carry out His Command and Commission?

Please cut me some slack on this - but I want us all (!) to be able to face Him unashamed of our actions, including these discussions which do seem to be essential. I'm simply searching for ways to be effective bondservants of His - hopefully, with CotN as a valuable tool in the quest.

gene --

[David Showalter]

Please do not be offended by this Dave. But as someone who is ordained, it is very significant to have a GS presiding over the ceremony. One of the big reasons why I desire a non US GS is so that they might travel to areas such as Cuba to lay hands on their elders and deacons. For many who are ordained, this is not just a show or a meaningless gesture. It is very significant to their ministry. I will never forget Dr, Diehl laying hands on my head and the words he spoke.

Steven, I have had some of those same thoughts, however I'm wondering if our ordination would have been just as meaningful, regardless of who had been laying on hands and praying. Could it be that it was so meaningful and significant to us that we vividly remember who was involved, what was said, where it took place, etc.?