DS to lead new statewide organization.

[Gary Swartzlander]

Should our district leaders take on something like this?

http://www.ncnnews.org/Article.aspx?id=2189


I guess I have some mixed opinions on it. What are the pros and cons?

[Wilson L. Deaton]

I think that all Christians should be involved in ministries (of various kinds) outside of the church. This is true for pastors and D.S.s as well. If this is something he feels strongly about then he should go for it. He's doing it as Steve Anthony (who happens to be a D.S.), not as "The D.S."

I'm curious as to what you think the "cons" might be? The only one I can think of is that it will upset abortionists! I say, let them be upset.

Wilson

[Larry Osweiler]

Absolutely. The prolife cause is one we should all as holiness folks be involved in. Wesley, along with our denominational forefathers, ie: Phinees Bresee (Nazarene), BT Roberts (Free Methodist), all believed in reaching out to those less fortunate who didn't have a voice. The unborn don't have a voice. Nearly 50 million children have been butchered in this country since 1973.
We have a Sanctity of Human Life Sunday every year in our church. We just started it when I came. The previous pastor would have nothing to do with it. Many of our Free Methodist pastors won't touch the prolife cause in their churches. This is sad. So many churches are afraid of offending people if they bring up this issue. Are we going to sacrifice life for the sake of being "user friendly" churches?
One thing to remember is that the Prolife movment in Michigan is not only informing people about the abortion issue, but also about the biggest abortion provider in the US which is Planned Parenthood. This is to me an evil organization.
I say horray for the DS. Our Free Methodist pastor in Clio I see is also on the board.

[William Hunter]

Absolutely. The prolife cause is one we should all as holiness folks be involved in. Wesley, along with our denominational forefathers, ie: Phinees Bresee (Nazarene), BT Roberts (Free Methodist), all believed in reaching out to those less fortunate who didn't have a voice. The unborn don't have a voice. Nearly 50 million children have been butchered in this country since 1973.
We have a Sanctity of Human Life Sunday every year in our church. We just started it when I came. The previous pastor would have nothing to do with it. Many of our Free Methodist pastors won't touch the prolife cause in their churches. This is sad. So many churches are afraid of offending people if they bring up this issue. Are we going to sacrifice life for the sake of being "user friendly" churches?
One thing to remember is that the Prolife movment in Michigan is not only informing people about the abortion issue, but also about the biggest abortion provider in the US which is Planned Parenthood. This is to me an evil organization.
I say horray for the DS. Our Free Methodist pastor in Clio I see is also on the board.

I think this is a good thing. This is so much better than seeing Nazarenes and other Christians supporting pro-death political candidates who support abortion, and those who support such self-destructive behaviors as homosexuality.

[Gary Swartzlander]

I've been at this Naznet thing a long time now, and still haven't learned to completely think things through sometimes before I post. Oh well.

I totally support the organization and am especially encouraged by the diverse makeup of the committee. That can be seen as nothing but positive. There is certainly a need for leaders of all faiths to come together to champion causes such as this.

The mixed emotions that I mentioned in my post really were centered around the ability to service the district properly while leading such a high profile cause. I guess that is an issue for Dr. Anthony and his district to deal with, and I know that Dr. Anthony has already been a leader and activist in voicing concerns to the state legislature on related issues. He is a good example for others to follow.

[Wilson L. Deaton]

The mixed emotions that I mentioned in my post really were centered around the ability to service the district properly while leading such a high profile cause.

Gary,

I can understand your concern. However, I think my original response applies. Pastors (self included) expect our people to work full-time jobs then also volunteer for ministry. We pastors (and D.S.s) should also be willing to volunteer for ministry outside of that which we are paid to do....

Now the question is what to do if the "volunteering" gets so time consuming that it deteriorates his ability to do is "job." Like you said, that would be an issue for the district and he to work out.

By the way, my D.S. has a part-time job! He took it for the purpose of meeting people in the world. (He jokes that he is probably the only bi-vocational D.S. in the U.S.) He works, during the season, at a golf club as a course marshal or something like that. He welcomes groups to the tee and tells them they tee off in ten minutes or whatever and makes them feel welcome, etc. Personally, I have begun volunteering at the Kenosha Literacy Center working primarily with Hispanics trying to learn or improve their English.

Wilson

[Larry Osweiler]

Gary, I can understand your feelings on that. Let me give you my perspective.
First, I would ask the question, "What is the role of a district leader?" Do we want our leaders in a purely administrative role? Or do we want them to be activist in causes we feel strongly about? I think right now, too many of our DS's are there simply to make sure churches get their budgets paid. Most DS's don't even do installation services anymore. Many DS's don't even sit in on interviews with pastors and churches any longer. Many of these roles are delegated to assistant DS's. I guess I would ask the question as to what a DS does anymore. And I would certainly ask that question of the Conference Supts in my own denomination.
Second, you asked "Can he still serve the district?" I guess I would ask as to what your definition of "service" is. Let's go back to the role of the church to start with. Serving the poor and less fortunate is what our denominations were founded on. I for one believe the unborn as the less fortunate who need our help. What troubles me is that we take usually our best pastors and missionaries, (my denomination included), and take them out of productive ministry and place them in administration roles that seem useless at best.
I would like to ask churches this question: "What would happen to your church if you didn't have a DS?" I think most churches wouldn't even notice. That's nothing personal against the Superintendents, but rather a critique of the entire DS position. What does the Superintendent do to directly affect the ministry in your church and to your community? I think we could do just as good a job by consolidating DS postions. Why does Michigan need 3 DS's? You now have three district offices, three sets of expensive overhead which is nothing but admininistrative anyhow, and three expensive sets of salaries. Not to mention all the expensive trips every year to numerous meetings outside the state that comes right out of budget money given sacrificially by congregations throughout the districts. I can't believe how many trips our Supt takes every year. Plus the expensive mission trips overseas. And someone has to pay for them.
One thing that we are noticing is that many churches are not paying their budgets this past year. The economy in Michigan is not good as you well know. Now would be a good time to evaluate the DS postion in my opinion. In the FM Church, we voted down a motion to eliminate about a third of the Supts in 2003. But no one asked me for my opinion.

[Gary Swartzlander]

I agree with your post. Beyond that, If I lived in California I might say more.

[William Hunter]

Gary, I can understand your feelings on that. Let me give you my perspective.
First, I would ask the question, "What is the role of a district leader?" Do we want our leaders in a purely administrative role? Or do we want them to be activist in causes we feel strongly about? I think right now, too many of our DS's are there simply to make sure churches get their budgets paid. Most DS's don't even do installation services anymore. Many DS's don't even sit in on interviews with pastors and churches any longer. Many of these roles are delegated to assistant DS's. I guess I would ask the question as to what a DS does anymore. And I would certainly ask that question of the Conference Supts in my own denomination.
Second, you asked "Can he still serve the district?" I guess I would ask as to what your definition of "service" is. Let's go back to the role of the church to start with. Serving the poor and less fortunate is what our denominations were founded on. I for one believe the unborn as the less fortunate who need our help. What troubles me is that we take usually our best pastors and missionaries, (my denomination included), and take them out of productive ministry and place them in administration roles that seem useless at best.
I would like to ask churches this question: "What would happen to your church if you didn't have a DS?" I think most churches wouldn't even notice. That's nothing personal against the Superintendents, but rather a critique of the entire DS position. What does the Superintendent do to directly affect the ministry in your church and to your community? I think we could do just as good a job by consolidating DS postions. Why does Michigan need 3 DS's? You now have three district offices, three sets of expensive overhead which is nothing but admininistrative anyhow, and three expensive sets of salaries. Not to mention all the expensive trips every year to numerous meetings outside the state that comes right out of budget money given sacrificially by congregations throughout the districts. I can't believe how many trips our Supt takes every year. Plus the expensive mission trips overseas. And someone has to pay for them.
One thing that we are noticing is that many churches are not paying their budgets this past year. The economy in Michigan is not good as you well know. Now would be a good time to evaluate the DS postion in my opinion. In the FM Church, we voted down a motion to eliminate about a third of the Supts in 2003. But no one asked me for my opinion.

I agree, Larry. We four DS's in Indiana and my district only has 37 churches, or less. Why? While I appreciate my DS and his wife, he does not effect the ministry of my congregation one bit. We might see him here every four yrs. at renewal time. I do not think that position justifies the extremely cost of its existance. That money taken out of our churches could be better used toward missions and ministry right here at home.

[Edith K. Thurmond]

I agree, Larry. We four DS's in Indiana and my district only has 37 churches, or less. Why?

While visiting with a friend who has become D.S. of the Illinois District, he said that he has 90 churches on his district. I just looked on that district web site and counted 89 churches.

Why would your's only have 37 and IL have 89 under one D.S.? That seems out of proportion. At least, he does have those 89 churches organized by regions. I guess I really don't understand how all the districts are formed and then maintained.

Glad to hear all the good reports from your church!

[William Hunter]

While visiting with a friend who has become D.S. of the Illinois District, he said that he has 90 churches on his district. I just looked on that district web site and counted 89 churches.

Why would your's only have 37 and IL have 89 under one D.S.? That seems out of proportion. At least, he does have those 89 churches organized by regions. I guess I really don't understand how all the districts are formed and then maintained.

Glad to hear all the good reports from your church!

When my DS came here (a year before me) it understand we had about 45-50 churches on the district. A few were merged so that they had enough people and money to actually do something for Christ. But most were closed because they were so small that they had years of drawing off district funds and had people in them who refused to change in any way to get the church turned around. I think our DS acted wisely in these cases. The money from the sale of the buildings was put into a fund to help plant new churches and help those who would do a real re-start so that they were back in the business of reaching lost souls for Jesus. Every district has some of these churches that DS's need to have the courage to close so that new outreaches can be started. But it seems we are more concerned with status quo rather than effectiveness in reaching lost people.

Why we cannot be joined with another district is beyond me. I think the whole state in Indiana should be one district. But then, here in DeMotte, we are only about 20 minutes from Illinois and only 50 miles from Chicago, both in the Chicago Central Dist. The dist. budget for my small church is right at $6500.00 which could be better used on missions, both world and local. That's alot of money for no return, no real measurable benefit for my congregation. I'm not sure what the lacking of substance arguments are for having so many DS's, except of attempted micro-management from KC, but it does not work. My congregation builds its minitries based on local culture and what it takes us to reach lost people, and then our effort in world missions. Right now I have no position on my district since I resigned from the Mission Development Bd. so that a younger pastor could take my place on the board. We, as a board, decided that if none of "older" pastors resigned, there would be no way for younger pastors to get involved. And quite frankly, I like the lack of dist. jobs. I only have to give time to my church and whatever additional ministry I wish to. Plus, I do not miss one little bit the need to deal with obvious politics. Except for pastor's reports, most of the time at Dist. Assm. you'll find me reading as the assembly goes through its motions but never really accomplishing anything of substance, except to spend a lot of money to put it on. I do not mean to sound so neg. but I have to ask, "why" about a lot of what we do and the money we spend, all without any measurable results in reaching lost people. I do not know who reads NN but I'm glad I am in a church I plan to stay in until retirement for I have probably shot any possibility for a move since I am not a "yes man" who refuses to question anything and just follows the ineffective status quo.

I'm glad you find the reports on my church good to read. They are even better to write. Today we sang two songs to focus, then I preached. I gave an altar call right after I preached and we had a nice response, including the reclamation of a precious lady who had drifted pretty far from Christ. I decided to move the congregational prayer up to that point. We then has some wonderful testimonies. We then entered our music package, giving and closed with a special. I am preaching, both sitting and standing as the case requires, down in the midst of my people in our new seating arrangement. I am getting some very good responses from my people about this change. They feel the "great gulf fixed" with the pastor behind the Communion Table and altars and several feet between each, has be removed and the sense of being separated from "ministry by professional clergy" has been eliminated. And I like it!!! It puts me right there with them and for me, gives us a better sense of community. Anyway, it was a wonderful day---and how wonderful it is to be free from the bonds of past generations to be able to do what Christ leads you to do---and even my older members like the changes---and I find that neat. but then, I tired to let everyone in on changes we wanted to make and why---and I've found that informed people, who know that they can voice what they really feel about the change--- are open to giving it a try; and they like it when we give it a road test. Sure does make ministry exciting and full of anticipation. And it all is a gift of God's grace.

[Gary Swartzlander]

A news article related to the new organization.

http://www.mlive.com/news/fljournal/index.ssf?/base/news-34/113853901844160.xml&coll=5

[Edith K. Thurmond]

The dist. budget for my small church is right at $6500.00 which could be better used on missions, both world and local. That's alot of money for no return, no real measurable benefit for my congregation.......

Woah! That's a lot of money from such a small church for only one annual expenditure! Perhaps this is but a glimpse of what you pastors have been saying when speaking of budgets.

I do not know who reads NN but I'm glad I am in a church I plan to stay in until retirement for I have probably shot any possibility for a move since I am not a "yes man" who refuses to question anything and just follows the ineffective status quo.

Smiling here as I post this: one thing you can tell with this new software is that there are generally twice as many 'guests' reading NN as there are registered persons.

It probably would be detrimental for you to leave your congregation since you are teaching/training them and they are learning to do the work of the church in such an effective manner. Doing a New Start is not easy and since your parish has really experienced a 'new start,' it sounds like a win/win situation for you, the church members, and the community.

I'm glad you find the reports on my church good to read. They are even better to write. generations to be able to do what Christ leads you to do---and even my older members like the changes---and I find that neat. but then, I tired to let everyone in on changes we wanted to make and why---and I've found that informed people, who know that they can voice what they really feel about the change--- are open to giving it a try; and they like it when we give it a road test. Sure does make ministry exciting and full of anticipation. And it all is a gift of God's grace.

Please keep sharing with us as it is not only encouraging but educational as well. Those in the church universal can always learn much from others.

Continued blessings,

[William Hunter]

Woah! That's a lot of money from such a small church for only one annual expenditure! Perhaps this is but a glimpse of what you pastors have been saying when speaking of budgets.



Smiling here as I post this: one thing you can tell with this new software is that there are generally twice as many 'guests' reading NN as there are registered persons.

It probably would be detrimental for you to leave your congregation since you are teaching/training them and they are learning to do the work of the church in such an effective manner. Doing a New Start is not easy and since your parish has really experienced a 'new start,' it sounds like a win/win situation for you, the church members, and the community.



Please keep sharing with us as it is not only encouraging but educational as well. Those in the church universal can always learn much from others.

Continued blessings,

Only our world missions budget is larger, about $10,000. The other two bugets are not small but a little smaller than the Dist. budget. Yes, they are huge and my people are starting to question why---and none of the answsers we find are really answeres but mostly demands to shut up and just pay them. With some large increases in mortgage payment and utilities we will be pushed to get our budgets paid in full this year; but those additional operationsal costs are ignored by those who set the budgets and the local church is pretty much told it exsists to pay budgets. This system really bothers me and no one in the general church seems to have the courage to address this issue with any common sense.

If we do not, the first thing we would hear is that we would have to get rid of our youth pastor. If we did that, not only would a significant part of our growth stop, but I would loose families. Our youth ministry is our biggest "feeder" of the unchurched into the church, along with friends bringing friends. If we got rid of our youth pastor that would be the same as a farmer with short-sightedness who seats his seed corn and then has nothing to plant. But I have come to believe this---paying budgets is more important than reaching lost people. It is one of the key reasons I try to stay pretty much out of district involvement and just pastor my church. I also question the millions that most districts have tied up in long-term accounts. That is money that should be put into ministry and was taken our of the pockets of the local churches---thus out of the pockets of our laypeople who gave the money to be put into ministry, not district savings accounts and investments.

I would not think of moving from here. God has given me a vision for my ministry, and has given a vision for this church and my part in it. It will take be to retirement and beyond to fulfill God's vision.

Another point, I feel I am to lead my church in whatever way we are to go in order to reach lost people and mature the saints. That does not mean that we leave off our statement of belief. I am very much sold on the Wesleyan/Holiness doctrine but I do not believe those in some other city can undertstand the best way to build my church in this local area. We do several things that are different than our Manual, such as the organization of the church board. They handle only budgets, buildings, grounds, equipment, etc. I have a Vision Team that appoint who deals with anythng related to ministry. The two meet every two months on opposing months. Church boards are not necessarily made up of people with passion for the various ministries of the church---my Vision Team is. There are few other things we do that do not necessarily follow the Manual line, but we are building the Kingdom with lost people coming to Christ and maturing the saints. In fact, my church may be one of the top 3-4 fastest growing churches on our district. There is no other church on the district that was about to close and then turn around like this one has with all that has happened in wonderful movements of God in our midst. It is not the pastor but the outpoured grace of God, but I am glad I am here.

[William Hunter]

I need to make a qualifying statement here, I think. I really do appreciate my district for it is here that I have felt more freedom and acceptance for doing innovative ministry than ever before in 32 yrs. of ministry. My DS has a lot to do with that. My issue is with what appears to me to be poor stewardship of funds raised by local churches and used at the dist. and gen. levels. I think of hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, setting in interest bearing accounts in the dist. name, all taken out of local churches. Most of that money should be put back in the local church for ministry, etc. and on it goes. What I see is poor stewardship and I know my church board, as they learn of such things, are not impressed, as most local church boards would feel the same way. And they have a right to know about such things. they are the ones who gave the money that has been taken and used for things other than ministry, or wasted in poor cost procedures on the districts and the at the gen. level. I think we need to rethink our structure and budget programs and become better stewards in these areas.

[Billy Cox]

I would be very disappointed if my DS got involved with something like this.

[Gary Swartzlander]

Everyone thought I should explain my issues, what's yours?

[Billy Cox]

Everyone thought I should explain my issues, what's yours?

I think it is outside of the scope of a DS as 24/7 executive representative of the Church of the Nazarene to provide executive support for a Political Action Committee (PAC) - a fund raising organization for political causes.

I don't know if it violates Nazarene polity, but it seems like it would be prone to abuse, not to mention the risk of associating the district with activities that are not tax-exempt in nature.

[Ian Robertson]

I read in Robert Webber's Ancient-Future Evangelism that back in 1979, Jerry Falwell "sent a letter to evangelical leaders declaring, 'God is calling us to march into the halls of Congress and clean up America for God.' ... The particular arm of the government through which evangelicals were to fulfill their calling to be salt and light to the world was the Republican Party."

In the meantime, the mainline church was also mobilizing to assert an influence on another set of political problems - poverty, racism, the crumbling of the inner city, gangs... and the arm of the government through which this task was to be accomplished was the Democratic Party."

As a pastor, I believe the ONLY mandate from the Master, based on the Great Commandment and the Great Commission, is to "Love God, love others, and make disciples." Neither political party has the key to eternal life.

My decisions are made in the light of Christ's command. If a march or a protest would result in more sinners (including abortionists) becoming disciples, I would march.

As a pastor, I choose my community involvement. I'm on a City Planning Commission and a member of the Chamber of Commerce because that's where I can be most influential today.

Who am I to question how another brother chooses to influence society. There are sinners in both U.S. political parties. All of them need the Lord.