Regionalization...

[Wes Smith]

This thread grows out of our WaPac District Assembly thread in which there is considerable discussion about the situations that resulted in WaPac electing a new DS on the first ballot at our recent Assembly. While I am thrilled that we had the experience of electing a new DS on the 1st ballot, I have a personal conviction that we may be perpetuating a model of organization that has served us well in the past, but has little relevancy to now or to the future.

My thoughts as posted on the WaPac thread...

It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me that very many people will take a job that they will intentionally work themselves out of and that is what regionalization would require. And, it would require all the DS's [and district delegations] of the region to get onboard. The only way I see that happening at this point is for all the DS's to be close enough to retirement that they don't have the need for the job. Ha!

In my humble opinion, something much bigger than we know is going on in North American Christianity. It simply is not what it was and it is not ever going to be again. Not only that, but North American Nazarene Christianity is not what it was and it will never be again. If we could either get with the paradigm shift that is going on, or even try to get out ahead of it, the results would be huge. Again, my opinion.

From the leaders in the denomination that I trust the most, all I'm gettting is, "These sorts of things take time." That may be and may have been a luxury that we had in the past. My perception is that we do not have time and if we try to use time, we will lose most of the opportunity with which we are now presented.

Our GS said to me at our DA, "We have been significantly hurt by the convergence of three components: 1. Recession, 2. Bad timing on the new formula for "budgets" and, 3. A devestating lawsuit." So true, and I agree. What seems "true" to me is that we are pretty committed to waiting out the results of the convergence. That is not a reference to my GS, rather to our corporate shyness.

We may regain health under the leadership of our new DS. I have some doubt that regaining our health will lead to regionalization (which I believe to be the new model of efficiency...reducing beauracy and bringing accountability to the closest local level through cluster groups). But perhaps healthy districts will absorb unhealthy districts leading to a shadow model of regionaliziation.

Friend,

Wes

[Dennis M. Scott]

Not too far into this discussion some nuts and bolts questions begin to emerge. How can things currently being handled in the district offices be shifted elsewhere? Would pastoral placement material be catalogued at a regional office and made available to cluster leaders, similar to staff person resumes are done now? How do we anticipate credentials issues and record keeping be handled? Technology can assist to an extent, but there are nitty gritty things that currently fall to district offices. They can be - and sometimes are - handled by pastors of local churches that serve on boards of credentials, etc. Do we anticipate cluster leaders to function as "mini-superentendents" and regional superintendents as "super-superintendents"?

It seems like it is a matter of dispursing things presently done in district offices. How do you see it?

[Rich Schmidt]

In my humble opinion, something much bigger than we know is going on in North American Christianity. It simply is not what it was and it is not ever going to be again. Not only that, but North American Nazarene Christianity is not what it was and it will never be again. If we could either get with the paradigm shift that is going on, or even try to get out ahead of it, the results would be huge. Again, my opinion.

My biggest question is what you mean by this part. What are the big, paradigm-shifting changes you see taking place, and how does regionalization fit into it?

[Wes Smith]

My biggest question is what you mean by this part. What are the big, paradigm-shifting changes you see taking place, and how does regionalization fit into it?

It is not possible to accurately describe the changes that are currently in process. There are, however, some words and conditions that speak to the issue of the change. One word that applies is...independence. There is a noticeable and dramatic leaning in the direction of pastoral and congregational independence. Such a thing was nearly impossible in the past. We had significant players on our district absent from District Assembly. Again, a near impossibility in the past. An observable condition is that we seem to have lost much of our capacity to spiritually reproduce. Lack of spiritual reproduction means that we are placing energies and resources in other areas and languishing when it comes to a key component of Christianity...making disciples.

There are lots of other changes that are moving us in the direction of virtual insignificance if we do not wake up to those changes. I've been saying for years that our churches and pastors must be supported as they retool and reorganize to address the needs of a radically changing culture. The old concept of gathering for reports and inspiration must be replaced with leadership reality regarding the fact that we are headed for oblivion if we do not adjust both organizationally and purposefully to the times in which we live. Again, it is difficult for me to be as articulate as I would like to be regarding the transition we are in, whether we like it or not, but something huge is happening and our response will dictate our effectiveness in continuing to impact the world for Christ as we look ahead five, ten, and more years into the future.

I am convinced that district organization is a hindrance to the revolution that is taking place in our culture. This level of management usurps funds that can be used locally to reach people for Christ and to build an relevant organization that results in local productivity and fruitfulness. It is nearly impossible for people in a district setting to understand and address the needs of districts that often span many miles and many distinct cultural groups. District management could be yielded both to local cluster leaders who could much more effectively deal with local issues and to regional leadership that could have a great impact in dealing with the clusters and cluster leaders throughout the region by resourcing and inspiring cluster leaders and groups.

A key piece (all of this, obviously, imo) of this transition needs to include placing all but one of the current GS's in a regional leadership (Regional Superintendency) capacity. We then would have one GS and possibly eight RS's in North America. These RS's would be challenged with helping us shift into a new paradigm of organization that becomes more local and more efficient in reaching lost people for Jesus. In a way this would be like re-inventing ourselves. This must happen (imo) or we will pretty much casually drift into oblivion.

I hear rumors that we are on the virge of a great announcement from the GMC that there is a major addition getting ready to be added to our denomination. Not sure if and when, but if and when the announcement comes, it will have a major impact. My concern, of course, is that we will celebrate the major addition and possibly forget that the majority of our congregations in North America are languishing.

Applause to anyone who has read this entire post. Promise to be less wordy in future posts.

Friend,

Wes

[Dennis M. Scott]

I'm trying to think of anything else I'm a part of that has the international characteristics of what the COTN is and is becoming. We own a Toyota, so maybe that's similar. For decades even US auto manufacturers have had thriving markets elsewhere; virturally unknown by North Americans. We've already moved way beyond simply "more Nazarenes outside the US than inside." Most Nazarenes in NA still don't think globally, or think of being a part of a global effort. What do rank and file Nazarenes in Africa expect and receive from beyond the local church? What difference will regionalization make in South America?

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

I hear rumors that we are on the virge of a great announcement from the GMC that there is a major addition getting ready to be added to our denomination. Not sure if and when, but if and when the announcement comes, it will have a major impact. My concern, of course, is that we will celebrate the major addition and possibly forget that the majority of our congregations in North America are languishing.


Now I'm curious!

[Hal Paul]

Now I'm curious!

Me too, but I will remain skeptical until it's actually announced.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Me too, but I will remain skeptical until it's actually announced.

Maybe my prophesied UMC/Nazarene merger is actually in the works.

Or else the Nazarenes are being bought out by General Mills who will now produce "spiritual" breakfast cereals.

[David Pettigrew]

I'm still waiting for the huge impact that this whole budget shortfall is supposed to have on GMC. I was skeptical when I read the report that it was just the formation of one more committee, though it was predicted that entire departments would be eliminated and GMC would be a ghost town. Has anyone heard of anything actually changing?

[David Morris]

I'm trying to think of anything else I'm a part of that has the international characteristics of what the COTN is and is becoming. We own a Toyota, so maybe that's similar. For decades even US auto manufacturers have had thriving markets elsewhere; virturally unknown by North Americans. We've already moved way beyond simply "more Nazarenes outside the US than inside." Most Nazarenes in NA still don't think globally, or think of being a part of a global effort. What do rank and file Nazarenes in Africa expect and receive from beyond the local church? What difference will regionalization make in South America?

Would the entire denomination need to follow the same structure? Perhaps regionalization could take place in North America, and other world regions could form a structure and elect a leader that would fit their current needs and vision.

[Eric Frey]

I just don't see how the move to RS is anything but adding another layer of hierarchy. One RS cannot possibly do what (on the East Central Region) 8 DS's currently do -- without adding another layer similar to what the UMC does with Bishops and DS's. We would have RS's and Zone Coordinators? Just more beuaracracy IMHO.

If I wanted to streamline I would start with two changes. (1) Get rid of the GS's -- the position. Empower the DS to chair the District Assemblies and to ordain. If you need a figurehead vision caster type one of the DS's could be elected as the chairperson who would function as the spokesperson for the Board of DS's. (2) Restructure denominational apportionments so that the local congregation only pays a 10% apportionments to the District. That money can be then dispersed by the District to the other entities that need paid (WEF, P&B, etc). In this conversation, I would want to rethink the way we fund our universities.

Nazarene's have always been a Church in tension between episcopal and congregational polity. But the issue is not an organizational one. It is an ecclesiological one. The discussion has to start there. Are we "A" church, or are we an "association" of churches? Historically, though we have some congregational tendencies, we have always seen ourselves, first and foremost "A Church." We are "The Church of the Nazarene." Not "The Churches of the Nazarene." Any shift away from this foundational ecclesiology will result in major changes not only to the way we function, but in who we are and the unity and fellowship for which we are known. That will be a tragic day -- and should be resisted at all costs.

[Wes Smith]

Would the entire denomination need to follow the same structure? Perhaps regionalization could take place in North America, and other world regions could form a structure and elect a leader that would fit their current needs and vision.

The other world regions are already regionalized and regional supt./leaders are in place. Regionalization in NA would bring us into alignment with the rest of the world. I'm suggesting regionalization that would fit the boundaries our current University "domains."

Friend,

Wes

[Craig Laughlin]

It seems to me that the problem that must be addressed even before we address organizational models is the issue of denial. As you pointed out, when asked what the problem is the perception seems to be that it is a financial problem. While I don't deny that we have a financial problem, the real problem is that we are in decline in the US. Honestly I have a hard time when I read number two on the list. The timing issue for the implementation of the new system. Really? They think that things would be better if they had been taking more money out of local churches during the greatest recession sense the depression? To me it reflects the ongoing attitude that the church is headquarters.

Personally, I also think we need a complete rethink on how we do missions. I think there are ways to both reduce the costs and increase the giving at the same time but it would require a completely different way of coming at it.

Thanks for the thread Wes. I do have this underlying belief that change is easier in healthy organizations than in dying ones but there is more publicity in the dying ones because they have no choice and it is usually bloody. I'm looking forward to WAPAC getting healthy and then to what God wants to do.

[Wes Smith]

Now I'm curious!

This came from a reliable source, but I am not confident re. the confidentiality issue, so it is my choice not to post here, but to say that what I heard is major.

Friend,

Wes

[Rich Schmidt]

It is not possible to accurately describe the changes that are currently in process.

...

Applause to anyone who has read this entire post. Promise to be less wordy in future posts.

Friend,

Wes

So let me try to recap what you've said here to make sure I'm understanding you.

1. There's a greater sense of independence among local churches and pastors... meaning less reliance on / identifying with the district (and denomination?).

2. "We have lost much of our capacity to spiritually reproduce." Basically, we're not doing the work of disciple-making, or at least not doing it well. But I'm not sure if your "we" here is referring to Christians, local churches, or districts. So when you say "we are placing energies and resources in other areas and languishing when it comes to... making disciples," I don't know if you're talking about local churches doing this or districts... or individual Christians. Likewise, when you say in the next paragraph that changes are moving "us" toward insignificance... are you talking about local churches? districts? the denomination?

3. District organization is a hindrance because (a) it saps funds that could be better used locally, and (b) districts are too diverse and dispersed for district leaders to address the variety of needs. Smaller local clusters could do a better job of addressing those needs and supporting pastors who are trying to "retool and reorganize to address the needs of a radically changing culture." Regional leadership could resource & inspire clusters & cluster leaders.

A key phrase in the midst of that seemed to be: "The old concept of gathering for reports and inspiration must be replaced with leadership reality regarding the fact that we are headed for oblivion if we do not adjust both organizationally and purposefully to the times in which we live."

OK, now for my response...

I'm struggling a bit with all of this because I don't know your context for what you're saying. If you're speaking from a context of mainly smaller, traditional Nazarene churches that haven't changed or engaged the culture well, and thus are experiencing long trends of decline, and a district organization that doesn't challenge them to change or help them change... while those churches that are changing and growing and trying new things are becoming increasingly independent of the district and the churches around them... then I suppose this all makes sense.

But I don't live in that world.

I pastor a church plant currently running 120 that I started (with lots of help) 10.5 years ago. I'm on a district with a DS who for the past 14 years has kept in front of us the need for churches and leaders to change and be missionally-focused in order to reach our changing world. The district has offered & led several different refocusing-type efforts over the years, and many churches have participated in those processes. Just this past month, a group of pastors went to Lima, OH, for a 3DM "taster event" (http://weare3dm.com/pages/page.asp?page_id=133904) to see how that Nazarene church is transitioning to doing church as missional communities, after our district brought their senior pastor over for a workshop day that had pastors and laypeople from across the district in attendance. Just yesterday I met with a small group (cluster?) of pastors of new/restart churches for conversation and encouragement. We meet every month and have for the past... well, nearly 10 years.

So... I feel like maybe we're already living in the future you're wanting to move us to, without the need for dismantling the district structure and replacing it with something else. I'm not opposed to moving toward regional structures and local clusters... but I'm not sure how that kind of change makes it any more likely that local churches are actually going to learn from each other and change to reach their cities....?

[Dennis M. Scott]

I just don't see how the move to RS is anything but adding another layer of hierarchy. One RS cannot possibly do what (on the East Central Region) 8 DS's currently do -- without adding another layer similar to what the UMC does with Bishops and DS's. We would have RS's and Zone Coordinators? Just more beuaracracy IMHO.

If I wanted to streamline I would start with two changes. (1) Get rid of the GS's -- the position. Empower the DS to chair the District Assemblies and to ordain. If you need a figurehead vision caster type one of the DS's could be elected as the chairperson who would function as the spokesperson for the Board of DS's. (2) Restructure denominational apportionments so that the local congregation only pays a 10% apportionments to the District. That money can be then dispersed by the District to the other entities that need paid (WEF, P&B, etc). In this conversation, I would want to rethink the way we fund our universities.

Nazarene's have always been a Church in tension between episcopal and congregational polity. But the issue is not an organizational one. It is an ecclesiological one. The discussion has to start there. Are we "A" church, or are we an "association" of churches? Historically, though we have some congregational tendencies, we have always seen ourselves, first and foremost "A Church." We are "The Church of the Nazarene." Not "The Churches of the Nazarene." Any shift away from this foundational ecclesiology will result in major changes not only to the way we function, but in who we are and the unity and fellowship for which we are known. That will be a tragic day -- and should be resisted at all costs.

Yours is an interesting and helpful post. Your last sentence is pretty much what we need to avoid, because it seems to deny some of the realities already existing. The helpfulness of the post is that you may have nailed the biggest issue for us: we have been one organizational fellowship, but we have grown to the point where that fellowship isn't practical anymore. What fellowship do you and I have with non-clergy members in Mozambique? Even when the US paid to import a delegation once every four years, no meaningful dialogue could take place. How do delegates from South America know who should lead the Church or churches in Africa? They might, but we don't in North America. The NA COTN has very few fellowship events with the African COTN. There is a desire on the part of most of us to keep things as one big fellowship, but we need to admit that in some ways we aren't anymore. It is a good thing that the Nazarene part of the Kingdom has grown that large. In spite of technological advances, we aren't that kind of organization today, and it may be that the Kingdom will be better served if we adjust the organization to facilitate mission. While it doesn't make sense to throw the baby out with the bath, it might be time to get fresh water.

[David Pettigrew]

I just don't see how the move to RS is anything but adding another layer of hierarchy. One RS cannot possibly do what (on the East Central Region) 8 DS's currently do -- without adding another layer similar to what the UMC does with Bishops and DS's. We would have RS's and Zone Coordinators? Just more beuaracracy IMHO.

If I wanted to streamline I would start with two changes. (1) Get rid of the GS's -- the position. Empower the DS to chair the District Assemblies and to ordain. If you need a figurehead vision caster type one of the DS's could be elected as the chairperson who would function as the spokesperson for the Board of DS's. (2) Restructure denominational apportionments so that the local congregation only pays a 10% apportionments to the District. That money can be then dispersed by the District to the other entities that need paid (WEF, P&B, etc). In this conversation, I would want to rethink the way we fund our universities.

Nazarene's have always been a Church in tension between episcopal and congregational polity. But the issue is not an organizational one. It is an ecclesiological one. The discussion has to start there. Are we "A" church, or are we an "association" of churches? Historically, though we have some congregational tendencies, we have always seen ourselves, first and foremost "A Church." We are "The Church of the Nazarene." Not "The Churches of the Nazarene." Any shift away from this foundational ecclesiology will result in major changes not only to the way we function, but in who we are and the unity and fellowship for which we are known. That will be a tragic day -- and should be resisted at all costs.

I really, really like this post. I would just add the following addendum - Let's do everything you have suggested, only with fewer and larger districts. One person cannot reasonably fulfill the role of DS over 300 churches, but a district of fewer than 100 is less and less sustainable in 2011.

So, I vote for your plan, but I still think our districts need some realignment. As far as the theological argument behind your plan, I couldn't agree more.

[Ryan Scott]

I wonder if regionalization is more a stop-gap policy towards an even less organized structure. I've been saying for a while that our identity is becoming less about denomination and more about theology. People don't care about denominational structures so long as they find people in concert with themselves theologically.

In 50 years I'm not sure there will be any pastors making a living from being a pastor or how many congregations we'll have that look like congregations do now. We're going to increasingly see a removal of administration simply because it can't be afforded.

Regionalization seems like a step in that direction.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Our GS said to me at our DA, "We have been significantly hurt by the convergence of three components: 1. Recession, 2. Bad timing on the new formula for "budgets" and, 3. A devestating lawsuit." So true, and I agree. What seems "true" to me is that we are pretty committed to waiting out the results of the convergence. That is not a reference to my GS, rather to our corporate shyness.

It's only a "significant hurt" if we let it be so. Surely: as long as budgets and money are the wind in our sails, we're not going to get anywhere (at least not in the terms of the Kingdom). So I ask: where are the hopeful messages from leaders within our denomination today? Oh, here's one (http://www.nazarenemedialibrary.org/channels/Home/M11-Promo-Videos/Service3-M11.aspx). :-) (If you don't have time for the whole thing, you should find it. If you still don't, pick up around 14:45 in relation to this "crisis" in the CotN.)

If the CotN wants pastors and congregations to follow something, it will not be a new budget formula or requests for more offerings. It will be leaders willing to stand up and say, "The hope of the Christ is our hope."

Don't preach new structure. Preach the missio Dei.

Once upon a time, our Lord lost a rather crucial law suit as well. But the Kingdom of God lost more than a lot of money that day. Thankfully, God didn't see fit to run away with his tail between his legs. Rather, God chose to see what could be resurrected from that situation. And not too much later, his Church took off.

This (http://www.nazarenemedialibrary.org/channels/Home/M11-Promo-Videos/Service3-M11.aspx) is the kind of message that we need.

[Eric Frey]

It's only a "significant hurt" if we let it be so. Surely: as long as budgets and money are the wind in our sails, we're not going to get anywhere (at least not in the terms of the Kingdom). So I ask: where are the hopeful messages from leaders within our denomination today? Oh, here's one (http://www.nazarenemedialibrary.org/channels/Home/M11-Promo-Videos/Service3-M11.aspx). :-) (If you don't have time for the whole thing, you should find it. If you still don't, pick up around 14:45 in relation to this "crisis" in the CotN.)

If the CotN wants pastors and congregations to follow something, it will not be a new budget formula or requests for more offerings. It will be leaders willing to stand up and say, "The hope of the Christ is our hope."

Don't preach new structure. Preach the missio Dei.

Once upon a time, our Lord lost a rather crucial law suit as well. But the Kingdom of God lost more than a lot of money that day. Thankfully, God didn't see fit to run away with his tail between his legs. Rather, determined he chose to see what he might resurrect from that situation. And not too much longer, his Church took off.

This (http://www.nazarenemedialibrary.org/channels/Home/M11-Promo-Videos/Service3-M11.aspx) is the kind of message that we need.

I couldn't agree with this more. One question... completely unrelated... could the Nazarene Library provide manuscripts? Some of us do actually like to read and not watch videos!

[Rich Schmidt]

It will be leaders willing to stand up and say, "The hope of the Christ is our hope."


The hope of the Christ is our hope?

Maybe I'll understand when I have time to watch the video later...

[Billy Cox]

Maybe my prophesied UMC/Nazarene merger is actually in the works.

Or else the Nazarenes are being bought out by General Mills who will now produce "spiritual" breakfast cereals.

UMC eh? That would be kind of like Joseph Lieberman running for President and naming Michele Bachmann as his running mate. :)

[Billy Cox]

Don't preach new structure. Preach the missio Dei.

I agree, but it could just as easily be an argument against the value of the denomination.

[Billy Cox]

Our GS said to me at our DA, "We have been significantly hurt by the convergence of three components: 1. Recession, 2. Bad timing on the new formula for "budgets" and, 3. A devestating lawsuit."

Wow, that level of analysis from the highest leadership of the denomination is *profoundly* disappointing. It's like a homeowner who attributes the collapse of their house to a strong gust of wind, when years of termite infestation had taken a toll on the structural integrity of the house.

If that is the consensus at the BGS level, the denominational structure of the CotN is in big trouble.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

UMC eh? That would be kind of like Joseph Lieberman running for President and naming Michele Bachmann as his running mate. :)

Well, I did post it as a joke on April 1.

[Rich Schmidt]

Wow, that level of analysis from the highest leadership of the denomination is *profoundly* disappointing. It's like a homeowner who attributes the collapse of their house to a strong gust of wind, when years of termite infestation had taken a toll on the structural integrity of the house.

If that is the consensus at the BGS level, the denominational structure of the CotN is in big trouble.

I don't see what the problem is with the GS's statement. First, we have it without context, so keep that in mind. All we know is that a GS said this to Wes, apparently in conversation. Second, he's not saying "These 3 things are the cause of all our problems." He's just saying we were significantly hurt by these 3 things all happening at once. I can't find anything to argue with there.

[Wes Smith]

I just don't see how the move to RS is anything but adding another layer of hierarchy. One RS cannot possibly do what (on the East Central Region) 8 DS's currently do -- without adding another layer similar to what the UMC does with Bishops and DS's. We would have RS's and Zone Coordinators? Just more beuaracracy IMHO.

If I wanted to streamline I would start with two changes. (1) Get rid of the GS's -- the position. Empower the DS to chair the District Assemblies and to ordain. If you need a figurehead vision caster type one of the DS's could be elected as the chairperson who would function as the spokesperson for the Board of DS's. (2) Restructure denominational apportionments so that the local congregation only pays a 10% apportionments to the District. That money can be then dispersed by the District to the other entities that need paid (WEF, P&B, etc). In this conversation, I would want to rethink the way we fund our universities.

Nazarene's have always been a Church in tension between episcopal and congregational polity. But the issue is not an organizational one. It is an ecclesiological one. The discussion has to start there. Are we "A" church, or are we an "association" of churches? Historically, though we have some congregational tendencies, we have always seen ourselves, first and foremost "A Church." We are "The Church of the Nazarene." Not "The Churches of the Nazarene." Any shift away from this foundational ecclesiology will result in major changes not only to the way we function, but in who we are and the unity and fellowship for which we are known. That will be a tragic day -- and should be resisted at all costs.

In my way of thinking, regionalization would eliminate the rather large level of district middle management and free local clusters to develop their own mission plan addressing the unique needs in their immediate area. Cluster leaders would have some funds with which to manage the organizational needs of their area (including pastoral placement), but the regional leadership would be supported by the entire region thus diminishing the overall "budgets" for the local churches in the region. The purpose of the Regional Supt., would be to share vision and to support the cluster groups by having digital/electronic connections with the cluster leaders.

Regionalization would, of course, be radically different. Someone remind me of the classic definition of insanity (rubbing my chin!).

Friend,

Wes

[Ryan Scott]

I imagine this also has something to do with how districts are currently using their funds. I've seen some districts do amazing things with the money they receive that could not be duplicated in a different setting. Then again I've seen districts waste their funds to such a degree that regionalization might be able to do more with less.

[Wes Smith]

So... I feel like maybe we're already living in the future you're wanting to move us to, without the need for dismantling the district structure and replacing it with something else. I'm not opposed to moving toward regional structures and local clusters... but I'm not sure how that kind of change makes it any more likely that local churches are actually going to learn from each other and change to reach their cities....?

My concerns target the local, district and general church. Not sure what district you are on, but I conducted a survey a few years ago and discovered at that time we had two districts that had any kind of long term positive growth charts. Honest question...is your district an exception regarding long term growth? I would be interested in seeing the statistics. Perhaps your district was one I identified as having long term positive growth.

In the overall absence of growth in NA, it seems reasonable to me that it would be helpful to try some other approaches to organization.

Friend,

Wes

[Billy Cox]

I don't see what the problem is with the GS's statement. First, we have it without context, so keep that in mind. All we know is that a GS said this to Wes, apparently in conversation. Second, he's not saying "These 3 things are the cause of all our problems." He's just saying we were significantly hurt by these 3 things all happening at once. I can't find anything to argue with there.

I wasn't arguing with it, but was simply disappointed by the lack of insight within it.

[Rich Schmidt]

I wasn't arguing with it, but was simply disappointed by the lack of insight within it.

That's the thing. I don't think it was meant to be an insightful statement. It wasn't an analysis of what ails the Church of the Nazarene. It's just letting people know that the GMC got hit by a "perfect storm" financially.

Responding to it with statements like, "If that is the consensus at the BGS level, the denominational structure of the CotN is in big trouble," seems completely unfair to the folks on the BGS.

[Rich Schmidt]

My concerns target the local, district and general church. Not sure what district you are on, but I conducted a survey a few years ago and discovered at that time we had two districts that had any kind of long term positive growth charts. Honest question...is your district an exception regarding long term growth? I would be interested in seeing the statistics. Perhaps your district was one I identified as having long term positive growth.

In the overall absence of growth in NA, it seems reasonable to me that it would be helpful to try some other approaches to organization.

Friend,

Wes

I'm on the Northwest Indiana district. According to the Nazarene Research Center, we have a decadal worship attendance growth rate of 8.39%. (http://app.nazarene.org/FindAChurch/summaryReport?report=districtSummary&orgId=40) I have no idea how that compares to other districts. (It looks like WAPAC's at 3.2%. (http://app.nazarene.org/FindAChurch/summaryReport?report=districtSummary&orgId=54))

Like I said, I'm open to organizational changes. I just haven't seen anything suggesting that the regional/cluster model would be any more effective than the current district model. I think we could probably implement or "field test" parts of your model before committing to a total upheaval of our organizational structure. For example, clusters can be implemented now, as can regional events.

My personal opinion is that there's nothing stopping us from being remarkably missionally effective within the current district organizational model. Nothing but ourselves, anyway.

[Eric Frey]

In my way of thinking, regionalization would eliminate the rather large level of district middle management and free local clusters to develop their own mission plan addressing the unique needs in their immediate area. Cluster leaders would have some funds with which to manage the organizational needs of their area (including pastoral placement), but the regional leadership would be supported by the entire region thus diminishing the overall "budgets" for the local churches in the region. The purpose of the Regional Supt., would be to share vision and to support the cluster groups by having digital/electronic connections with the cluster leaders.

Regionalization would, of course, be radically different. Someone remind me of the classic definition of insanity (rubbing my chin!).

Friend,

Wes

Wes, I agree that reorganization is one part of the puzzle. But I think it is only a part. I am perfectly willing to explore reorganization as long as [1] it affirms and enhances our self understanding as "A Church" made of many "congregations" (A Body with many parts), and avoids any move toward becoming "an association of independent churches" (a whole bunch of little bodies who choose to lump themselves together); and, [2] it streamlines the hierarchy rather than expanding it.

I love your passion and optimism about this plan. But I see in it only two likely results. [1] the increased independence of local congregations and a decreased interdependence of the denomination. I understand I am likely in the minority about this point, so I won't belabor it. [2] I am an outside the box kind of thinker. But I can't in my wildest imagination imagine how moving from a GS/DS model to a GS/RS/Cluster Leader model makes less bureaucracy and hierarchy. I certainly can't imagine too many pastors who would take on the responsibility of being a CL, including filling open churches (if I have understood you correctly), without sizable compensation for their added duties. Nor can I imagine how such an added duty could do anything other than be a detriment to the local congregation they already serve.

Please don't hear this as an attack, I just want to make sure we are thinking through all the details. I am all for change when change is necessary. But I am not convinced that reorganization is the big change that is necessary. Yes it could certainly use some work, but it is not a magic pill that is going to heal all that ails us. (See Jeremy's post above).

Peace!

[Eric Frey]

I really, really like this post. I would just add the following addendum - Let's do everything you have suggested, only with fewer and larger districts. One person cannot reasonably fulfill the role of DS over 300 churches, but a district of fewer than 100 is less and less sustainable in 2011.

So, I vote for your plan, but I still think our districts need some realignment. As far as the theological argument behind your plan, I couldn't agree more.

I cannot disagree with this. I would just add the following addendum ;)

Just as one person cannot reasonably fulfill the role of DS over 300 churches, neither can one person reasonably fulfill the role of DS over huge geographical areas. Part of that DS role is regular attendance at the local congregation. To address problems. To conduct reviews. To fill vacancies. To preach and get to know the congregation so when the other three need done the DS is not a stranger. Ohio has 5 districts. I think all of them have 80+ churches. It works for us. I have heard discussions of moving to 3 districts which would make 135 churches per district. Geographically, that is reasonable, but is that too many churches for the DS to oversee? Similarly I am sure there are districts who could merge like Minnesota recently did with Dakota and have a manageable number of churches. But is that geographical area reasonable for one DS to oversee (all of ND, SD, and MN)? I don't know. I find it unlikely. So it is not just about number of churches, but is more a balancing act between number of churches and geographical area. Perhaps some math genius could develop a District Density recommendation!

Then, as it relates to this discussion, there is also a financial component as well... which I think is related to both the number and the geography. I'm starting to get a headache, so I'm going to stop now!

[Dennis M. Scott]

I I am an outside the box kind of thinker. But I can't in my wildest imagination imagine how moving from a GS/DS model to a GS/RS/Cluster Leader model makes less bureaucracy and hierarchy. I certainly can't imagine too many pastors who would take on the responsibility of being a CL, including filling open churches (if I have understood you correctly), without sizable compensation for their added duties. Nor can I imagine how such an added duty could do anything other than be a detriment to the local congregation they already serve.

I take it from the above that you are not bivocational, and that you are not pastoring on a district with mission area leaders, or cluster leaders.

[Jon Twitchell]

I wonder if we would do better to put more responsibility on the local church for the pastoral search process.

In addition to reducing DS responsibility, it forces the church to take a greater ownership in the process (and the result).

I'm not sure how (functionally) that would work... but I'd be interested in some thoughts on that topic.

[Eric Frey]

I am a full time pastor on a district that has just added "Zone Facilitators" or something like that. All it has accomplished in my mind is another level of red tape. I see no real benefit in it. This is exactly what we don't need. More layers of bureaucracy and more levels of red tape. Our Zone Facilitators really only have one task, "New Works" accountability. If that Zone Facilitator or Mission Area Leader, or cluster leader or whatever has a bunch more stuff to do to fill the role of a missing DS... I just don't see it as a feasible model. It's just my opinion. Maybe time will change it.

[Eric Frey]

I wonder if we would do better to put more responsibility on the local church for the pastoral search process.

In addition to reducing DS responsibility, it forces the church to take a greater ownership in the process (and the result).

I'm not sure how (functionally) that would work... but I'd be interested in some thoughts on that topic.

I think this would move us too far toward congregationalism for my taste.

[David Pettigrew]

I cannot disagree with this. I would just add the following addendum ;)

Just as one person cannot reasonably fulfill the role of DS over 300 churches, neither can one person reasonably fulfill the role of DS over huge geographical areas. Part of that DS role is regular attendance at the local congregation. To address problems. To conduct reviews. To fill vacancies. To preach and get to know the congregation so when the other three need done the DS is not a stranger. Ohio has 5 districts. I think all of them have 80+ churches. It works for us. I have heard discussions of moving to 3 districts which would make 135 churches per district. Geographically, that is reasonable, but is that too many churches for the DS to oversee? Similarly I am sure there are districts who could merge like Minnesota recently did with Dakota and have a manageable number of churches. But is that geographical area reasonable for one DS to oversee (all of ND, SD, and MN)? I don't know. I find it unlikely. So it is not just about number of churches, but is more a balancing act between number of churches and geographical area. Perhaps some math genius could develop a District Density recommendation!

Then, as it relates to this discussion, there is also a financial component as well... which I think is related to both the number and the geography. I'm starting to get a headache, so I'm going to stop now!

Understood. I believe there are currently 96 districts in the USA/Canada region. Could we reasonably get the job done with about 80? There are places where I believe one district instead of two makes a lot of sense. For instance - Arkansas has two districts, with a total of about 100 or so churches between the two. There is not place in the entire state that you cannot get to from another place in the state in under four hours driving time. South Arkansas has a campground; North Arkansas does not. North Arkansas is dedicating a beautiful new district office in the Little Rock metro area this year, South Arkansas offices out of Little Rock First Church.

I site this example because it's the one with which I'm most familiar, but I'm sure there are others.

[Jon Twitchell]

Part of that DS role is regular attendance at the local congregation. To address problems. To conduct reviews. To fill vacancies. To preach and get to know the congregation so when the other three need done the DS is not a stranger.

This may be an idealized view of the DSs' role... it seems that the amount of denominational expectation on our DSs is high enough that I'm not sure this expectation is a viable reality. Between USA/Canada meetings, Regional Trustees' meetings, attending other DAs, DS retreats, and district events, there are barely enough Sundays left in the year to get to the churches with need... let alone visits to the churches that are doing fine simply for the sake of making sure the DS isn't a stranger.

[Eric Frey]

Understood. I believe there are currently 96 districts in the USA/Canada region. Could we reasonably get the job done with about 80? There are places where I believe one district instead of two makes a lot of sense. For instance - Arkansas has two districts, with a total of about 100 or so churches between the two. There is not place in the entire state that you cannot get to from another place in the state in under four hours driving time. South Arkansas has a campground; North Arkansas does not. North Arkansas is dedicating a beautiful new district office in the Little Rock metro area this year, South Arkansas offices out of Little Rock First Church.

I site this example because it's the one with which I'm most familiar, but I'm sure there are others.

Absolutely. There are certainly some places where consolidation makes perfect sense. Arkansas seems to be one.

[David Pettigrew]

There is not place in the entire state that you cannot get to from another place in the state in under four hours driving time.

This has to be in the top ten of the most convoluted sentences ever written on naznet.

[Rich Schmidt]

This may be an idealized view of the DSs' role... it seems that the amount of denominational expectation on our DSs is high enough that I'm not sure this expectation is a viable reality. Between USA/Canada meetings, Regional Trustees' meetings, attending other DAs, DS retreats, and district events, there are barely enough Sundays left in the year to get to the churches with need... let alone visits to the churches that are doing fine simply for the sake of making sure the DS isn't a stranger.

I agree. My DS is there for me if I need him. I probably see him 20 times per year with district events & the district boards that I serve on. My church board knows him from our every-four-years pastoral review meetings, and they know how to reach him if there's a problem. I don't need him to preach in my church or visit regularly. He has other churches that need his attention on Sundays.

[Eric Frey]

This may be an idealized view of the DSs' role... it seems that the amount of denominational expectation on our DSs is high enough that I'm not sure this expectation is a viable reality. Between USA/Canada meetings, Regional Trustees' meetings, attending other DAs, DS retreats, and district events, there are barely enough Sundays left in the year to get to the churches with need... let alone visits to the churches that are doing fine simply for the sake of making sure the DS isn't a stranger.

So who does the DS position exist to serve? The general church or the local congregation? That is the question. Which is why the issue, for me is not so much about reorganization, but, as Jeremy pointed out, mission. The problem is not with the structure, the problem is with prioritization within the structure. I'll venture a guess that if we did a pole and then a little digging, we would find that the "best" DS's are the ones who maximize their time with their people and minimize their time elsewhere.

[Eric Frey]

I agree. My DS is there for me if I need him. I probably see him 20 times per year with district events & the district boards that I serve on. My church board knows him from our every-four-years pastoral review meetings, and they know how to reach him if there's a problem. I don't need him to preach in my church or visit regularly. He has other churches that need his attention on Sundays.

In Craig's post about denominationalism, there has been lots of discussion about people not liking denominationalism to various degrees. Perhaps our differences are a result of differing experiences. I have been here going on 5 years. My people will not participate in District events beyond District Assmebly (and then only the delegates). My people are very distrusting of management types (ie pastors and especially DS's). Why? relationships. No one is in any better position to address the difficulties of denominationalism than our DS's. I think people's biggest frustration with denominationalism is the perception that they want our money but don't really care about us. Pastors can help that some. But regular contact with the DS would go much further. Maybe the healthy churches don't need it. But I'd be willing to bet there are a whole lot more unhealthy churches for whom those contacts would be extremely helpful.

When I worked in the corporate world, it meant alot to hear my store manager say thanks. But about once a month our Regional Manger would stop in. He'd meet for a while with the management team. Then he'd spend some time with us workers. As much as my manager meant to me, the visits of the RGM meant alot more.

[Wes Smith]

Wes, I agree that reorganization is one part of the puzzle. But I think it is only a part. I am perfectly willing to explore reorganization as long as [1] it affirms and enhances our self understanding as "A Church" made of many "congregations" (A Body with many parts), and avoids any move toward becoming "an association of independent churches" (a whole bunch of little bodies who choose to lump themselves together); and, [2] it streamlines the hierarchy rather than expanding it.

I love your passion and optimism about this plan. But I see in it only two likely results. [1] the increased independence of local congregations and a decreased interdependence of the denomination. I understand I am likely in the minority about this point, so I won't belabor it. [2] I am an outside the box kind of thinker. But I can't in my wildest imagination imagine how moving from a GS/DS model to a GS/RS/Cluster Leader model makes less bureaucracy and hierarchy. I certainly can't imagine too many pastors who would take on the responsibility of being a CL, including filling open churches (if I have understood you correctly), without sizable compensation for their added duties. Nor can I imagine how such an added duty could do anything other than be a detriment to the local congregation they already serve.

Please don't hear this as an attack, I just want to make sure we are thinking through all the details. I am all for change when change is necessary. But I am not convinced that reorganization is the big change that is necessary. Yes it could certainly use some work, but it is not a magic pill that is going to heal all that ails us. (See Jeremy's post above).

Peace!

Consider the difference between a church with scads of lay leaders as opposed to a church with few. That is a close picture to what we are doing using the district system. We have one DS, whose skills are not typically above the skills of the majority of pastors. In some settings and times that role has evolved into an almost rock star category. How sad! Take that position and give it to 2,000 or 20,000 pastors across North America and develop a training system that kicks the ends out of our current graves and watch what happens. It could be that we have what it takes to make that position a position of honor and achievment and encouragement and blessing! Local cluster group leaders would not be limited by thinking that theirs is a life-long position, rather, a position that has a target of raising up other cluster leaders.

The thing that catches my imagination with the cluster group concept is that it takes us beyond the focus of building the Nazarene organization and places us exactly where we should be...more effectively and more purposefully participating in the jet stream of reaching lost people with the Good News! The organization is not the focus. It is simply a means to an end. The ultimate "end" is "Well Done!"

Friend,

Wes

[Billy Cox]

[2] I am an outside the box kind of thinker. But I can't in my wildest imagination imagine how moving from a GS/DS model to a GS/RS/Cluster Leader model makes less bureaucracy and hierarchy. I certainly can't imagine too many pastors who would take on the responsibility of being a CL, including filling open churches (if I have understood you correctly), without sizable compensation for their added duties. Nor can I imagine how such an added duty could do anything other than be a detriment to the local congregation they already serve.

If the aim is to save money, then regionalization is the wrong answer. Adding a layer of management always costs more, not less. I also think it's unlikely that the role of DS can be entirely eliminated and/or divided between key pastors. Denominationally speaking, the role of DS is by far the most important role. I just can't imagine how the denomination could unwind that much authority to cluster leaders without cutting itself off at the knees.

[Wes Smith]

I'm on the Northwest Indiana district. According to the Nazarene Research Center, we have a decadal worship attendance growth rate of 8.39%. (http://app.nazarene.org/FindAChurch/summaryReport?report=districtSummary&orgId=40) I have no idea how that compares to other districts. (It looks like WAPAC's at 3.2%. (http://app.nazarene.org/FindAChurch/summaryReport?report=districtSummary&orgId=54))

Like I said, I'm open to organizational changes. I just haven't seen anything suggesting that the regional/cluster model would be any more effective than the current district model. I think we could probably implement or "field test" parts of your model before committing to a total upheaval of our organizational structure. For example, clusters can be implemented now, as can regional events.

My personal opinion is that there's nothing stopping us from being remarkably missionally effective within the current district organizational model. Nothing but ourselves, anyway.

What if there is something stopping us from being remarkably missionally effective with the current district organization? We must consider that possibility.

Are we pleased with less than one percent growth per year in a culture that is breathtakingly turning away from our God and Christian values?

It is not possible, for sure, that changing organizational methodologies will automatically result in significant growth. But, we must be aggressively open to changes in both methodological and spiritual areas. Otherwise we are clearly communicating to God and to lost people that we have our limits, thereby placing more trust in our limits than in whatever new thing He may be wanting to do in and through us today!

Friend,

Wes

[Rich Schmidt]

What if there is something stopping us from being remarkably missionally effective with the current district organization? We must consider that possibility.

Are we pleased with less than one percent growth per year in a culture that is breathtakingly turning away from our God and Christian values?

Obviously, I'm not pleased with close-to-zero growth. I just don't see the district structure as contributing to that.

What about the district structure do you think is limiting us? You've mentioned cost & size... but I don't see your plan resulting in major cost savings, nor do I think anything is stopping us from clustering or huddling within our current structure. So... is there something else you're seeing? I'm open to learning...

[Wes Smith]

If the aim is to save money, then regionalization is the wrong answer. Adding a layer of management always costs more, not less. I also think it's unlikely that the role of DS can be entirely eliminated and/or divided between key pastors. Denominationally speaking, the role of DS is by far the most important role. I just can't imagine how the denomination could unwind that much authority to cluster leaders without cutting itself off at the knees.

Since we have not tried regionalization in NA, I speak with only my personal insights, but so does anyone who speaks against it.

We have 5 districts on our educational zone. For purposes of this discussion, let's just say that each district has a $500k District budget. That budget is used on all the districts in ways that the circumstances have dictated. That means, of course, that we have 2.5 million dollars that is being spent in ways that are reaching fewer and fewer people every year.

So, my thought is...let's not add another layer of management, let's remove one! With regionalization we will have one Regional Supt. and will have a cutting edge plan that will empower at least 30 cluster leaders to manage the needs of cluster groups of from 8 to 15 churches. This will not be anywhere near a full time job, so the cluster leader can use a small stipend to employ secretarial help and take the occasional evening to meet with pastors and local church leaders to develop plans to increase the kingdom within the context of their cluster area. What could be better than having motivated people taking responsibility for the spiritual needs of a smaller, more defined area?

I think there is the possibility that such a plan can be implemented and maintained for waaaay less than the 2.5m. The typical district level of management is gone. Unused and unusable assets can be liquidated and used for intentional and effect missional purposes. We are at a point in our history where evolution is our enemy and revolution is our dearest friend.

The fixation on the need for a DS "seems" irrational to me. No one has ever been a DS until he/she was a DS. That person lived in the context of hands on ministry and thrived to the point where a body of people saw that that person would make a good district leader. That leader was then withdrawn from effective kingdom advancement and placed in a position of monumental and overwhelming and debilitating bureaucracy. It is time to abandon that concept of leadership and management and run, not walk, to the regional and cluster concept.

This passion has been in my mind and heart and growing for at least 20 years. We have some capacity to voluntarily make the appropriate organizational changes. When it gets past voluntary, it gets ugly real quick!

Friend,

Wes

[Wes Smith]

And, just let me say something about the Regional Supt. Just an example.

I would love to have any one of the current Generals as my RS. His job would be to motivate and inspire the troops with a fresh vision of what God is doing and can do in that region. He would work with a regional counsel that would mirror the various important ministries within the church and would work through his (and, at some point, her) cluster leaders to maximize the advancement of the Kingdom in each cluster area. He/she would have the authority to do anything that the GS's currently do.

The internet would play a major part in the new structure and "Go To Meetings. com" would help the RS be anywhere in an instant.

Our publishing house would serve us by providing witnessing tools that would help us blanket each cluster area with the witness about our Lord. Our publication shift would broaden to include our new passion for reaching lost people for Jesus. There is no possibility that any of this would not be blessed. Our focus for seeking first His kingdom and righteousness would place us squarely in the heart of His blessing and provision. The resultant harvest would "fund forward" and be the seeds that will perpetuate the sharing of the Good News from generation to generation.

Each University would be given the mandate of establishing an internet "radio station" into which all Nazarene and other interested people could tune and hear the latest news and inspiration. Testimonies of salvation, healing and deliverance would be the order of the day.

Our new theme would be "Well Done!" and we would celebrate stories that focus on feeding hungry people, sharing water with the thirty, clothing the naked (a critical need in our culture!!!), and visiting the sick and imprisoned. Our new sense of spiritual passion would move us to daily participate in the very ministry of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ!

Is this prevented by our current organization? Evidently!

Friend,

Wes

[Edit...And, I am very strongly advocating for one GS. This would free up a current level of bureaucracy and put the other five in a position of measurable responsibility and accountability. I do not have the words to express how effective I think this would be. The one GS would serve as the mission-caster for the entire denomination.]

[Rich Schmidt]

And, just let me say something about the Regional Supt. Just an example.

I would love to have any one of the current Generals as my RS. His job would be to motivate and inspire the troops with a fresh vision of what God is doing and can do in that region. He would work with a regional counsel that would mirror the various important ministries within the church and would work through his (and, at some point, her) cluster leaders to maximize the advancement of the Kingdom in each cluster area. He/she would have the authority to do anything that the GS's currently do.

I don't have a problem with moving toward regionalization. But instead of imagining one of the GS's as your new RS, perhaps you should imagine one of the five DS's on your region moving up into that role. Just in case your region isn't one that gets a (former) GS. There aren't enough to go around. :)


The internet would play a major part in the new structure and "Go To Meetings. com" would help the RS be anywhere in an instant.
There's nothing stopping us from doing that now.


Our publishing house would serve us by providing witnessing tools that would help us blanket each cluster area with the witness about our Lord. Our publication shift would broaden to include our new passion for reaching lost people for Jesus. There is no possibility that any of this would not be blessed. Our focus for seeking first His kingdom and righteousness would place us squarely in the heart of His blessing and provision. The resultant harvest would "fund forward" and be the seeds that will perpetuate the sharing of the Good News from generation to generation.

This may be a good thing... but what does it have to do with district vs. regional/cluster?


Each University would be given the mandate of establishing an internet "radio station" into which all Nazarene and other interested people could tune and hear the latest news and inspiration. Testimonies of salvation, healing and deliverance would be the order of the day.

Ditto my last question. Besides, our university (http://www.olivet.edu) already has a radio station (http://www.shine.fm), and it's already available online.



Our new theme would be "Well Done!" and we would celebrate stories that focus on feeding hungry people, sharing water with the thirty, clothing the naked (a critical need in our culture!!!), and visiting the sick and imprisoned. Our new sense of spiritual passion would move us to daily participate in the very ministry of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ!

Same question again.


Is this prevented by our current organization? Evidently!

Umm... no, it's not evident. You could say the same thing about any aspect of our current structure and practice.

Is this prevented by our having paid, professional clergy? Evidently!
Is this prevented by our owning church buildings? Evidently!
Is this prevented by our meeting on Sunday mornings? Evidently!
Is this prevented by our using musical instruments in worship? Etc, etc, etc.

Just because we're currently not living up to our redemptive potential in this country doesn't mean you can pick one particular aspect of our structure and pin the blame on it.

[Rich Schmidt]

We have 5 districts on our educational zone. For purposes of this discussion, let's just say that each district has a $500k District budget. That budget is used on all the districts in ways that the circumstances have dictated. That means, of course, that we have 2.5 million dollars that is being spent in ways that are reaching fewer and fewer people every year.

Just for some perspective, we have 11 districts on our educational zone (ONU). Our district had a 2010 budget of $400k. We're one of the smaller districts on our region in number of churches, with a current count of 39 organized churches and 4 not-yet-organized churches. In 2010, we reported 7,311 in morning worship attendance, giving us an average church size of 170. We have 3 large churches on our district with morning worship attendance in the 900-1,300 range.

I have no idea what the numbers are like for the other 10 districts on our region... but anyone with some time to kill could find out using this map of USA districts (http://www.nazarene.org/files/docs/canusdst_nocolor.pdf) and this website (http://app.nazarene.org/FindAChurch/search.jsp?SearchChoice=churchReports). The ONU region covers Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan.


So, my thought is...let's not add another layer of management, let's remove one! With regionalization we will have one Regional Supt. and will have a cutting edge plan that will empower at least 30 cluster leaders to manage the needs of cluster groups of from 8 to 15 churches. This will not be anywhere near a full time job, so the cluster leader can use a small stipend to employ secretarial help and take the occasional evening to meet with pastors and local church leaders to develop plans to increase the kingdom within the context of their cluster area. What could be better than having motivated people taking responsibility for the spiritual needs of a smaller, more defined area?

I think there is the possibility that such a plan can be implemented and maintained for waaaay less than the 2.5m. The typical district level of management is gone. Unused and unusable assets can be liquidated and used for intentional and effect missional purposes. We are at a point in our history where evolution is our enemy and revolution is our dearest friend.

The fixation on the need for a DS "seems" irrational to me. No one has ever been a DS until he/she was a DS. That person lived in the context of hands on ministry and thrived to the point where a body of people saw that that person would make a good district leader. That leader was then withdrawn from effective kingdom advancement and placed in a position of monumental and overwhelming and debilitating bureaucracy. It is time to abandon that concept of leadership and management and run, not walk, to the regional and cluster concept.

I'm still waiting for you to answer some of the "nuts and bolts" questions asked by Dennis Scott in the second post in this thread (http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?4449-Regionalization...&p=72142&viewfull=1#post72142). Specifically, I'm curious about pastoral placement, pastoral reviews, and the other ways that DS's intervene to help when churches are in crisis. The district level of management isn't just bureaucracy. It's supporting the work of dozens of pastors and churches. Again, I'm not opposed to imagining ways we could do things differently. But we're talking about major changes here, so I'd like to hear some nuts and bolts on how this would actually work.


This passion has been in my mind and heart and growing for at least 20 years.

During those 20 years, have you spoken with any current or former DS's about this idea? They're the ones who have the clearest idea of what their job entails and would seem to know best how it might be split up among cluster leaders & regional leaders.


We have some capacity to voluntarily make the appropriate organizational changes. When it gets past voluntary, it gets ugly real quick!

So let's make the voluntary changes before pushing to make the involuntary ones. So much can be done differently within the current structure already. Like I said, nothing's stopping us from doing so many of the good things you're asking for. Let's not wait to start doing them until people are ready for major overhauls like the elimination of districts!

[Rich Schmidt]

Wes, I hope you don't mind my pushing back on this. I'm not trying to be antagonistic. I'm just wanting you to make your case more clearly and convincingly. I'm on our district advisory board. Our DS will hit "retirement age" sometime in the next 5-10 years. Now's the time for us to start discussing changes like this. So convince me! Help me know why I should advocate for these kinds of changes in our DAB meetings. Or pretend I'm already convinced, but I need answers to the objections that other DAB members will make.

I'm open to change... but not change for change's sake. Especially when it comes to something as monumental as dismantling the district structure that's been with us for the past 100 years or so.

[Wes Smith]

Rich,

You are asking questions that are impossible for me to answer. It would be possible for me, however, to turn each of those questions back in your directions. If the district system is so hot, then why are all of them languishing? Districts are led by good, even brilliant, people. If that means anything, we should be shooting the moon.

My perspective has been for many years that we have a window of opportunity to adjust our organizational approach to ministry with a dramatic overhaul throughout our entire organizational structure and to participate in a resultant resurgence.

I'm afraid that as a denomination we are living by the theme of "Be Bold! Think Inside The Box!"

The bottom line for me is that we are not going to burst out beyond our present malaise without transferring to some new wineskins. Back me into a corner and I am firmly convinced that we have lost our ability to spiritually reproduce. We are good at relating to each other, singing with each other, listening to sermons with each other, etc. That is partially another thread, but I do believe that re-organization into a regional/cluster model would shake us awake and create a new ambiance for making spiritual reproduction our number one priority.

Friend,

Wes

[Rich Schmidt]

You are asking questions that are impossible for me to answer. It would be possible for me, however, to turn each of those questions back in your directions. If the district system is so hot, then why are all of them languishing? Districts are led by good, even brilliant, people. If that means anything, we should be shooting the moon.

Again, though, we could say this about anything. Proponents of house/organic churches would ask, "If the system with churches in buildings and paid, professional clergy is so hot, then whey are all of them languishing?" Why zero in on the district structure as the source of the problem?

And, to be fair, not all districts are languishing. They might not all be "shooting the moon," but I just spent some time looking up the stats for the districts on our educational region (ONU/Central), and while some of the districts show actual decline over the past decade, more than half show growth in worship attendance, with 3 of them showing greater than 10% growth (12%, 12%, and 19%).


I'm afraid that as a denomination we are living by the theme of "Be Bold! Think Inside The Box!"

Again, that hasn't been my experience at all. I'm sorry if it's been yours. But that's not the message I hear from my DS, and it's not the message I hear from GS's, either.


The bottom line for me is that we are not going to burst out beyond our present malaise without transferring to some new wineskins. Back me into a corner and I am firmly convinced that we have lost our ability to spiritually reproduce. We are good at relating to each other, singing with each other, listening to sermons with each other, etc. That is partially another thread, but I do believe that re-organization into a regional/cluster model would shake us awake and create a new ambiance for making spiritual reproduction our number one priority.

Unfortunately, such a re-organization is a MASSIVE undertaking that would take cooperation from every single district and church in the USA & Canada. Even if it's a wonderful idea, it would take a lot of time and a lot of convincing.

In the meantime... let's transfer into some new wineskins locally! Start a new church! Start a new network of house churches! Be bold & think as far outside the box as you want to! Is the district going to stop you from starting a new church? From trying new things?

Call the other pastors in your area and start a cluster on your own! You don't need permission from anyone to do that. Start sharing stories & ideas with each other, praying for each other, and encouraging each other. Read a challenging book together, get some training together, do some joint mission/evangelism activities together.

As big and bold as your vision for a new organizational structure is... it's almost sad, because it sounds like you're pinning your hopes on this kind of reorganization being the thing that finally gets things moving in a better direction. But I say, why wait? Demonstrate! Demonstrate that small clusters of local churches working together results in increased missional effectiveness!

[Billy Cox]

That's the thing. I don't think it was meant to be an insightful statement. It wasn't an analysis of what ails the Church of the Nazarene. It's just letting people know that the GMC got hit by a "perfect storm" financially.

Responding to it with statements like, "If that is the consensus at the BGS level, the denominational structure of the CotN is in big trouble," seems completely unfair to the folks on the BGS.

The perfect storm argument is a cop-out. How many times do I have to hear that an impossible 'convergence' of adversities has hit all at once...like the 500 year flood that happens every two years. Please...

So let's agree that this level of analysis is *not* the consensus at the BGS level. We can thus both be happy in our own separate way. :)

[Rich Schmidt]

The perfect storm argument is a cop-out. How many times do I have to hear that an impossible 'convergence' of adversities has hit all at once...like the 500 year flood that happens every two years. Please...

So let's agree that this level of analysis is *not* the consensus at the BGS level. We can thus both be happy in our own separate way. :)

Cop-out for what? What do you think the GS was trying to explain with his comment? I read it as simply descriptive. In my words, "Wow, this sucks that these 3 things all hit at the same time." You seem to be reading it as an explanation for something: "Because these 3 things all hit at the same time, _________." What's in that blank for you?

I'm really trying to understand what you're seeing here, Billy. Because I'm just not seeing it.

[Dennis M. Scott]

But I say, why wait? Demonstrate! Demonstrate that small clusters of local churches working together results in increased missional effectiveness!

We did. It's more than twenty years ago, but we did it in Boston. It was in the days of "Urban Thrusts", which worked some places, and fell worse than flat in others. We couldn't get KC approval and funding, but decided to go it on our own. After the first hundred years in Boston, we had a net total of nine churches and fewer than a thousand members. Those nine churches began to pray together, and specifically pray the Lord of harvest to send laborers into the field. Making a long story short, within six years, there were nineteen churches and more than two thousand members. Today that group of churches has almost three thousand members.

During that same period, on the same district, nearly the same results were seen in Connecticut. It took a little longer there, but similar efforts and goals were reached. In both cases, the district fully encouraged the projects, but they were not district driven - they were driven by the Lord. He brought out resources and personnel we hadn't dreamed. The obstacles were not money, buildings or people. The obstacles were all in our minds. There were a few who said nothing would happen, and in those congregations not much did happen. There were other groups that were desperate to have God do just about anything He wanted, and in those areas the Lord worked miracles. It may not "work" every time, everywhere, but our experience in Boston and Connecticut was that it did.

[Eric Frey]

In my humble opinion, something much bigger than we know is going on in North American Christianity. It simply is not what it was and it is not ever going to be again. Not only that, but North American Nazarene Christianity is not what it was and it will never be again. If we could either get with the paradigm shift that is going on, or even try to get out ahead of it, the results would be huge. Again, my opinion.

From the leaders in the denomination that I trust the most, all I'm gettting is, "These sorts of things take time." That may be and may have been a luxury that we had in the past. My perception is that we do not have time and if we try to use time, we will lose most of the opportunity with which we are now presented.

Our GS said to me at our DA, "We have been significantly hurt by the convergence of three components: 1. Recession, 2. Bad timing on the new formula for "budgets" and, 3. A devestating lawsuit." So true, and I agree. What seems "true" to me is that we are pretty committed to waiting out the results of the convergence. That is not a reference to my GS, rather to our corporate shyness.

We may regain health under the leadership of our new DS. I have some doubt that regaining our health will lead to regionalization (which I believe to be the new model of efficiency...reducing beauracy and bringing accountability to the closest local level through cluster groups). But perhaps healthy districts will absorb unhealthy districts leading to a shadow model of regionaliziation.

Friend,

Wes

Rich,

When I first read Wes's thread, my response was similar to Billy's. It seemed to me, because of the paragraph before Billy's quote (talking about paradigm shifts) and the paragraphs following (regaining health), that the three piece convergence was being used as the reason we need to get on with the change. The reality is the change needs to happen because of the changing paradigm in NA. What I hear Billy saying is that it shouldn't take things like this to motivate the church to change. What I hear in Billy's question is something like, what is really our BGS's motive for change? that the world is changing and we need to be able to respond to a changing world? or that our GMC is collapsing and so we have to change.

I really don't see anything sinister in these kinds of questions. I simply think Billy is asking if the symptom is not being mistaken for the disease...

Maybe I'm wrong...

[Rich Schmidt]

Rich,

When I first read Wes's thread, my response was similar to Billy's. It seemed to me, because of the paragraph before Billy's quote (talking about paradigm shifts) and the paragraphs following (regaining health), that the three piece convergence was being used as the reason we need to get on with the change. The reality is the change needs to happen because of the changing paradigm in NA. What I hear Billy saying is that it shouldn't take things like this to motivate the church to change. What I hear in Billy's question is something like, what is really our BGS's motive for change? that the world is changing and we need to be able to respond to a changing world? or that our GMC is collapsing and so we have to change.

I really don't see anything sinister in these kinds of questions. I simply think Billy is asking if the symptom is not being mistaken for the disease...

Maybe I'm wrong...

Thanks, Eric.

1. The paragraphs before and after are Wes's thoughts, hopes, and dreams, not those of the denomination or the GS in question. If anything, Wes seems to think that the general church is just going to wait out this convergence ("these things take time"), not use it as motivation for changing anything (other than tightening their belts), and that's frustrating him.

2. I'm still not sure what the paradigm shift is that Wes is referring to. Depending on what books you read, there are lots of paradigm shifts going on. :) Maybe I'm already on the other side of the shift Wes is concerned about. I'm not sure. If the "what it was" that we're leaving behind is the traditional Nazarene church of the '60's, '70's, and '80's, then I'm definitely on the other side of that. :)

I tend to get a bit sensitive and defensive of others when I feel they are being treated unfairly, whether it's Rob Bell, George Wallace, or this anonymous GS. I want to make sure we always assume the best, especially when we're having to guess about context, motives, etc.

[Wes Smith]

1. One GS. The one GS would be an empassioned vision/mission-caster for the denomination.

2. The day of the District is dead. Too much bureaucracy for a leader to combine management and leadership. Too much cultural diversity within the boundaries of the District for a District organization to adequately address. Too top heavy. Too cumbersome. Fewer local churches willing to support a level of management that does not address their needs. The disconnect between churches at far ends of districts is significant. What local churches actually need can be delivered much more efficiently and economically.

3. Each Educational Zone could be declared a region with a Regional Superintendent who would serve as the leader/manager of the entire area. He would have a Regional Advisory Board and leaders of the various organizations...NYI, SDMI, NMI, an office and state-of-the-art capacity to communicate with anyone and everyone in the region. Regional Assembly would happen every other year and would be a powerful training event. Two years would give plenty of time for planning an intentionally helpful event. Regional Supts., would have the empowerment to ordain and conduct assemblies.

[I understand that World Mission areas are already regionalized.]

4. Each Region would be plotted into clusters and each cluster group would be led by a cluster leader. Training would be provided to assist the cluster leader and cluster groups in addressing the growth needs and cultural unique-ness of their cluster area. Cluster leaders would have the capacity and authority to assist local churches in pastoral arrangements. Cluster leaders would be given a stipend that would generously underwrite the costs of cluster needs. The heart of this transition is really wrapped up in the...multiplication (not minimization) of leadership. Cluster leaders would allow for exponential leadership in comparison to the old model of having one DS for 25-100 churches. Cluster leaders would be given the responsibility of raising up new clusters and new cluster leaders. In our current system, it is a bad thing to desire the office of DS. The concept of Cluster Leadership would be a responsibility to which nearly the entire tribe could aspire, and we would encourage them to, and we would recruit and train people for. Leadership development would become a priority and an ongoing process.

5. The ongoing cost of a Regional model of organizaton would be dramatically less than the District model, perhaps less than half of the combination of all the districts.

6. The Regional University would become a key component in Regional Church Growth and Development. Instead of being a quasi-independent educational institution with a "religion" department that operates, in many cases, much like a purposeless loose cannon (in regards to building the denomination), each University will become a key link in educating pastors and laity in reachng lost people for Christ and discipling believers in the art of being Christlike!

Just some thoughts this morning. At 63 years of age I am nearly completely dis-enamered with the low missional focus throughout our church. This is not sour grapes, rather what I think is a fair evaluation of our fear in going all out for Christ and His Great Commission. Our inability to focus on our mission exists most strongly in the local church, but is predominant at all other levels. In our fascination with our organization we have nearly forgotten our main task of reaching lost people for Jesus and discipling them to continue the cycle of reaching and discipling.

Part of my "hobby" is to chat with pastors and lay people about what is happening in their local church regarding the Great Commission and the Great Commandment. The pastors and lay people who testify to enthusiastic participation in Christ's charge to the Church are precious few. Pastors and lay people in the Church of the Nazarene who are facing up to the need to reach lost people and disciple them are paying a huge price. What an amazing contradiction to our biblical reason for existence! Our people have, by and large, drifted into a religious "me" culture where any attempt to care about others is resisted almost to the point of the shedding of blood!

There is much more to say about this, but to tell you the truth, I am happy if Districts can be resussitated and maintain some notable degree of vitality. I personally doubt that they can and I doubt that there is a casual remedy for the direction of our denomination. It does seem clear to me that it is time for "all good men to come to the aid of our cause." And, I think that the Lord's message about us carrying the cross has as much to say to us about renewal and restoration as it does about becoming a believer in the first place.

Friend,

Wes

[Wes Smith]

Thanks, Eric.

1. The paragraphs before and after are Wes's thoughts, hopes, and dreams, not those of the denomination or the GS in question. If anything, Wes seems to think that the general church is just going to wait out this convergence ("these things take time"), not use it as motivation for changing anything (other than tightening their belts), and that's frustrating him.

2. I'm still not sure what the paradigm shift is that Wes is referring to. Depending on what books you read, there are lots of paradigm shifts going on. :) Maybe I'm already on the other side of the shift Wes is concerned about. I'm not sure. If the "what it was" that we're leaving behind is the traditional Nazarene church of the '60's, '70's, and '80's, then I'm definitely on the other side of that. :)

I tend to get a bit sensitive and defensive of others when I feel they are being treated unfairly, whether it's Rob Bell, George Wallace, or this anonymous GS. I want to make sure we always assume the best, especially when we're having to guess about context, motives, etc.

I regret having quoted my GS. He did not say what he said with any attempt to be making an excuse. He was simply stating a fact. We have been hurt by some issues that are way beyond our control. That is true.

Giving leadership during times of significant difficulty is, hm, difficult!

Friend,

Wes

[Rich Schmidt]

We did. It's more than twenty years ago, but we did it in Boston. It was in the days of "Urban Thrusts", which worked some places, and fell worse than flat in others. We couldn't get KC approval and funding, but decided to go it on our own. After the first hundred years in Boston, we had a net total of nine churches and fewer than a thousand members. Those nine churches began to pray together, and specifically pray the Lord of harvest to send laborers into the field. Making a long story short, within six years, there were nineteen churches and more than two thousand members. Today that group of churches has almost three thousand members.

During that same period, on the same district, nearly the same results were seen in Connecticut. It took a little longer there, but similar efforts and goals were reached. In both cases, the district fully encouraged the projects, but they were not district driven - they were driven by the Lord. He brought out resources and personnel we hadn't dreamed. The obstacles were not money, buildings or people. The obstacles were all in our minds. There were a few who said nothing would happen, and in those congregations not much did happen. There were other groups that were desperate to have God do just about anything He wanted, and in those areas the Lord worked miracles. It may not "work" every time, everywhere, but our experience in Boston and Connecticut was that it did.

That's great! I'm glad to hear that you didn't wait on approval or funding from KC or the district... though it sounds like your district leaders encouraged and supported your efforts. This is the kind of thing I had in mind when I said nothing (including the district structure) is stopping us from doing the mission & doing it well!

I'm curious... what approval & funding were you looking to KC for? What were you hoping they might provide?

I'm also curious if the same thing is still happening there. Are the churches still clustering together, or was it more of a one-time burst (or "thrust") of missional energy?

[Susan Unger]

We did. It's more than twenty years ago, but we did it in Boston. It was in the days of "Urban Thrusts", which worked some places, and fell worse than flat in others. We couldn't get KC approval and funding, but decided to go it on our own. After the first hundred years in Boston, we had a net total of nine churches and fewer than a thousand members. Those nine churches began to pray together, and specifically pray the Lord of harvest to send laborers into the field. Making a long story short, within six years, there were nineteen churches and more than two thousand members. Today that group of churches has almost three thousand members.

During that same period, on the same district, nearly the same results were seen in Connecticut. It took a little longer there, but similar efforts and goals were reached. In both cases, the district fully encouraged the projects, but they were not district driven - they were driven by the Lord. He brought out resources and personnel we hadn't dreamed. The obstacles were not money, buildings or people. The obstacles were all in our minds. There were a few who said nothing would happen, and in those congregations not much did happen. There were other groups that were desperate to have God do just about anything He wanted, and in those areas the Lord worked miracles. It may not "work" every time, everywhere, but our experience in Boston and Connecticut was that it did.

Thanks, Thanks, Thanks!

[Billy Cox]

I regret having quoted my GS. He did not say what he said with any attempt to be making an excuse. He was simply stating a fact. We have been hurt by some issues that are way beyond our control. That is true.

The recession was beyond our control. The change to the budget formula *was* within the control of those in leadership. And let's be real... the budget formula change was a response/reaction to something, not just a case of someone being bored and deciding to jack around with the denomination's primary source of revenue. As for the lawsuit, it's true that the lawsuit itself was out of leadership's control, but the systemic shortcomings that allowed it to be so widely destructive were within the leadership's control.

Maybe it wasn't intended as an excuse, but that's exactly what it sounds like.

[Rich Schmidt]

Maybe it wasn't intended as an excuse, but that's exactly what it sounds like.

An excuse for.... what? For not moving toward regionalization, like Wes wants?

This is the question I can't seem to get you to answer. Until you do, I'm not going to be able to understand where you're coming from on this.

[Billy Cox]

An excuse for.... what? For not moving toward regionalization, like Wes wants?

No, I am responding to the apparent narrative that the denomination is a victim of circumstances beyond its control; offered as an excuse for why the denomination's finances are in the toilet. Does that answer your question?

[Rich Schmidt]

No, I am responding to the apparent narrative that the denomination is a victim of circumstances beyond its control; offered as an excuse for why the denomination's finances are in the toilet. Does that answer your question?

Yes! Thank you! :)

[Wes Smith]

No, I am responding to the apparent narrative that the denomination is a victim of circumstances beyond its control; offered as an excuse for why the denomination's finances are in the toilet. Does that answer your question?

Just to be clear...from my perspective. The GS did not present his statement with the word or concept of "excuse" being used. He simply stated that we had been hurt by the convergence of three issues. The elimination of any one of the issues would make things much easier (imo). This piece of the regionalization thread seems way too personal and, even, judgmental. If there is a need to continue opining on this subject, let's do it off-thread and off-NazNet.

Friend,

Wes

[Billy Cox]

Just to be clear...from my perspective. The GS did not present his statement with the word or concept of "excuse" being used. He simply stated that we had been hurt by the convergence of three issues. The elimination of any one of the issues would make things much easier (imo). This piece of the regionalization thread seems way too personal and, even, judgmental. If there is a need to continue opining on this subject, let's do it off-thread and off-NazNet.

It's not personal until someone perceives the critique of an idea as a judgment of the person expressing it.

Blaming the recession for the denomination's ills reflects either that the speaker doesn't know better, or that the speaker thinks that we don't know better.

Falling revenues and a damaging lawsuit are not the problems, but are symptomatic of something more foundational. I don't know why that is so hard to accept. How can you suggest a radical reorganization of the denomination without grasping even that much?

[Wes Smith]

It's not personal until someone perceives the critique of an idea as a judgment of the person expressing it.

Blaming the recession for the denomination's ills reflects either that the speaker doesn't know better, or that the speaker thinks that we don't know better.

Falling revenues and a damaging lawsuit are not the problems, but are symptomatic of something more foundational. I don't know why that is so hard to accept. How can you suggest a radical reorganization of the denomination without grasping even that much?

Easy to answer. We are discussing and assigning various values to the comments of someone who is not present, nor can be. Done.

My sincerest apologies for posting the comment.

Regarding us suggesting radical reorganization of the denomination outside of a critique of that comment is also easy. Forget the comment and focus discussion on the various other posts.

Friend,

Wes

[Wes Smith]

I'm still not sure what the paradigm shift is that Wes is referring to. Depending on what books you read, there are lots of paradigm shifts going on.

So true. Many! This seems obvious, but my main concern about a paradigm shift focuses on stuff that has mostly already happened. The one that concerns me most revolves around the issue that the church can no longer enjoy the luxury of just hanging around and people will show up. Nearly all of the most faithful people in our churches have not brought a visitor to church with them in the past many decades. And we live as though most everything is just fine. The new paradigm that actually emerged a couple decades ago was based on developing need-meeting ministries and plans to aggressively seek out the people in the surrounding communities. There is not one in ten Nazarene churches that have made the shift. When it comes to developing need meeting ministries, we are still thoroughly stuck in the mode of making sure we have someone's permission. That is SO strange. When we do our services, where we do our services, what ministries we provide must all be paraded by power people in order to move on in touching lives. Here is a good sop, "Jesus, would you be pleased if we shifted things around to begin some new ministries that would touch the lives of some authentically, card-carrying, pre-believers?"

That really is not the total heart of the deal. We Nazarenes have developed such a calcified culture that we honestly do not want to be the ones who make the break and do whatever we need to do to reach lost folks. Our main concern is horizontal, not Vertical. We act like Matt. 25 was added simply because another chapter is needed. What would happen if in the context of the parable of the sheep and goats that Nazarenes came to the bedrock conclusion that nothing matters more than hearing those two precious words, "Well, done!!!"?

Okay, I know I sound like a broken record. This paradigm shift is exactly why we MUST move to regional oversight and cluster ministry focus. We should not give one rip about how we meet authentic needs. We should be totally put off by NOT meeting authentic needs. Don't ask permission about what to do, how to meet needs. Simply learn good growth habits from each other. One of my mentors ingrained the principle within me, "My most worn gear is reverse!" Don't be afraid to try. Don't be afraid to fail. LIVE the legend. Spread the word...Nazarenes are made up of the Tribe of Joshua and Caleb. Yes, there are giants in the land, fruit that is ripe for the pickin'!

Is it possible to continue the way we are, ramp things up a bit and come out with slightly better results? Of course. There are several tricks to keeping a body going, even life support is better than death, I suppose. Tell you this much. If they someday declare that Wes has cancer, please do not put me on aspirin or put a bandaid over the area where the cancer is discovered. No, sir. Get me to surgery. I don't want my hurt healed slightly. Not on your life. Then, as a man of God I am compelled to say...spread the word. The paradigm has changed. What used to work doesn't. Find the cloud and the pillar of fire and run, don't walk to get with what is reaching lost people. That's the only time I ever saw God run!

There are two basic components to a changing ecclesiastical paradigm...structural and spiritual.

I'm luxuriating in my office for a few minutes right now. It's been a long day. I spent lunch with the 78 people in my Sr. Bowling League. They asked me to pray the blessing over the meal. Problem was they forgot to ask me before the meal. When I was asked to pray after the meal, I said, "I was raised in a conservative Nazarene home in Iowa. My mother taught us that the unforgivable sin was actually consuming a meal without praying first. (tense laughter) Several of you, I noticed, ate without praying. I'm going to do you all a favor now and make this prayer retro-active. You will notice a spirit of heaviness lift off you as the Lord forgives you!!! (Much laughter as I slapped my knee and laughed with them!)" Then I prayed.

In the sanctuary right now, around 100 people are Celebrating Recovery. Many of these people are smelly and uncouth and their lives are out of control. I try to make it impossible for anyone to be here without receiving one of my hugs and some genuine eye-to-eye attention. This isn't the Wes Smith of yesteryears. God had His ways to convince me that His heart breaks for lost people. The most responsive lost people are the folks who have nothing else to lose.

An interesting sidebar story. We were running out of money to support the CR program. It takes food and supplies. Last week, for the first time, they took an offering and the CR folks gave over $200.00! This evening they gave $183.00. Amazing. Earlier, I stepped out with the smokers earlier and joked with them, "I know how we are going to underwrite the cost of CR, for every cigarette you smoke, you must give a dollar to CR. The ring leader of the group didn't miss a lick, "I'm quittin'!"

Wish I could tell you that my chief interest in this paradigm shift is the survival of our denomination. Can't do it. Some of my concern for survival has to do with my local church. We say we will do anything, go anywhere, give all. Ain't true. The people of God have learned from our past few decades that "church" is pretty and pretty comfortable and pretty easy. I'm banking everything I have on the fact that God will bless and support churches and believers and leaders who are willing to care about lost people. In this regard, the paradigm never changes. Never. One of these days I hope to have a glorious story to tell about how our church made a marvelous turnaround. It is not a given that our church will survive this turn in the direction of lost people. But even (much) more importantly, I'm hoping to hear the two words that are my ticket and welcome into a glorious eternity, "Well Done." (Not medium rare!)

All My Love,

Wes

PS. So much for my earlier promise to be brief in subsequent posts. Please forgive me!

[Dennis M. Scott]

That's great! I'm glad to hear that you didn't wait on approval or funding from KC or the district... though it sounds like your district leaders encouraged and supported your efforts. This is the kind of thing I had in mind when I said nothing (including the district structure) is stopping us from doing the mission & doing it well!

I'm curious... what approval & funding were you looking to KC for? What were you hoping they might provide?

I'm also curious if the same thing is still happening there. Are the churches still clustering together, or was it more of a one-time burst (or "thrust") of missional energy?

Church Growth in KC asked us to apply to be chosen as a denominationally funded "Thrust City." As it turned out, they asked ten cities to apply, and chose one - and I don't remember which city was chosen. After both Boston and Connecticut proved somewhat successful efforts, the several of us on the district got together to brainstorm. The late Pastor Larry Crampsey asked if it would be possible to put divide all the churches on the district into groups - shortly thereafter called "mission areas", and replicate what had happened in Boston and Connecticut. Another in the group was the district superintendent, Ken Mills, who almost immediately appointed mission area leaders and began to regularly meet with those leaders for prayer and leadership training. Shortly thereafter, district leadership transitioned, bringing new vision, including redefining "mission." The mission area leader concept continued through yet another district leadership change, with another vision, philosophy and agenda. Many good things have occurred in those mission areas, but to my knowledge, none have been especially marked by numeric growth. From time to time, mission area leaders have performed most DS responsibilities related to local churches, including pastoral placement.

If clusters are to accomplish their objective, that objective will have to be clear. It remains to be seen if clusters can do mission. If the objective is to do the work presently expected of district superintendents, I think it can happen. I personally would be happier if clusters could be committed to mission, and prayerfully engage toward that.

[Rich Schmidt]

So true. Many! This seems obvious, but my main concern about a paradigm shift focuses on stuff that has mostly already happened. The one that concerns me most revolves around the issue that the church can no longer enjoy the luxury of just hanging around and people will show up. Nearly all of the most faithful people in our churches have not brought a visitor to church with them in the past many decades. And we live as though most everything is just fine. The new paradigm that actually emerged a couple decades ago was based on developing need-meeting ministries and plans to aggressively seek out the people in the surrounding communities.

Thank you for clearing up this mystery! :) Now I feel like we have something to talk about!


There is not one in ten Nazarene churches that have made the shift. When it comes to developing need meeting ministries, we are still thoroughly stuck in the mode of making sure we have someone's permission. That is SO strange. When we do our services, where we do our services, what ministries we provide must all be paraded by power people in order to move on in touching lives. Here is a good sop, "Jesus, would you be pleased if we shifted things around to begin some new ministries that would touch the lives of some authentically, card-carrying, pre-believers?"

That really is not the total heart of the deal. We Nazarenes have developed such a calcified culture that we honestly do not want to be the ones who make the break and do whatever we need to do to reach lost folks. Our main concern is horizontal, not Vertical. We act like Matt. 25 was added simply because another chapter is needed. What would happen if in the context of the parable of the sheep and goats that Nazarenes came to the bedrock conclusion that nothing matters more than hearing those two precious words, "Well, done!!!"?

Reading this reminds me again that you and I evidently live and minister in very different contexts. Our district superintendent is very permission-giving. He tells us to do whatever we need to do to reach lost folks & accomplish the mission! Churches that try new things are celebrated here. We don't have a "calcified culture" at all. On our district, I would put the number of churches that have made the shift much higher than one in ten. With more making it every year.

I feel for you, Wes. I really do. And I have no idea if your experience or mine is more typical when it comes to the Church of the Nazarene in the USA. I certainly hope and pray that mine is more the norm.


Okay, I know I sound like a broken record. This paradigm shift is exactly why we MUST move to regional oversight and cluster ministry focus. We should not give one rip about how we meet authentic needs. We should be totally put off by NOT meeting authentic needs. Don't ask permission about what to do, how to meet needs. Simply learn good growth habits from each other. One of my mentors ingrained the principle within me, "My most worn gear is reverse!" Don't be afraid to try. Don't be afraid to fail. LIVE the legend. Spread the word...Nazarenes are made up of the Tribe of Joshua and Caleb. Yes, there are giants in the land, fruit that is ripe for the pickin'!

For the life of me, I still can't figure out how the good things in this paragraph depend on (or are even connected to) the move to regional oversight and cluster groups that you feel MUST happen. All you really need is district leadership that pushes you in the right direction!

I'm wondering if perhaps you feel like the district structure MUST be eliminated because your particular district has fostered the "calcified culture" you described. So you feel like the only answer is to eliminate the district structure altogether. I have to say, a much simpler solution is to get new district leadership (which you just did) that can help change the district culture to one that encourages and celebrates all these good things you describe here. I hope and pray that your new district superintendent will help your district make this much-needed shift![/QUOTE]

[Wes Smith]

Thank you for clearing up this mystery! :) Now I feel like we have something to talk about!



Reading this reminds me again that you and I evidently live and minister in very different contexts. Our district superintendent is very permission-giving. He tells us to do whatever we need to do to reach lost folks & accomplish the mission! Churches that try new things are celebrated here. We don't have a "calcified culture" at all. On our district, I would put the number of churches that have made the shift much higher than one in ten. With more making it every year.

I feel for you, Wes. I really do. And I have no idea if your experience or mine is more typical when it comes to the Church of the Nazarene in the USA. I certainly hope and pray that mine is more the norm.



For the life of me, I still can't figure out how the good things in this paragraph depend on (or are even connected to) the move to regional oversight and cluster groups that you feel MUST happen. All you really need is district leadership that pushes you in the right direction!

I'm wondering if perhaps you feel like the district structure MUST be eliminated because your particular district has fostered the "calcified culture" you described. So you feel like the only answer is to eliminate the district structure altogether. I have to say, a much simpler solution is to get new district leadership (which you just did) that can help change the district culture to one that encourages and celebrates all these good things you describe here. I hope and pray that your new district superintendent will help your district make this much-needed shift![/QUOTE]

Rich,

Please don't feel sorry for me. My response is not at all tied to the "restrictive" district where I currently serve or where I have ever served. It is frustrating to me that I'm unable to make a very convincing case. Ha!

But let me get this straight...you are on the ideal district, your DS specializes in promoting creativity and people are free to develop new ministries, and, then, you pull out your biggest gun and lay it on the table: 8% decadal growth, less than one percent growth per year and, I guess, the fact that your district is falling behind simple population growth a bit more slowly is the reason you feel so good about keeping the current structure? Respectfully now...seriously? I'm kind of thinking the chasm between our "symbolic universes" may be impossible to bridge. (Where's the smiley emblem?)

My response to your amazement at my longing for regionalization is that it seems to me that what you are supporting is likely what I see as the enemy. Sometimes "tolerable" makes "great" impossible.

Yes, I am advocating for a different system than district and I find your attachment to what seems dynasoratic (!), mind boggling! Honest! But, I do love you nevertheless!

I need to look at some stats and will get back here pretty soon.

Friend,

Wes

[Wes Smith]

Rich,

For some reason, I wasn't able to make the research center work for me. My thought was that I would like to see the same decadal stats for the Kansas City District and the Northwest District, but wasn't able to make them appear. The reason I would like to see their stats is because both districts have elected men that I deeply respect and I just like to see how installing two outstanding leaders has impacted those districts. Can you post the same info you posted on your district?

Not that it willl make the case. Just a bit of information to feed into the process.

Friend,

Wes

[Rich Schmidt]

My response is not at all tied to the "restrictive" district where I currently serve or where I have ever served.

I'm glad to hear that. But then I'm confused, because you describe this calcified Nazarene culture that still expects lost people to just show up (that hasn't clued in to the paradigm shift you described, in other words)... but that sounds nothing like the Nazarene culture here on our district. Your description of this not-yet-transitioned Nazarene culture must be based on something, so I can only assume it's based on your current experience there on your district. But now you say it's not? Then what are you basing it on?


But let me get this straight...you are on the ideal district, your DS specializes in promoting creativity and people are free to develop new ministries, and, then, you pull out your biggest gun and lay it on the table: 8% decadal growth, less than one percent growth per year and, I guess, the fact that your district is falling behind simple population growth a bit more slowly is the reason you feel so good about keeping the current structure? Respectfully now...seriously? I'm kind of thinking the chasm between our "symbolic universes" may be impossible to bridge. (Where's the smiley emblem?)

Our district isn't ideal. It just doesn't look like the reality you're describing. And, for the record, we're staying just ahead of population growth. :)Indiana's population has grown 6.6% in the past decade. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana) And most of that growth has not occurred on our district. But that's beside the point. We (the churches) are still not growing like we could/should.

Like I said earlier, pointing out the fact that we're not reaching our redemptive potential is not the same as accurately diagnosing the source of the problem. Since you've used medical metaphors, imagine you go to the doctor with a serious illness, and he tells you the solution is to switch to a vegetarian diet. When you question him, he says, "Vegetarian diets are healthier! Why are you so tied to your meat-eating habit? Look where it's gotten you!" You would want the doctor to help you understand the connection between the treatment and the disease, right? That's what I'm asking for, too.

Why see the district structure as the source of the problem? Why not professional clergy? Why not ________?



My response to your amazement at my longing for regionalization is that it seems to me that what you are supporting is likely what I see as the enemy. Sometimes "tolerable" makes "great" impossible.

Yes, I am advocating for a different system than district and I find your attachment to what seems dynasoratic (!), mind boggling! Honest! But, I do love you nevertheless!

I'm honestly not "attached" to the district structure. Remember, I'm on the district that's open to change! :D Our church plant has (in the past) questioned whether or not we should even remain connected to the denomination! (Again, that's in the past. We made our decision.) I'm very open to trying new approaches. But the change you're pushing for is massive... and doesn't even really seem connected (in my mind) to the real changes you want to see happen at the local level. You want to see churches go all-out in trying to connect with and reach the lost in their communities. You want to see Christians leading folks to Christ & discipling them, so they in turn can lead others to Christ & disciple them. You want to see churches cooperating and learning from each other. Great! These are all good things! And not one of them is significantly affected by whether the structure the churches operate within is district or regional in scope.

One reason I've pushed back is because I was afraid you might be one of those people who is looking for a scapegoat. You know, like the out-of-work white guy who spends all his time griping about illegal immigration, because he's convinced that if the government would just get all these illegals out of the country, then he'd have a job. I was afraid you were saying, "If we could just get rid of the district structure and move to a regional/cluster model, then churches would really start reaching lost people!" However, your description of what your church is up to sounds like you're not looking for a scapegoat or waiting for things to change at the district/regional level. You're making things happen right now & reaching folks for Christ. That's great!

I'm also not amazed at your longing for regionalization. You have a picture in your mind of how things could be, of how they should be, and you want to make it a reality. That's great, too! I'm just not seeing the connection between the different parts of your picture. I'm not seeing how regionalization makes a significant difference in whether or not local churches are willing to change the ways they think and act. That's all.

[Rich Schmidt]

For some reason, I wasn't able to make the research center work for me. My thought was that I would like to see the same decadal stats for the Kansas City District and the Northwest District, but wasn't able to make them appear. The reason I would like to see their stats is because both districts have elected men that I deeply respect and I just like to see how installing two outstanding leaders has impacted those districts. Can you post the same info you posted on your district?

Let's see... the Congregational Statistics search form is here (http://app.nazarene.org/FindAChurch/search.jsp?SearchChoice=churchReports). And that gives us the stats summary pages for the Kansas City district (http://app.nazarene.org/FindAChurch/summaryReport?report=districtSummary&orgId=60) and the Northwest district (http://app.nazarene.org/FindAChurch/summaryReport?report=districtSummary&orgId=38).

I hope that helps.

[Wes Smith]

Let's see... the Congregational Statistics search form is here (http://app.nazarene.org/FindAChurch/search.jsp?SearchChoice=churchReports). And that gives us the stats summary pages for the Kansas City district (http://app.nazarene.org/FindAChurch/summaryReport?report=districtSummary&orgId=60) and the Northwest district (http://app.nazarene.org/FindAChurch/summaryReport?report=districtSummary&orgId=38).

I hope that helps.

It helps, but not in the way I was expecting. I thought that the stats from these two districts might strengthen your case. Any other possibilities?

Friend,

Wes

[Wes Smith]

By the way, not only are you wrong in your support of District organization being the hope of the world, you are up waaaaay too late. Get to bed.

Friend,

Wes

[David Pettigrew]

After reading through this thread, I'm more and more convinced that fewer, stronger districts that put resources into mission and professional development are the answer. The more bureaucracy we can eliminate, the more effective we can be. We have way too many meetings, and I leave the majority of them saying "there's not a thing we accomplished in the last three hours (plus two hours driving) that could not have been decided through an email poll. "

[Wes Smith]

Simple Benefits of Regionalization:

1. One GS for the entire denomination. Nationality does not matter. We look to one GS for vision casting and as a leader of the General Council. Six GS's is unwieldy and places unrealistic expectations and responsibilities on them.

2. Regions based on current Educatonal Zones in North America led by one RS and an advisory group and auxilliary leaders. RS would ordain, conduct Regional Assemblies and work with Cluster Leaders. Regions would replace the District system and dramatically reduce the cost of church management on the Region.

3. Cluster Groups and Cluster Leaders would be the primary focus of regionalization. Cluster leaders would accomplish many of the tasks of the old order of District Superintendency, but on a far more managable basis...assisting 8-14 local churches and pastors. Reproduction of clusters and cluster leaders would be a core value.



A. One GS
B. One RS
C. Unlimited Cluster Leaders and Cluster Groups

Friend,

Wes

[Wes Smith]

One powerful benefit to regionalization is that it allows us, actually encourages us to be a worldwide church. In a way, Regional Superitendents around the world take on some of the characteristics of our current GS's, since they would ordain and conduct assemblies. Each world region is led by a gifted RS with an understanding of leadership development and a natural affinity for the needs of and value of regions around the world. The General Board is made up of RS's and other Regional Reps and meets through mediums such as "Go To Meetings Dot Com."

Friend,

Wes

[Houston Thomas]

Wes-

Appreciate all of your impassioned thoughts on this thread. One place where I will strongly disagree is the suggestion of 1 GS. Part of the benefit of a Board of General Superintendents is that influence is dispersed and shared among them. When they speak and act as a board, which I think needs to happen more often, it carries legitimacy. While it might appear that localizing influence in 1 would increase that person's power I really think the opposite happens: their influence is limited and it diminishes.

That, and a Board of General Superintendents minimizes the risk that the 1 GS will say something off the cuff that is unfortunate and ill informed that is understood as speaking for the denomination.

[Jon Twitchell]

I'm curious about one aspect of your plan....

Particularly, are you suggesting that the USA/Canada educational regions would be on the same organizational level as the World Regions?

To me, that seems like an interesting inequality... to consider 8 districts from a fairly homogenous culture to be the same, administratively, as entire continents of multiple nations, languages, etc.

[Wes Smith]

After reading through this thread, I'm more and more convinced that fewer, stronger districts that put resources into mission and professional development are the answer. The more bureaucracy we can eliminate, the more effective we can be. We have way too many meetings, and I leave the majority of them saying "there's not a thing we accomplished in the last three hours (plus two hours driving) that could not have been decided through an email poll. "

David,

You must know that I love you and have a wonderful plan for your life. Call these new megadistricts "regions" and get on with the development of clusters. You could be my first convert. Okay, choir, just sing the chorus one more time. If no one comes...yada, yada, yada.

Friend,

Wes

[Wes Smith]

Houston,

Thanks for your response.

I suppose that Dave McClung cannot comment because of his leadership of the Nazarene Futures Commission. His comments on this subject are a matter of record somewhere in the history of NazNet. His posts and his personal comments have led me to conclude that multiple equal leaders at the head of an organization seriously impedes progress.

The concept is that a new definition of RS (empowered to conduct assemblies and ordain) would take the place of our historic affection for six GS's.

Actually, I think one GS informed and empowered by a General Board would be a significant minimalization of the risk of mispeaking the priorities established by the General Board. Having 6 GS's trying to communicate an identical message would seem to me to be a far greater risk.

Friend,

Wes

[Wes Smith]

I'm curious about one aspect of your plan....

Particularly, are you suggesting that the USA/Canada educational regions would be on the same organizational level as the World Regions?

To me, that seems like an interesting inequality... to consider 8 districts from a fairly homogenous culture to be the same, administratively, as entire continents of multiple nations, languages, etc.

Jon,

Yes, that is precisely what I'm suggesting. So...8 REGIONS. Homogenous used to be true. It no longer is. Thus we now identify North America as a World Mission's Region.

A heretofore unspoken reason for regionalization in NA is to refresh and enhance our NA capacity to financially invest in World Evangelism. A return to growth and vitality in NA would do much to enable us to return to a significant investment in and support of NMI efforts to spread scriptural holiness around the world.

I know that God would raise up new and gifted leaders for the challenging times ahead, but one of my personal enthusiasms about reducing 6 GS's to 1 is that potentially five of our current GS's would be available for Regional Superitendency! Obviously, it would take 8 such leaders, but the value of focusing the leadership skills of such people to a much more definable area would be, imo, RADICAL!

Friend,

Wes

[David Pettigrew]

Here's my problem with one GS. Under the current state of affairs, it seems the CotN is increasingly grouping into the Red Nazareneres (ie. concerned, reformed, mad-as-he**-not-gonna-take-it-anymores) and the Blue Nazarenes (you know, I actually know a gay person, and they aren't so bad.) It's just one more sad case of the current culture influencing the church, rather than the other way around.

Now, as long as both groups have a perceived voice on the BoGS, it can speak as one voice to all of us in the tent. We need a purple BoGS.

What happens if we go to one, and that one is a Red or a Blue? Go ahead and look at the current BoGS and assign a couple of names to colors. Right now in our culture, we are in the business of demonizing those with whom we disagree. To me, electing a single GS could possibly be one of the most divisive structural changes possible.

[Jon Twitchell]

Jon,

Yes, that is precisely what I'm suggesting. So...8 REGIONS. Homogenous used to be true. It no longer is. Thus we now identify North America as a World Mission's Region.

A heretofore unspoken reason for regionalization in NA is to refresh and enhance our NA capacity to financially invest in World Evangelism. A return to growth and vitality in NA would do much to enable us to return to a significant investment in and support of NMI efforts to spread scriptural holiness around the world.

I know that God would raise up new and gifted leaders for the challenging times ahead, but one of my personal enthusiasms about reducing 6 GS's to 1 is that potentially five of our current GS's would be available for Regional Superitendency! Obviously, it would take 8 such leaders, but the value of focusing the leadership skills of such people to a much more definable area would be, imo, RADICAL!

Friend,

Wes

I'm not getting it... on the one hand, you seem to be suggesting that our current educational regions would be the same as a world region... and then in this post you seem to suggest that all of NA would be a world region.

How many (total) RSs are you suggesting?

[Wes Smith]

I'm not getting it... on the one hand, you seem to be suggesting that our current educational regions would be the same as a world region... and then in this post you seem to suggest that all of NA would be a world region.

How many (total) RSs are you suggesting?

Jon,

Suggesting 8 regions in NA and 8 RS's.

My comment about homogeneity (gotta be careful with that word!) in NA was simply to say that we are a World Mission region now and increasingly less white anglo as time goes by.

Friend,

Wes

[Wes Smith]

And, by the way, I do believe that RS's would be significantly influential in the growth and personality of our church around the world.

Friend,

Wes

[Wes Smith]

Here's my problem with one GS. Under the current state of affairs, it seems the CotN is increasingly grouping into the Red Nazareneres (ie. concerned, reformed, mad-as-he**-not-gonna-take-it-anymores) and the Blue Nazarenes (you know, I actually know a gay person, and they aren't so bad.) It's just one more sad case of the current culture influencing the church, rather than the other way around.

Now, as long as both groups have a perceived voice on the BoGS, it can speak as one voice to all of us in the tent. We need a purple BoGS.

What happens if we go to one, and that one is a Red or a Blue? Go ahead and look at the current BoGS and assign a couple of names to colors. Right now in our culture, we are in the business of demonizing those with whom we disagree. To me, electing a single GS could possibly be one of the most divisive structural changes possible.

David,

Well said.

Of course I disagree!

The GS would be the spokesperson, vision caster for the denomination and a "mouthpiece" for a red, blue and purple General Board.

Friend,

Wes

[Jon Twitchell]

Jon,

Suggesting 8 regions in NA and 8 RS's.

My comment about homogeneity (gotta be careful with that word!) in NA was simply to say that we are a World Mission region now and increasingly less white anglo as time goes by.

Friend,

Wes

We may be less diverse than we used to be, but are you suggesting that the diversity on the ENC region is analogous to the diversity on the Eurasia region?

I'm still not fully understanding... would each NA region have its own RS? Or would one RS oversee NA, and one RS be assigned to each of the other world regions?

In other words, are we having 8 RSs in the entire world? Or would we have 13 RSs?

I'm sorry... I feel like I'm being dense here... thanks for your grace while I catch up.

[Wes Smith]

We may be less diverse than we used to be, but are you suggesting that the diversity on the ENC region is analogous to the diversity on the Eurasia region?

I'm still not fully understanding... would each NA region have its own RS? Or would one RS oversee NA, and one RS be assigned to each of the other world regions?

In other words, are we having 8 RSs in the entire world? Or would we have 13 RSs?

I'm sorry... I feel like I'm being dense here... thanks for your grace while I catch up.

Jon,

Not your problem. Mine.

I'm suggesting that NA be divided into 8 regions according to current educational zones. Each of the regions would have its own RS.

Friend,

Wes

[Wes Smith]

We may be less diverse than we used to be, but are you suggesting that the diversity on the ENC region is analogous to the diversity on the Eurasia region?

I'm still not fully understanding... would each NA region have its own RS? Or would one RS oversee NA, and one RS be assigned to each of the other world regions?

In other words, are we having 8 RSs in the entire world? Or would we have 13 RSs?

I'm sorry... I feel like I'm being dense here... thanks for your grace while I catch up.

John,

I'm not suggesting anything about the racial/ethnic/cultural diversity of the ENC region. My assumption is that the face of culture, etc., in that area is dramatically changing just like it is most everywhere else in NA.

Friend,

Wes

[Jon Twitchell]

Thanks Wes... I'm not trying to poke holes in your plan... I'm just trying to understand the global implications of it.

I think I understand what you're thinking in terms of North America. What I don't understand is how that new structure would interact with the structure in the rest of the world.

Would Asia-Pacific also get a Regional Superintendent? Or would each of their fields (there are 29) get a Regional Superintendent?

Or would our 8 Regional Superintendents also assume responsibility for an entire non-NA world region?

Thanks for helping me think through this.

[EDIT: Whoops... I confused "World Areas" with "Fields." There are 7 "Fields" in A-P. The question still remains would one RS be responsible for all of A-P? Or would they get 7... one for each field?]

[Susan Unger]

Jon,

Suggesting 8 regions in NA and 8 RS's.

My comment about homogeneity (gotta be careful with that word!) in NA was simply to say that we are a World Mission region now and increasingly less white anglo as time goes by.

Friend,

Wes

Don't you mean 7? We have the mesoamerica region now instead of the MAC and the Caribbean.

[Rich Schmidt]

Don't you mean 7? We have the mesoamerica region now instead of the MAC and the Caribbean.

There are 8 educational zones in the USA. You can see them on this map: http://www.nazarene.org/files/docs/canusdst_ez.pdf

There are currently 6 world regions. They can be seen on this map: http://www.nazarene.org/files/docs/NazareneWorldRegions.pdf

As Jon has mentioned, it seems a bit odd that we would think our 8 educational zones in the USA could function in a way similar to the current world regions. Just look at the world region map... and then imagine the USA/Canada region being divided into 9 different regions (8 in the USA, plus Canada), each on equal footing with the other 5 world regions. All of South America is a region... and so are the 4 states making up the ONU educational zone?

[Susan Unger]

There are 8 educational zones in the USA. You can see them on this map: http://www.nazarene.org/files/docs/canusdst_ez.pdf

There are currently 6 world regions. They can be seen on this map: http://www.nazarene.org/files/docs/NazareneWorldRegions.pdf

As Jon has mentioned, it seems a bit odd that we would think our 8 educational zones in the USA could function in a way similar to the current world regions. Just look at the world region map... and then imagine the USA/Canada region being divided into 9 different regions (8 in the USA, plus Canada), each on equal footing with the other 5 world regions. All of South America is a region... and so are the 4 states making up the ONU educational zone?

Guess I got lost between talking about regional zones globally and educational zones in NA.

[David Pettigrew]

I suppose the educational zones would be the equivalent of what the rest of the world calls fields. So, instead of an RS you would need to think of an FS. Doesn't have quite the same ring to it as DS, but since we call the GSs "generals" I suppose we could call them "fields" (ie. We're going to let our best soloist sing at church today. The field's gonna be there to dedicate our gym.")

[Jon Twitchell]

I suppose the educational zones would be the equivalent of what the rest of the world calls fields. So, instead of an RS you would need to think of an FS. Doesn't have quite the same ring to it as DS, but since we call the GSs "generals" I suppose we could call them "fields" (ie. We're going to let our best soloist sing at church today. The field's gonna be there to dedicate our gym.")

If that's what Wes is proposing (and I'm still not sure if it is), then we have to recognize that we'd be moving to a system with about 36 Regional Superintendents... Would one of them would be elected to be the first among equals?

I'm still not entirely sure that's a comparable system... currently USA/Canada is divided into 3 fields... so we'd be moving from 3 fields to 8 (or really... 9)

[Wes Smith]

Thanks Wes... I'm not trying to poke holes in your plan... I'm just trying to understand the global implications of it.

I think I understand what you're thinking in terms of North America. What I don't understand is how that new structure would interact with the structure in the rest of the world.

Would Asia-Pacific also get a Regional Superintendent? Or would each of their fields (there are 29) get a Regional Superintendent?

Or would our 8 Regional Superintendents also assume responsibility for an entire non-NA world region?

Thanks for helping me think through this.

[EDIT: Whoops... I confused "World Areas" with "Fields." There are 7 "Fields" in A-P. The question still remains would one RS be responsible for all of A-P? Or would they get 7... one for each field?]

Jon,

I am far from informed as to how this might affect the organization on the various world regions outside of North America. For some reason, I was of the understanding that each of our world regions has a Regional Leader (not sure what they are called. "Field Reps?"). Isn't Vern Ward the Regional Leader for the Asia Pacific region? With my limited vision re. world organization, I see Vern as having the savvy to know or at least have the ability to find out if a similar regionalization (cluster groups) would be helpful in that area. I do know that some foreign DS's serve as pastors. It does not seem reasonable to me that each of 29 districts would receive a RS (such as a Vern). My focus for regionalization over the years has been very primarily focused on NA.

Friend,

Wes

[Wes Smith]

Don't you mean 7? We have the mesoamerica region now instead of the MAC and the Caribbean.

No, I am advocating for each current Educational University/College to be a region within NA.

ENC, TNU, MVNU, ONU, MNU, SNU, NNU & PLNU.

Districts within those regions would be eliminated and would be "governed" by the new regional leadership and cluster groups teams.

You are asking very good questions. Keep them coming. Helps me to more clearly state my thoughts!

Friend,

Wes

[Jon Twitchell]

Jon,

I am far from informed as to how this might affect the organization on the various world regions outside of North America. For some reason, I was of the understanding that each of our world regions has a Regional Leader (not sure what they are called. "Field Reps?"). Isn't Vern Ward the Regional Leader for the Asia Pacific region? With my limited vision re. world organization, I see Vern as having the savvy to know or at least the ability to find out if a similar regionalization (cluster groups) would be helpful in that area. I do know that some foreign DS's serve as pastors. It does not seem reasonable to me that each of 29 districts would receive a RS (such as a Vern). My focus for regionalization over the years has been very primarily focused on NA.

Friend,

Wes

And so that's where some time will need to be invested into your plan. The biggest shortcoming I see is that it doesn't really account for us being a Global Church. Drastic changes at that level in NA will have to have their global implications considered.

I think... forgive me if I'm mistaken... that you're presenting the idea that 5 of the 6 GSes would become NA Regional Superintendents, and then 3 or 4 District Superintendents would be appointed to take the reins of the other USA/Canada regions.

I think that the rest of the world will resist the idea that NA gets to co-opt 5 of the 6 GSs that were elected to serve the Global Church.
I also think that they will resist the idea of turning NA-appointed Regional Directors into Regional Superintendents that they had no voice in electing.

Again... I'm not trying to shoot holes in the plan... I'm beginning to think like D. Pettigrew with his thoughts on super-districts.... but there are some real global ramifications to your NA restructuring.

[Jon Twitchell]

No, I am advocating for each current Educational University/College to be a region within NA.

ENC, TNU, MVNU, ONU, MNU, SNU, NNU & PLNU.

Districts within those regions would be eliminated and would be "governed" by the new regional leadership and cluster groups teams.

You are asking very good questions. Keep them coming. Helps me to more clearly state my thoughts!

Friend,

Wes

We might consider using a different term than "regions" then. Perhaps advocating for 8 (and we really should say 9.... we keep leaving Canada out of this) "Super-Districts" would be the better way of saying it.

Hang on... I have another idea... be right back.

[Jon Twitchell]

What if we did the following:

7 Regional Superintendents, one for each World Region. Each is elected by their World Region, and then they elect a "First-among equals" among themselves to articulate the mission and vision. But together they would function as the BGS does today.

Then, USA/Can districts get merged into 9 super-districts, each electing its own District Superintendent or Field Superintendent.
Each of the World Region Fields would be able to then elect their own District Superintendent or Field Superintendent.

We would stop duplicating district and fields on the mission field... and the rest of the world would get to elect their own leaders, instead of having field directors appointed by World Mission. At the same time, you'd drastically reduce the number of districts in the US.... (and probably around the world)

[Billy Cox]

I want to preface my responses by saying I have no love for the denominational structures, and I'm not defending my pension or any aspirations of someday being a 'made man' in the Nazarene familia.

I do know the system well enough to point out likely objections, so from my point of view, I'm trying to help you, not argue with you. I'll engage at the level of ideas, whereas the 'real' decision makers may just dismiss you as someone who hasn't thought through all of the issues. :)


We have 5 districts on our educational zone. For purposes of this discussion, let's just say that each district has a $500k District budget. That budget is used on all the districts in ways that the circumstances have dictated. That means, of course, that we have 2.5 million dollars that is being spent in ways that are reaching fewer and fewer people every year.

It's tempting to think that the $2.5M is a static amount of money that can simply be reallocated to better purposes. However, the reality is that *next year's* money has yet to be given, and if the DS's are laid off and district property is all sold, how much of that money would still come in?

I understand you to be saying that the regional management and cluster leaders would not need the entire $2.5M (in the example given), and that is probably reasonable, but if giving is tied to perceived value, the disappearance of district payroll and the outsourcing DS duties to cluster leaders already paid by their respective local churches could jeopardize the new regional structure's ability to raise money...even at a reduced rate.

Impossible? No...but it's a sell-job nonetheless.


So, my thought is...let's not add another layer of management, let's remove one! With regionalization we will have one Regional Supt. and will have a cutting edge plan that will empower at least 30 cluster leaders to manage the needs of cluster groups of from 8 to 15 churches. This will not be anywhere near a full time job, so the cluster leader can use a small stipend to employ secretarial help and take the occasional evening to meet with pastors and local church leaders to develop plans to increase the kingdom within the context of their cluster area. What could be better than having motivated people taking responsibility for the spiritual needs of a smaller, more defined area?

I think that the cluster idea has merit. Can you find a way to do it without gutting the district structure? From my point of view, it's easier to figure out how to empower cluster leadership within an existing district, than to figure out how to keep denominational cohesion without the powerful DS role.

I would even suggest that the cluster concept only has a chance with a powerful DS to ensure that clusters don't simply become little kingdoms ruled by independent-minded cluster leaders.


The fixation on the need for a DS "seems" irrational to me. No one has ever been a DS until he/she was a DS. That person lived in the context of hands on ministry and thrived to the point where a body of people saw that that person would make a good district leader. That leader was then withdrawn from effective kingdom advancement and placed in a position of monumental and overwhelming and debilitating bureaucracy. It is time to abandon that concept of leadership and management and run, not walk, to the regional and cluster concept.

Again, I have no love for the role of DS or any other institutional role. From my point of view, the DS exists solely to preserve the existence and integrity of the denomination. I am convinced that in the absence of the DS, the denomination falls apart.


This passion has been in my mind and heart and growing for at least 20 years. We have some capacity to voluntarily make the appropriate organizational changes. When it gets past voluntary, it gets ugly real quick!

If this model is predicated on 'freeing up' all the money being spent at the district level, then there isn't much that can be done on a voluntary basis.

[Wes Smith]

What if we did the following:

7 Regional Superintendents, one for each World Region. Each is elected by their World Region, and then they elect a "First-among equals" among themselves to articulate the mission and vision. But together they would function as the BGS does today.

Then, USA/Can districts get merged into 9 super-districts, each electing its own District Superintendent or Field Superintendent.
Each of the World Region Fields would be able to then elect their own District Superintendent or Field Superintendent.

We would stop duplicating district and fields on the mission field... and the rest of the world would get to elect their own leaders, instead of having field directors appointed by World Mission. At the same time, you'd drastically reduce the number of districts in the US.... (and probably around the world)

I had thought that Eastern Canada would merge with a convenient US region as would Western (NNU).

Actually, your thoughts are good. Give me a little time to think.

Friend,

Wes

[Wes Smith]

What if we did the following:

7 Regional Superintendents, one for each World Region. Each is elected by their World Region, and then they elect a "First-among equals" among themselves to articulate the mission and vision. But together they would function as the BGS does today.

Then, USA/Can districts get merged into 9 super-districts, each electing its own District Superintendent or Field Superintendent.
Each of the World Region Fields would be able to then elect their own District Superintendent or Field Superintendent.

We would stop duplicating district and fields on the mission field... and the rest of the world would get to elect their own leaders, instead of having field directors appointed by World Mission. At the same time, you'd drastically reduce the number of districts in the US.... (and probably around the world)

Jon,

Would you mind restating and developing this post? There is no such thing as a breakthrough idea that cannot be improved. I'm thinking you are onto something. Just help me understand your proposal better.

A big part of my participation in this process has revolved around eliminating a complete piece of some historic methodology so I'm a bit sensitive about using "District" and "District Supt." Let's try to guard my sensitivities! Ha! Sometimes we call our Universities/College areas...zones. Perhaps Zone and ZP would work.

Just liking what you are suggesting. Hit it again.

Friend,

Wes

[Wes Smith]

You'll just have to excuse me. I REALLY like the idea of each world region electing their own GS/RS!

It seems possible to me, then, that how we organize for growth and productivity could be a major focus for the various regions. I think Zones and ZP's (or, whatever) works, but it moves us potentially entirely away from a level of expensive ministry responsibilities that are too large and too impersonal. Clusters within the Zone/field structures would gift our efforts with a nearly unlimited number of leaders who would be unleashed to assist churches, pastors, laity in reproducing themselves without restraint. Leadership reproduction would become the new model for discipleship resulting in more clusters and cluster leaders.

This was worth waking up today for! Thank you all!

Friend,

Wes

[Wes Smith]

I want to preface my responses by saying I have no love for the denominational structures, and I'm not defending my pension or any aspirations of someday being a 'made man' in the Nazarene familia.

I do know the system well enough to point out likely objections, so from my point of view, I'm trying to help you, not argue with you. I'll engage at the level of ideas, whereas the 'real' decision makers may just dismiss you as someone who hasn't thought through all of the issues. :)

Thank you! By the way, I'm trying to respond to the pieces of your post. Since I've never done that, we will just have to see if it works. It didn't work so I'm going back and highlighting my comments.



It's tempting to think that the $2.5M is a static amount of money that can simply be reallocated to better purposes. However, the reality is that *next year's* money has yet to be given, and if the DS's are laid off and district property is all sold, how much of that money would still come in?

I understand you to be saying that the regional management and cluster leaders would not need the entire $2.5M (in the example given), and that is probably reasonable, but if giving is tied to perceived value, the disappearance of district payroll and the outsourcing DS duties to cluster leaders already paid by their respective local churches could jeopardize the new regional structure's ability to raise money...even at a reduced rate.

Impossible? No...but it's a sell-job nonetheless.

Okay, I agree, IF, Nazarenes are motivated to think that we are trying our best to just hang around for awhile, this is dead before it gets started. IF, however, we would get down and dirty and suggest we are either going to die, OR, we have the potential to make some monumental changes and...thrive, I think it sell-able. This thread has inspired me and this has just been a little example of what could happen if our leaders [Nazarene Futures Commission, GS's, DS's, Pastors, Key Laymen, University Leaders, Missionaries, Evangelists, People who love our church, etc. did I miss anyone?] would promote a plan for future action that could do way more than just address survival. This may just be the season, the time when God would like to raise up a fire-breathing, love-motivated, world visionated host of Nazarene believers who believe that we are Divinely appointed and strategically located to make a major move to (as Norm Shoemaker used to say) poke holes in the darkness! Finances are an issue, but not up front. Developing the corporate passion for a worthy cause is the up front issue!

I think that the cluster idea has merit. Can you find a way to do it without gutting the district structure? From my point of view, it's easier to figure out how to empower cluster leadership within an existing district, than to figure out how to keep denominational cohesion without the powerful DS role.

I would even suggest that the cluster concept only has a chance with a powerful DS to ensure that clusters don't simply become little kingdoms ruled by independent-minded cluster leaders.

Of course I strongly disagree with you at this point. I love my DS and I love all DS's. But it is time for our system to see that multitudes of gifted people can give leadership to our movement, not just the 90, or so, that have been elected. This illustration is much like professional sports. Lots of kids play sports. A small minority play college ball. And a mere fraction of them ever make it to the Pros. Christianity could and should be a radical exception to that scenario. It should be virtually possible that anyone, anyone who has a desire to excel in Christian ministry can become a Cluster leader and develop other Cluster leaders. This smacks of John 17 where Jesus prays, "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message." (v20) Cluster leadership is not an end in itself, nor is it a means to an end, because there is no end. Well, "well done" could be an end! The office of DS has created a false lid and I pray like crazy that we will move above and beyond that level of organization!

Again, I have no love for the role of DS or any other institutional role. From my point of view, the DS exists solely to preserve the existence and integrity of the denomination. I am convinced that in the absence of the DS, the denomination falls apart.



If this model is predicated on 'freeing up' all the money being spent at the district level, then there isn't much that can be done on a voluntary basis.

Not sure what you meant by your final statement. I actually think we could save a great deal of money by transitioning out of the District model and into a regional/zone/super district model. Furthermore, I think that we could look at lots more streams of income than simply tithes and offerings. We have plenty of entrepreneurs among us who could help us develop and maintain new streams.

Friend,

Wes

[Jon Twitchell]

Jon,

Would you mind restating and developing this post? There is no such thing as a breakthrough idea that cannot be improved. I'm thinking you are onto something. Just help me understand your proposal better.

A big part of my participation in this process has revolved around eliminating a complete piece of some historic methodology so I'm a bit sensitive about using "District" and "District Supt." Let's try to guard my sensitivities! Ha! Sometimes we call our Universities/College areas...zones. Perhaps Zone and ZP would work.

Just liking what you are suggesting. Hit it again.

Friend,

Wes

I don't know if I can do much more with it... ;)

The problem is that we have often used the word "Regions" to mean one of two different things. As a member of the North American Church of the Nazarene, I'm part of two regions... the ENC Educational Region and the USA/Canada World Region. The USA/Canada World Region is analogous to the 6 other World Regions.... whereas the ENC Educational Region would be a smaller administrative unit, for which there isn't really a counterpart in the rest of the world. The closes thing would be "Fields" or "World Areas." (And honestly, I'm not sure which).

The problem with referring to it as a "Zone" is that "Zone" has also been used in years gone by to refer to the cluster groups that you're talking about. On our district, it's a holdover from NWMS "Zone" gatherings that were designed to help bring missionary speakers in mid-week. In some places, the "Zones" have transitioned into "Mission Areas" (like Dennis Scott has talked about), and in some places, they really don't function.

One could suggest the word "Bishop," but that has a lot of baggage for people... and if you were moving to one GS... then the idea of "Pope" and "Bishops" makes your idea dead-in-the-water before it gets out of the starting gate.

How about "Regional Superintendents" (of which there would be 7 - one for each World Mission Region), and "Field Directors" (of which there would be 36 (or so)). Field Directors in the US would be responsible for an Educational Region. In the WM Regions, they would be responsible for the current "Field" structure.

The question, ultimately (and unfortunately), becomes one of control. Is the Field Director a function of World Mission (like it is now?) Or is it a function of the local/national church leadership... more like the current District Superintendent?

[Kevin Rector]

Simple Benefits of Regionalization:

1. One GS for the entire denomination. Nationality does not matter. We look to one GS for vision casting and as a leader of the General Council. Six GS's is unwieldy and places unrealistic expectations and responsibilities on them.

2. Regions based on current Educatonal Zones in North America led by one RS and an advisory group and auxilliary leaders. RS would ordain, conduct Regional Assemblies and work with Cluster Leaders. Regions would replace the District system and dramatically reduce the cost of church management on the Region.

3. Cluster Groups and Cluster Leaders would be the primary focus of regionalization. Cluster leaders would accomplish many of the tasks of the old order of District Superintendency, but on a far more managable basis...assisting 8-14 local churches and pastors. Reproduction of clusters and cluster leaders would be a core value.



A. One GS
B. One RS
C. Unlimited Cluster Leaders and Cluster Groups

Friend,

Wes

I don't like it, not even a little bit. I don't think it gains us much of anything, and if anything this model actually will reduce efficiency.

We'd go from a district superintendent that I see fairly regularly who mentors me and gives me support and guidance, who can be a resource and who can help to navigate through conflict (if there is any) to a regional superintendent that I'll pretty much never see and won't really know very well at all.

But I'll have a "cluster leader". I don't know what sort of actual authority this cluster leader will actually have though. Sounds to me like it will just be another pastor who in addition to all the regular responsibilities of pastor his or her church will also have to take on some of the responsibilities that the DS now does. So we are adding to the work load of our best pastors who already often have a heavy burden to carry. This is one reason we have a full time DS position so the leader can focus on leading.

Another thing to consider is that in non-urban areas where churches are fairly spread out, "clusters" could be very difficult to make work well and being a cluster leader could be very difficult.

Furthermore, it is important that we retain our mix of congregational and ecclesiastic authority. Getting rid of the DS position would substantially weaken that important balance and would make our church far too congregational in polity.

Finally, I would imagine that there are a TON of things that go on behind the scenes that a DS has to do day to day that us rank and file don't even realize that couldn't really get done by a RS or a cluster leader. Unless we got substantial buy-in from the DSes of the US I would never want to go to a regionalization model.

[Kevin Rector]

Here's my problem with one GS. Under the current state of affairs, it seems the CotN is increasingly grouping into the Red Nazareneres (ie. concerned, reformed, mad-as-he**-not-gonna-take-it-anymores) and the Blue Nazarenes (you know, I actually know a gay person, and they aren't so bad.) It's just one more sad case of the current culture influencing the church, rather than the other way around.

Now, as long as both groups have a perceived voice on the BoGS, it can speak as one voice to all of us in the tent. We need a purple BoGS.

What happens if we go to one, and that one is a Red or a Blue? Go ahead and look at the current BoGS and assign a couple of names to colors. Right now in our culture, we are in the business of demonizing those with whom we disagree. To me, electing a single GS could possibly be one of the most divisive structural changes possible.

This is very insightful and very true. I want us to continue to have a board of General Superintendents... I will be very very disappointed if we don't.

[Dennis M. Scott]

But I'll have a "cluster leader". I don't know what sort of actual authority this cluster leader will actually have though. Sounds to me like it will just be another pastor who in addition to all the regular responsibilities of pastor his or her church will also have to take on some of the responsibilities that the DS now does. So we are adding to the work load of our best pastors who already often have a heavy burden to carry. This is one reason we have a full time DS position so the leader can focus on leading.

Another thing to consider is that in non-urban areas where churches are fairly spread out, "clusters" could be very difficult to make work well and being a cluster leader could be very difficult.

Furthermore, it is important that we retain our mix of congregational and ecclesiastic authority. Getting rid of the DS position would substantially weaken that important balance and would make our church far too congregational in polity.


It seems like there is some sort of assumption that the best cluster leader would be in church that already requires an overload of responsibilities. Sometimes pastors of large churches have staff that can take some of those responsibilities, and make a delegating pastor available to spend energy as a cluster leader. Furthermore, many times it isn't a large church pastor that is the best person for the job. In New Hampshire, in fifteen years, we have had five cluster leaders: pastors from the largest church to the smallest. As it turns out, perhaps the most effective pastors a moderate sized church. The change to cluster leaders does require a shift of values. For one, it is no longer necessary for mentors to leave the pastorate for a mainly administrative position. A common theme has in the past been that DSes should have to return to the pastorate after five years or so, because they loose a pastor's perspective. Well, that one is solved.

As far as geographic cluster distances being a problem, the cluster system doesn't bring a problem, but may well bring a solution. A cluster does not rely solely on the leader: the cluster becomes a small group for pastors, with mutual accountability and goals. In New Hampshire, our cluster is an entire state, and in spite of geographic distances, pastors - and to an extent, congregations - care about each other, and share ministries and resources. The cluster leader meets with the group once a month, and with the other cluster leaders monthly as well. The cluster leader communicates with pastors via phone and email regularly, and pastors turn to the leader whenever they need to.

Other clusters in New England do not function as well as the NH one does, IMO. Just like districts, they work as well as the cluster determines to make it work. If you think it won't work, you're right. If you think it can, and work to make it effective, it will be. As others in this thread have pointed out, there is nothing to prevent establishing clusters right now, even if you still have a district that is functioning well. An well operating cluster can only make things better, and if it adds to a great district, why would you not want it?

Many multi-congregational churches, multiple staff churches and multi-campus churches already are functioning as clusters. Churches with multiple small groups, and even some with an effective Sunday School program are already using this principle. Saying it won't work is like a local church saying they can't have a Sunday School unless there is a district SS chairperson. Granted permission, clusters will be as good as the cluster determines it to be.

The office of district superintendent as we know it is going to end. It already is far different than when first inaugurated. The scariest thing will be simply that it will be different than what we've known in the past. There may well be an even better way for us to exist than using clusters, but clusters is one that can work now and in the immediate future. Let's design it even better than presently being considered. That's the purpose of this conversation.

[Rich Schmidt]

The office of district superintendent as we know it is going to end. It already is far different than when first inaugurated. The scariest thing will be simply that it will be different than what we've known in the past.

Could you describe more fully what you mean by this? In your view, what has the role of the DS been, what is it now, and what is it changing to? Again, I'm partly wondering which stage we're in here on our district.

[Eric Frey]

What if we did the following:

7 Regional Superintendents, one for each World Region. Each is elected by their World Region, and then they elect a "First-among equals" among themselves to articulate the mission and vision. But together they would function as the BGS does today.

So, instead of GS's being elected at GA, they are indiginous persons elected at a Regional Assembly to govern thier own world area... seems like I've heard this idea before... I love it by the way.


Then, USA/Can districts get merged into 9 super-districts, each electing its own District Superintendent or Field Superintendent. Each of the World Region Fields would be able to then elect their own District Superintendent or Field Superintendent.

I would be willing to go along with this, though I am not sure that 9 is adequate though. As David and I were discussing earlier I think these modified districts need to be (1) large enough numerically to be sustainable; (2) small enough to be practical and functional. Take the Mt. Vernon Region. We would be moving from 8 DS's to one DS with... let's say... 64 (I think there are 8 zones on my district) zone leaders. Even a reasonable stipend for 64 pastors would quickly equal the salary of the 7 lost DS's -- I think.

Now don't get me wrong. I actually love the idea. But if the goal is streamlining and cost cutting, I just don't see how this helps. But I do think it is a better, more missional system. If that is the goal, then I'm on board!

[Kevin Rector]

To be clear, I am not opposed to the idea of clusters or cluster leaders or whatever sort of idea churches or districts or world areas or mission areas or groups of Christians want to come up with to reach the lost. What I am opposed to is it being mandated from on high that we should get rid of district superintendents in favor of cluster leaders.

Should there be some consolidation of districts: yes. Districts with 30 and 40 small churches that are taking large percentages of the local churches resources to survive don't make a lot of sense. But mega-districts that are so huge that any sense of "family" or "connection" are lost don't make a ton of sense either. I am a good Wesleyan and vote for the via-media.

[Wes Smith]

To be clear, I am not opposed to the idea of clusters or cluster leaders or whatever sort of idea churches or districts or world areas or mission areas or groups of Christians want to come up with to reach the lost. What I am opposed to is it being mandated from on high that we should get rid of district superintendents in favor of cluster leaders.

Should there be some consolidation of districts: yes. Districts with 30 and 40 small churches that are taking large percentages of the local churches resources to survive don't make a lot of sense. But mega-districts that are so huge that any sense of "family" or "connection" are lost don't make a ton of sense either. I am a good Wesleyan and vote for the via-media.

I "think" that family would be re-defined within the cluster system and likely improved. Our current concept of family is probably narrower than we know. It is not possible to be very tight family with a large group spread out over a large geographical area, seeing each other annually, is it?

Also, I would like to think that should we go to an Educational Zone system, lots of other mentor relationships besides the DS will be available or/and the same relationship with that person would continue because the DS could still be in the Zone in another capacity.

Friend,

Wes

[David Pettigrew]

It is a credit to naznet that my opinion on restructuring has changed somewhat since the discussion began, having had opportunity to hear so many ideas, having shared so many of my own, and having seen them all scrutinized so closely for potential problems. Discussions like this could be an invaluable resource to those entrusted with the power to make actual changes, IMO.

Though I was a strong advocate of the RS plan when it was first presented by Dave BC, I've had somewhat of a change of heart. I really do believe there are other ways to do what we do, structurally, that would be far cheaper, more efficient, and potentially more effective.

However, my mind keeps coming back to so many church mergers, reorganizations, and restarts I've seen over the years. They all sounded so good on paper, but usually once the changes took place, more often than not they killed the very organization they were meant to save. Something about trying to change DNA is just too painful, even if that DNA has flaws.

My fear is that in doing away with the district structure altogether, we would lose a lot of what makes us Nazarene, at least in the USA/Canada, and a lot of folks who really love the Church of the Nazarene - have given their very lives to it - would find what they loved no longer existed.

Is the denomination worth saving? We wouldn't even be having these discussions if we didn't believe it was. However, you don't save a burning man by drowning him.

[Wes Smith]

It is a credit to naznet that my opinion on restructuring has changed somewhat since the discussion began, having had opportunity to hear so many ideas, having shared so many of my own, and having seen them all scrutinized so closely for potential problems. Discussions like this could be an invaluable resource to those entrusted with the power to make actual changes, IMO.

Though I was a strong advocate of the RS plan when it was first presented by Dave BC, I've had somewhat of a change of heart. I really do believe there are other ways to do what we do, structurally, that would be far cheaper, more efficient, and potentially more effective.

However, my mind keeps coming back to so many church mergers, reorganizations, and restarts I've seen over the years. They all sounded so good on paper, but usually once the changes took place, more often than not they killed the very organization they were meant to save. Something about trying to change DNA is just too painful, even if that DNA has flaws.

My fear is that in doing away with the district structure altogether, we would lose a lot of what makes us Nazarene, at least in the USA/Canada, and a lot of folks who really love the Church of the Nazarene - have given their very lives to it - would find what they loved no longer existed.

Is the denomination worth saving? We wouldn't even be having these discussions if we didn't believe it was. However, you don't save a burning man by drowning him.

David,

This is my third attempt to post a response to your post. Eergh. Sometimes just the slightest touch on my mousepad can make a post disappear. I hate it when that happens!

Your statements evoke these thoughts:

1. It seems to me that one positive thing we could be doing right now as a denomination is to declare the need for change. What we are up against is similar to high blood pressure, obesity, being out of shape, high cholestoral, or some similar life threatening condition. As a Dr. would sound the alarm to such a patient, it seems reasonable that we should be doing something to prepare our people for necessary changes.

2. If structures and what has made us what we have been are more important to us than what we should become and our future vitality, then let's put that on the table and say that we are unwilling to change those things. Pretty sure that we then become structure and organizationally driven, rather than mission driven and that the end is near. Neil Wiseman made a powerful statement at a PALCON several years ago, (paraphrase) "Perhaps someday we will put the Church of the Nazarene in a wheelchair, drape an afghan around her shoulders and comment on how nice she looks as we push her into the convalescent home."

3. If merging, reorganization, restarting is done for any other reason than more effectively fulfilling our mission, such efforts will not work. However, if our focus is "seeking God's kingdom and his righteousness" it cannot fail.

4. "...doing away with the district structure altogether, we would lose a lot of what makes us Nazarene...and a lot of folks who really love the Church of the Nazarene - have given their very lives to it - would find what they loved no longer existed." When I hold those thoughts up against the Great Commission, and what it may take to reach lost people for Christ in an ever secularizing culture, I actually find it necessary to make such changes. We've been loving and giving our lives to/for the wrong stuff.

Friend,

Wes

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

I can't help but wonder if the esteemed owner of NazNet is reading this and dying to get involved but is constrained by his position as chair of the commission on the future of the church.

I also wonder if that commission is going to hurry it's time table a bit (I think final recommendations are to be passed on to the BoGS next year) because of the financial crisis in the denomination.

[Rich Schmidt]

1. It seems to me that one positive thing we could be doing right now as a denomination is to declare the need for change. ...

I think we can all agree with that. Has that not been happening? Like I said earlier, it happens all the time on our district. Is it not happening at the general level?


2. If structures and what has made us what we have been are more important to us than what we should become and our future vitality, then let's put that on the table and say that we are unwilling to change those things. Pretty sure that we then become structure and organizationally driven, rather than mission driven and that the end is near.

I don't think any of us would say our historic structures are more important than the mission. I'm open to changing whatever needs changed. But I'm not yet convinced that the district structure is broken or impeding the mission.


3. If merging, reorganization, restarting is done for any other reason than more effectively fulfilling our mission, such efforts will not work. However, if our focus is "seeking God's kingdom and his righteousness" it cannot fail.

Mission first. Always.


4. "...doing away with the district structure altogether, we would lose a lot of what makes us Nazarene...and a lot of folks who really love the Church of the Nazarene - have given their very lives to it - would find what they loved no longer existed." When I hold those thoughts up against the Great Commission, and what it may take to reach lost people for Christ in an ever secularizing culture, I actually find it necessary to make such changes. We've been loving and giving our lives to/for the wrong stuff.

I guess I don't know anybody who has given their life for the district structure. But I know people who are giving their lives for the gospel. (I'm not a big "let's hold on to the past" kind of guy. That's part of why we started a new church.)

The only changes I see as truly necessary for the mission to be accomplished are changes at the level of local churches and individual Christians. The district is just supportive of the mission of the local churches... which means it should be encouraging and empowering pastors and churches to make whatever changes are necessary to reach the lost in their mission field.

If the word comes down from on high / Lenexa that we're going to reorganize into regions and clusters, I'll be all for it. It certainly has some strengths compared to the current system (as well as some weaknesses), so I'm sure it could be workable, as long as someone figures out the nuts & bolts. But I'm not going to push or advocate for it. I'd rather push and advocate for things that are within my power to change as a pastor, especially those things that seem to make a demonstrable difference in the accomplishment of the mission.

[Wes Smith]

I think we can all agree with that. Has that not been happening? Like I said earlier, it happens all the time on our district. Is it not happening at the general level?



I don't think any of us would say our historic structures are more important than the mission. I'm open to changing whatever needs changed. But I'm not yet convinced that the district structure is broken or impeding the mission.



Mission first. Always.



I guess I don't know anybody who has given their life for the district structure. But I know people who are giving their lives for the gospel. (I'm not a big "let's hold on to the past" kind of guy. That's part of why we started a new church.)

The only changes I see as truly necessary for the mission to be accomplished are changes at the level of local churches and individual Christians. The district is just supportive of the mission of the local churches... which means it should be encouraging and empowering pastors and churches to make whatever changes are necessary to reach the lost in their mission field.

If the word comes down from on high / Lenexa that we're going to reorganize into regions and clusters, I'll be all for it. It certainly has some strengths compared to the current system (as well as some weaknesses), so I'm sure it could be workable, as long as someone figures out the nuts & bolts. But I'm not going to push or advocate for it. I'd rather push and advocate for things that are within my power to change as a pastor, especially those things that seem to make a demonstrable difference in the accomplishment of the mission.

Rich,

Okay. Good words. Thanks.

This exchange has been very good. My insights and ideas have been challenged and changed.

Here is somewhat of a Reader's Digest of what I think is important, whether we go to the Zone/Cluster concept, or not.

1. The multiplication of vision-driven leadership is essential. Our current system that now puts a lid at the level of DS has stymied the leadership development process. You are right, clusters could happen on the district level. Problem is, I have heard this concept bantered throughout the denomination for decades. A corporate transition away from DS'ship to Cluster leaders would have a dramatic impact on our ability to build leaders and would open a new ceiling for hundreds of leaders!

2. Tranforming the Universities/College into growth engines for the denomination would be phenominal. Everything about our Universities/College should exist to advance the kingdom, primarily through the Church of the Nazarene. The most under-used asset we have is to bring the U's/C into the vision of reaching the world for Christ. Super collide Christian religion degrees with leadership, business and management courses. Be the major resource for all pastors and local churches regarding methodologies for reaching people for Christ. I've said for many years that it is a travesty that any of our U's/C has a "religion" department. In Christianity 101, we were taught that "religion" is man's search for God and that "Christianity" is God's search for man! I have no doubt that such a thing is impossible, but all of our U/C grads should have to matriculate, not through the religion dept., but through the "Change The World School of Christianity."

3. I see a close relationship between the Zonal Supt. and the University/College. (Love it...In The Zone!!!)

Maximize these assets for the advancement of God's kingdom. We would/should/could differentiate ourselves as believers who really believe, and who believe that the Lord's prayer is not a service-filler. It is prophecy that has our name one it...Your kingdom come and your will be done on earth as it is done in heaven. Won't happen with casual Christians out for a stroll!

Friend,

Wes

[Wes Smith]

I'll be brief on this one, I promise. Need to go make a hospital visit.

What I haven't mentioned in this thread, but what I see as a key component is the elevation of the laity in the Cluster Organization. It would bless my heart if Lay People could become Cluster Leaders. I know there are complications...ie, pastoral search and placement, but that could be delegated.

We have many gifted lay leaders in our denomination that have actually participated in successful turnaround efforts in various aspects of business. Let's use their corporate savvy to help us develop the structure in our denomination that will most readily assist us in our needed turnaround!

Many cluster areas will have churches with strong lay leaders. Others are languishing. Let's use the cluster expertise of our lay leaders to help weaker church develop a compelling vision and move beyond where they are. All this will do is advance the kingdom. More kingdom. More clusters. More Cluster Leaders.

My most successful season (numbers wise) was early in my ministry at a particular church when three strong laymen came to my office one day and said exactly, "Pastor show us where you want to go and we will help you get there!" Talk about "Merry Christmas!"

I actually believe that we have some problem attracting strong people to our denomination because of our lack of casting a major vision in the community.

Spirit-filled, vision driven lay leaders will help us get where we need to be, that is...when we determine where that is!!!

Friend,

Wes

[Billy Cox]

Here's my problem with one GS. Under the current state of affairs, it seems the CotN is increasingly grouping into the Red Nazareneres (ie. concerned, reformed, mad-as-he**-not-gonna-take-it-anymores) and the Blue Nazarenes (you know, I actually know a gay person, and they aren't so bad.) It's just one more sad case of the current culture influencing the church, rather than the other way around.

Now, as long as both groups have a perceived voice on the BoGS, it can speak as one voice to all of us in the tent. We need a purple BoGS.

What happens if we go to one, and that one is a Red or a Blue? Go ahead and look at the current BoGS and assign a couple of names to colors. Right now in our culture, we are in the business of demonizing those with whom we disagree. To me, electing a single GS could possibly be one of the most divisive structural changes possible.

What if a GS had to be purple to get elected?

[Billy Cox]

1. It seems to me that one positive thing we could be doing right now as a denomination is to declare the need for change. What we are up against is similar to high blood pressure, obesity, being out of shape, high cholestoral, or some similar life threatening condition. As a Dr. would sound the alarm to such a patient, it seems reasonable that we should be doing something to prepare our people for necessary changes.

What avenue of communication will reach everyone who needs to hear? For that matter, who *does* need to hear? It seems to be the consensus that pastors need to hear, and the denomination assumes that the pastors are taking the message the 'last mile' so that rank and file Nazarenes know that there is a problem. Is it safe to assume that pastors see fit to 'burden' their congregation with non-local issues?

I wonder as well whether the district/general church's ills are simply a reflection of serious problems at the local level. The general church can make changes to prevent the local issues from sinking the ship, but the 'repair' will ultimately have to happen at the local level.


2. If structures and what has made us what we have been are more important to us than what we should become and our future vitality, then let's put that on the table and say that we are unwilling to change those things. Pretty sure that we then become structure and organizationally driven, rather than mission driven and that the end is near. Neil Wiseman made a powerful statement at a PALCON several years ago, (paraphrase) "Perhaps someday we will put the Church of the Nazarene in a wheelchair, drape an afghan around her shoulders and comment on how nice she looks as we push her into the convalescent home."

Methinks she isn't going to go quietly.


3. If merging, reorganization, restarting is done for any other reason than more effectively fulfilling our mission, such efforts will not work. However, if our focus is "seeking God's kingdom and his righteousness" it cannot fail.

4. ...When I hold those thoughts up against the Great Commission, and what it may take to reach lost people for Christ in an ever secularizing culture, I actually find it necessary to make such changes. We've been loving and giving our lives to/for the wrong stuff.

Agree. If we seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, we may suddenly be confronted with a situation in which the kingdom takes a right turn, while the denomination's path continues straight and off the cliff.

If we cannot even imagine a day when we have to jettison the denomination because the kingdom demands it, I wonder whether we love the kingdom at all.

[David Pettigrew]

What if a GS had to be purple to get elected?

If the GS was limited to one chair, I just cannot imagine that the process wouldn't become increasingly political. I don't see it playing out to center.

[Billy Cox]

What I haven't mentioned in this thread, but what I see as a key component is the elevation of the laity in the Cluster Organization. It would bless my heart if Lay People could become Cluster Leaders. I know there are complications...ie, pastoral search and placement, but that could be delegated.

We have many gifted lay leaders in our denomination that have actually participated in successful turnaround efforts in various aspects of business. Let's use their corporate savvy to help us develop the structure in our denomination that will most readily assist us in our needed turnaround!


Now that's a revolutionary thought. It is a reversal of most of the denomination's history, which has seen decision-making and authority more and more reserved for members of the clergy. When the denomination encounters a Hans, Dave M. or a Brad Mercer, it likes their fresh persepective but acts as though such people would be so much more useful if they had an ordination certificate.

So, maybe the revolution would be lay-facilitated, but I can't see the Nazarene clergy putting an unordained, uncommissioned layperson into a position of authority over pastors and reporting directly to the regional superintendent.

Of course, it's also true that those who start revolutions don't typically ask for permission from the existing power structure.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Could you describe more fully what you mean by this? In your view, what has the role of the DS been, what is it now, and what is it changing to? Again, I'm partly wondering which stage we're in here on our district.

For the record, I was not there when the office was begun! However, it had little to do at that time with administration, but was mainly responsible for starting new churches on the district, which was a geographic area more than an organization of churches. Typically, the DS would go to a community, hold an extended meeting in a tent or rented facility, and at the end of the meeting organize a church and appoint a pastor. Then he'd go on to another targeted community. When an existing church on the district had a pastoral vacancy, he would help them find a new pastor, but that was because he seemed to be a handy resource. When you read the reports of the DS in the early years, their report was mainly about the new churches they had been able to start during the year. More commonly than not, DSes served very short tenure: often a year or two. During those years, there were very few denomination wide committees requiring DSes to be included, and a lot of "work" was done via mail. It was a couple decades before one of the requirements was that he visit every church at least once a year. The DS position initially was an unfunded position, except that the churches he visited and those places he preached would take an offering for him. District auxiliaries came along later, too.

These days the position is very different. Across the US, district annual budgets total near fifty million dollars.

The elimination of the position will not be mandated from above, but by the churches on the districts that just can't, or aren't willing, to spend money on that level. I am grateful for leadership that can see that beginning to happen, and is looking for a functional equivalent.

[Billy Cox]

If the GS was limited to one chair, I just cannot imagine that the process wouldn't become increasingly political. I don't see it playing out to center.

Whether it's one GS or six, what could be more political than a selection process based solely on name recognition and one's reputation within the denominational grapevine? Maybe casting lots would be the better method?

[Dennis M. Scott]

Some naznetters will remember that I have resisted the idea of combining districts to save money. My position has been - and still is - that I will embrace change when it is mission driven, rather than just to shave budget. I still think that we err when we just change to keep more money at the local level. That just has not been my experience. I've seen that when local churches give to others and participate strongly in the world mission - including projects at the district and regional level - the Lord blesses and pours out. Clusters are an infinitely reproducible model, and it brings the responsibility of making disciples and starting new churches back to the local level. Additionally, I aspire to be somewhat pragmatic: churches are not going to continue to fund expensive district offices: and even I am inclined to embrace that if district offices are not resulting in the making of disciples. Do some district offices contribute to that? Absolutely! But that isn't the norm, and most pastors and churches (as well as perhaps some DSes) don't even think of that happening.

[David Pettigrew]

Whether it's one GS or six, what could be more political than a selection process based solely on name recognition and one's reputation within the denominational grapevine? Maybe casting lots would be the better method?

Ok, but I don't see how going to one addresses this. We have a democratic system; those are always based on name recognition and reputation. I guess I don't even see that as a problem.

[Billy Cox]

Ok, but I don't see how going to one addresses this. We have a democratic system; those are always based on name recognition and reputation. I guess I don't even see that as a problem.

Just because voting occurs does not mean we have a democratic system. I don't have a problem with the system as it stands, but calling it democratic is an insult to my intelligence.

Show me a 'democracy' that denies almost everyone a vote and has no way for the electorate to find out who the candidates are, and I'll show you a smoke-filled room full of good ole boys.

[David Pettigrew]

Just because voting occurs does not mean we have a democratic system. I don't have a problem with the system as it stands, but calling it democratic is an insult to my intelligence.

Show me a 'democracy' that denies almost everyone a vote and has no way for the electorate to find out who the candidates are, and I'll show you a smoke-filled room full of good ole boys.

No insult intended. Again, how does going from six GSs to one address this issue?

[David Pettigrew]

Just because voting occurs does not mean we have a democratic system. I don't have a problem with the system as it stands, but calling it democratic is an insult to my intelligence.

Show me a 'democracy' that denies almost everyone a vote and has no way for the electorate to find out who the candidates are, and I'll show you a smoke-filled room full of good ole boys.

If you are 15 or older, you get a vote. You elect representatives who elect representatives who elect leadership. Every system has flaws. If we changed our system to another system, it would have flaws we could never foresee. However, one potential flaw I can foresee with a one GS system is a polarizing figure who isolates 49% of the church.

Also, if we only elect one GS, what would you say the chances are that person would ever be a woman or an non-US citizen? If the aim is to get away from the good-old-boy network, I can't think of a worse way to go backwards than a single general.

[Wes Smith]

I wish Dave could respond to the thoughts expressed on this thread.

As I have ruminated on the various implications of a shift away from 6 GS's to 1 and to Zonalization with a focus on Cluster Leader and Cluster Groups, some evolving thoughts have captured my attention. I consider the "spirit" aspect of our denomination to be as important as our "structure," but my personal hope is for us to create structures in which our spirit can be most protected, motivated and multiplied.

1. Dave was my main influencer re. the "fact" that no institution can be successfully led by 6 leaders. (Years ago I argued for a reduction to 3 GS's) That being said, I'm very much sympathetic to the thought that we have all been pleased with the charisma and quality of those who have served in this capacity. A key question we must consider, "If our organization would be more effective and efficient with 1 GS, would there be other ways to fulfill our need for relationships with key leaders in the denomination?"

2. It does seem to me that a "General Board" with reps (RS's and key leader/s from Regional Advisory Boards) from the 6 regions would become the "vision developers" for the denomination as a whole. The GS would work very closely with leaders from the world areas to produce our missional objectives and key goals. In regard to the redness, blueness, purpleish issue, I would hope our key leaders would stay with the winning and discipling foci and delegate controversy to a sub-committee

3. I suspect this is my personal prejudice, but I currently see our Universities as our greatest possible asset as well as our greatest possible deficit. We, for some reason only God knows, have been made stewards of an educational system that has profoundly impacted our denomination and is perfectly positioned to help us in local relevance and development issues. IE...our desperate need is to reach young people. Students are graduating from our U's and exiting Nazarene-dom in droves. Who better to instruct the local church in methods to attract and keep the upcoming generations? My observation is that our U's are now quasi-related to us, and in some cases are actually hurting the mission of the local church. IF we are going to endure the extreme stretching that Zonalization will bring, why not suffer pain at the same time by bringing the U's back into missional partnership with us? This is a huge issue and I am not speaking controversy here, rather, potential that I think is basically dormant at this point.

4. The key component of Zonalization is leadership development. Until now, the leadership ceiling has been the District Superintendency. Cluster leadership will allow for a near exponential increase in leadership throughout NA. I hear the suggestion that this "could" happen on the District level at this time. However, it seems clear to me that DS's are not sufficiently motivated to develop a Cluster movement (some might, others will not), otherwise it would have already been done. The release and delegation of authority and influence is a very difficult action. Understood. We are at the perfect juncture of necessity and freedom! Time has come to recruit, train and release a new tribe of leaders!

Friend,

Wes

[Wes Smith]

Just because voting occurs does not mean we have a democratic system. I don't have a problem with the system as it stands, but calling it democratic is an insult to my intelligence.

Show me a 'democracy' that denies almost everyone a vote and has no way for the electorate to find out who the candidates are, and I'll show you a smoke-filled room full of good ole boys.

Billy,

Would you be so kind as to delete smoke-filled, reword it a bit and insert...Old Spice?

Thanks,

Wes

[Dennis M. Scott]

I just get close to knowing how to spell regionalization, and Wes introduces zonalization. My vocabulary has never increased so fast.

[David Pettigrew]

Wes - I fully support a system that would make our colleges the focal point/resource center of our structure. NYI does this in a fantastic way through regional competition.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Clusters can be successful missionally, but merely creating clusters won't cause anything to happen, without people and churches at the local level prayerfully and actively doing mission. Just because we announced evangelism classes and even had people learn evangelism didn't make it happen. Change, even reorganization, isn't going to cause mission to be accomplished. In fact, change sometimes can be another distraction from what we need to be doing. Even if a system allows for leadership development to take place, a system won't make it happen. We'll have to know why the system is changed, embrace and engage the reasons behind the changes.

Our real question is: "How can we engage in mission, and make disciples of those whose hearts the Lord has prepared to receive the Gospel?" Maybe - only maybe - we can, and will do it in clusters. We would have to encourage one another and each one be involved in doing mission. I can't make someone else respond, but I can make sure I do it myself.

[Wes Smith]

Clusters can be successful missionally, but merely creating clusters won't cause anything to happen, without people and churches at the local level prayerfully and actively doing mission. Just because we announced evangelism classes and even had people learn evangelism didn't make it happen. Change, even reorganization, isn't going to cause mission to be accomplished. In fact, change sometimes can be another distraction from what we need to be doing. Even if a system allows for leadership development to take place, a system won't make it happen. We'll have to know why the system is changed, embrace and engage the reasons behind the changes.

Our real question is: "How can we engage in mission, and make disciples of those whose hearts the Lord has prepared to receive the Gospel?" Maybe - only maybe - we can, and will do it in clusters. We would have to encourage one another and each one be involved in doing mission. I can't make someone else respond, but I can make sure I do it myself.

Dennis,

I agree. My hope is thoroughly invested in the possibility that we will see some folks waving "The End Is Near!" placards and be willing to make some changes and sing with the saints of old,

I'm diving in
I'm going deep
In over my head I wanna be
Caught in the rush
Lost in the flow
In over my head I wanna go
The river's deep
The river's wide
The river's water is alive
So sink or swim
I'm diving in
I'm diving in (Steven Curtis Chapman)

Friend,

Wes

[Wes Smith]

I just get close to knowing how to spell regionalization, and Wes introduces zonalization. My vocabulary has never increased so fast.

Dennis,

I was sitting here in my office at the church. There was a soft knock at the door. I called my usual cheery, "Come on in. The door is open!" The door slowly opened and what to my wondering eyes did appear? One standing with a sturdy desert staff, long white beard and longer white hair, robe that had that lived-in-for-a-long-time look about it, leather sandals, holding a parchment scroll stretched out to reveal just that one word, all in caps.

So, who am I to resist such a message and messenger?

Friend,

Wes

[Jon Twitchell]

Dennis,
... sing with the saints of old,

I'm diving in
I'm going deep
...
I'm diving in (Steven Curtis Chapman)

Friend,

Wes

Which "saints of old" attend your church?!?

[Wes Smith]

Which "saints of old" attend your church?!?

Jon,

I'll have to think about that, but, I took the liberty of using photo shop on your avatar & I'm convinced that it was YOU who stood at my door with the word ZONALIZATION!

Friend,

Wes

[Rich Schmidt]

My observation is that our U's are now quasi-related to us, and in some cases are actually hurting the mission of the local church.

Would you care to elaborate on that? In what ways do you see our universities hurting the mission of the local church?

My perspective is skewed, of course, by the fact that I was called to give my life to leading local churches as a pastor while attending one of our universities. I know that's not the experience of most students.



4. The key component of Zonalization is leadership development. Until now, the leadership ceiling has been the District Superintendency. Cluster leadership will allow for a near exponential increase in leadership throughout NA. I hear the suggestion that this "could" happen on the District level at this time. However, it seems clear to me that DS's are not sufficiently motivated to develop a Cluster movement (some might, others will not), otherwise it would have already been done. The release and delegation of authority and influence is a very difficult action. Understood. We are at the perfect juncture of necessity and freedom! Time has come to recruit, train and release a new tribe of leaders!

Why would we wait for DS's to initiate the development of clusters, "sufficiently motivated" or otherwise? In Dennis' example of a successful cluster movement (http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?p=72626#post72626), the district was supportive, but the district wasn't the leading and organizing force. It was the local churches.

That's where I see the initiative needing to come from (just like Dennis described in his more recent post, #143 (http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?4449-Regionalization...&p=73687&viewfull=1#post73687)): local churches and local pastors. Rather than pushing for some massive reorganization in the hopes that it will make things better, let's change the things we can change right now and get the mission accomplished! Leadership is influence and doesn't depend on a title bestowed by a new regional/zonal superintendent. There's no cap or ceiling on a pastor's ability to network with and build into his or her fellow pastors. There's nothing stopping pastors and churches from raising up new pastors and planting new churches, and thereby developing new clusters. Is there?

Wes, have you approached any of the other pastors in your area about working together cluster-style? Has this urgency you feel to change things led you to local action in this direction?

[Mike Schutz]

My observation is that our U's are now quasi-related to us, and in some cases are actually hurting the mission of the local church. IF we are going to endure the extreme stretching that Zonalization will bring, why not suffer pain at the same time by bringing the U's back into missional partnership with us?

Wes,
Like Rich, I'm not seeing this.

I believe that our multiple delivery systems for theological education, particularly in USA/Canada, has at times hurt our mission, and is one of the primary reasons for our theological bifurcation.

Rather, I see our liberal arts college and universities as being at the forefront of many of the more missional aspects of our denomination these days, and that some of our most mission-oriented laity have received their education at those schools.

[Wes Smith]

Would you care to elaborate on that? In what ways do you see our universities hurting the mission of the local church?

My perspective is skewed, of course, by the fact that I was called to give my life to leading local churches as a pastor while attending one of our universities. I know that's not the experience of most students.




Why would we wait for DS's to initiate the development of clusters, "sufficiently motivated" or otherwise? In Dennis' example of a successful cluster movement (http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?p=72626#post72626), the district was supportive, but the district wasn't the leading and organizing force. It was the local churches.

That's where I see the initiative needing to come from (just like Dennis described in his more recent post, #143 (http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?4449-Regionalization...&p=73687&viewfull=1#post73687)): local churches and local pastors. Rather than pushing for some massive reorganization in the hopes that it will make things better, let's change the things we can change right now and get the mission accomplished! Leadership is influence and doesn't depend on a title bestowed by a new regional/zonal superintendent. There's no cap or ceiling on a pastor's ability to network with and build into his or her fellow pastors. There's nothing stopping pastors and churches from raising up new pastors and planting new churches, and thereby developing new clusters. Is there?

Wes, have you approached any of the other pastors in your area about working together cluster-style? Has this urgency you feel to change things led you to local action in this direction?

Rich,

A light comes on! My advocacy is not for the traditional zone leader who is responsible for getting pastors in a certain area together for monthly prayer and fellowship time. I'm pretty sure that kind of fellowship goes on in certain parts of probably every district. It is for a new line of leaders with a unique job description and empowerment to function on a much smaller level, but to perform the basic responsibilities and functions of our current office of DS. In my opinion it is perfectly arguable that we have lots of pastors who could function as a DS. We have testified to this over and over again when we have elected a DS through and open ballot. We all know of names of lots of people who garnered lots of votes but who were not elected. I can't quote myself exactly, but, "No DS was a DS until he/she became a DS." Just saying that we have all hung around the system and could give leadership to some degree.

Let's get rid of the ranching concept and go back to farming. Let's raise our "children" to be farmers.

I agree that not many pastors want to or feel motivated to...be zone chairmen. Conversely, if the job was important enough, had growth potential and kingdom enhancement potential and was appropriately defined and supported and was a vital link in the chain of bringing people to Christ and cultivating the recruitment and training of leaders that lots of people would step up to serve.

No, I have not approached other pastors in this area about working together cluster style. My concept "Cluster Leader" has not yet been created. We have a wonderful "cluster" that meets here on the Columbia River Zone, but our group simply is not in the same category of what I envision.

Friend,

Wes

[Rich Schmidt]

A light comes on! My advocacy is not for the traditional zone leader who is responsible for getting pastors in a certain area together for monthly prayer and fellowship time.

Neither is mine, though that would be a huge step forward for many pastors. Many pastors feel isolated & disconnected. Monthly times together are a blessing.

I thought we were talking about churches and pastors working together to reach lost people in their area. I imagine that would include the development of new ministries, new leaders, and new churches. Right? Dennis' example that I pointed to was something like that. I'm not sure why you suddenly think I'm talking about something else.


It is for a new line of leaders with a unique job description and empowerment to function on a much smaller level, but to perform the basic responsibilities and functions of our current office of DS.

I'll have to read back through your earlier posts to see what responsibilities & functions you're referring to, other than pastoral placement.


In my opinion it is perfectly arguable that we have lots of pastors who could function as a DS. We have testified to this over and over again when we have elected a DS through and open ballot. We all know of names of lots of people who garnered lots of votes but who were not elected. I can't quote myself exactly, but, "No DS was a DS until he/she became a DS." Just saying that we have all hung around the system and could give leadership to some degree.

And most pastors wouldn't want the job. I've heard several of my peers on my district say that. They could be good -- maybe great -- DS's, but they'd rather be on the front lines as pastor of a local church.


Let's get rid of the ranching concept and go back to farming. Let's raise our "children" to be farmers.

I agree that not many pastors want to or feel motivated to...be zone chairmen. Conversely, if the job was important enough, had growth potential and kingdom enhancement potential and was appropriately defined and supported and was a vital link in the chain of bringing people to Christ and cultivating the recruitment and training of leaders that lots of people would step up to serve.

We don't have zones or zone chairmen on our district, so I'm not sure what image that conjures in your mind. But it seems like your "Conversely" description is the kind of thing that could exist here and now, without any reorganization necessary. Why aren't "zone chairmen" vital links in the chain, etc? Why don't they function as the missional leaders you describe here? Couldn't they? What's stopping them?


No, I have not approached other pastors in this area about working together cluster style. My concept "Cluster Leader" has not yet been created. We have a wonderful "cluster" that meets here on the Columbia River Zone, but our group simply is not in the same category of what I envision.

And why isn't it? What's really stopping your cluster/zone from being the missional force you desire? Is the mission really dependent on the cluster leader / zone chairman / whatever being given the power from on high to help neighboring churches find a new pastor when the time comes?

[Wes Smith]

Rich,

What made me think you were thinking something different was your suggestion, "Why would we wait for DS's to initiate the development of clusters, "sufficiently motivated" or otherwise?"

Are you serious?

Friend,

Wes

[Rich Schmidt]

What made me think you were thinking something different was your suggestion, "Why would we wait for DS's to initiate the development of clusters, "sufficiently motivated" or otherwise?"

Are you serious?

Yes, I'm serious! I know it wouldn't be everything you're envisioning (the Manual would have to change for a cluster leader to serve as a mini-DS). But Dennis already gave an example of two different "clusters" of churches working together to make an amazing impact for the kingdom... and it wasn't initiated by their DS.

If the value of your clusters is primarily the fact that churches are working more closely together to make mission impact -- starting new need-meeting ministries, connecting more lost people with the gospel, starting new churches, raising up new leaders -- then there's no reason to wait for the DS to take the initiative. The initiative really needs to come from the pastors and churches. Because even if the DS organizes the district into smaller units (like, say, zones?) or if the denomination as a whole were to adopt your regionalization/zonalization plan, there's not going to be a significant mission impact without courageous leadership at the local level.

Within our current structure, a "cluster leader" would be the pastor bold & courageous enough to take the initiative to get the ball rolling, to gather neighboring pastors together to pray and strategize about how to reach the local lost with the gospel.

[Wes Smith]

I'll have to read back through your earlier posts to see what responsibilities & functions you're referring to, other than pastoral placement.

It would be impossible to find a quote where I have suggested anything else or different from a pastor serving as a "Cluster Leader" in a "Cluster Group" of from 8-14 churches serving in that position while continuing to serve as pastor of his local church. He would have a stipend that would address secretarial and other needs. Matters beyond the scope of his/her capacities would be referred to the Zone Superintendent.

Friend,

Wes

[Billy Cox]

Why would we wait for DS's to initiate the development of clusters, "sufficiently motivated" or otherwise? In Dennis' example of a successful cluster movement (http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?p=72626#post72626), the district was supportive, but the district wasn't the leading and organizing force. It was the local churches.

That's where I see the initiative needing to come from (just like Dennis described in his more recent post, #143 (http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?4449-Regionalization...&p=73687&viewfull=1#post73687)): local churches and local pastors. Rather than pushing for some massive reorganization in the hopes that it will make things better, let's change the things we can change right now and get the mission accomplished! Leadership is influence and doesn't depend on a title bestowed by a new regional/zonal superintendent. There's no cap or ceiling on a pastor's ability to network with and build into his or her fellow pastors. There's nothing stopping pastors and churches from raising up new pastors and planting new churches, and thereby developing new clusters. Is there?

That's a good insight. I have observed that districts are more likely to give latitude than to take initiative.

[Wes Smith]

the Manual would have to change for a cluster leader to serve as a mini-DS

Bingo...to the Manual change! Making progress here! Only I'm advocating for the complete elimination of the DS position. No districts. No DS's.

We will put DS's back into pastoral ministry and create a position (Cluster leaders) of hundreds and thousands instead of 90, or so.

Rich I'm really happy to have you in disagreement with the Zonalization/Cluster concept, but this has been a very long journey for me and it is highly unlikely that you are going to get me to agree that we can "tweak things a bit" and accomplish the objectives. Come up with a new argument or insight and I'm happy to respond, but repeating your mantra that we can accomplish Zonalization and the Cluster concept simply by making some adjustments within the district/DS model simply won't work with me. Not saying you are wrong and I am right, just saying we are talking, imo, apples and oranges.

Let's hear your dream for the exponential multiplication of leadership within the current district/DS model.

Friend,

Wes

[Billy Cox]

I believe that our multiple delivery systems for theological education, particularly in USA/Canada, has at times hurt our mission, and is one of the primary reasons for our theological bifurcation.

Is the bifurcation due to multiple delivery systems, or is it the other way around?

[Wes Smith]

That's a good insight. I have observed that districts are more likely to give latitude than to take initiative.

Is "initiative" the same thing as "leadership?"

Friend,

Wes

[Rich Schmidt]

Rich I'm really happy to have you in disagreement with the Zonalization/Cluster concept, but this has been a very long journey for me and it is highly unlikely that you are going to get me to agree that we can "tweak things a bit" and accomplish the objectives. Come up with a new argument or insight and I'm happy to respond, but repeating your mantra that we can accomplish Zonalization and the Cluster concept simply by making some adjustments within the district/DS model simply won't work with me. Not saying you are wrong and I am right, just saying we are talking, imo, apples and oranges.

Let's hear your dream for the exponential multiplication of leadership within the current district/DS model.

My dreams are all at the local level, and they're being lived out in lots of different ways across the US & around the world right now, in a variety of ecclesiastical structures (and sometimes in no structure at all). I feel like I'm living some of that dream myself. 12 years ago, the church I pastor didn't exist. 11 years ago, Dan and his wife were pew-sitters at our parent church. He got involved with our church plant as a volunteer, then as a staff person, and then as a church planter himself. I got to pray over him at his ordination on the Northwest district a year ago. Scott, a volunteer who went with Dan when they started their church, is now an interim pastor at a church on their district. It may not be "exponential," but it is multiplication of leadership, multiplication of churches, and multiplication of kingdom impact.

I don't have a problem with you having your dream, Wes, as long as it doesn't serve as a delaying tactic for you or anyone else. If you wait for someone else to act first -- a DS, the denomination -- then you'll end up waiting a long time. (Twenty years and counting?) If you believe that we as a church won't ever really make a significant missional impact until these structural changes get made... well, that can be a pretty powerful self-fulfilling prophecy.

I'm a fan of ideas. I'm a fan of change & doing things differently. I'm a really big fan of people who take the initiative to make their ideas a reality. For Nazarenes today, that means working within the district structure. If your ideas get implemented, it'll mean working within the zone/cluster structure. Either way, I'll be cheering for those who are taking initiative & taking risks for the kingdom.

[Billy Cox]

Is "initiative" the same thing as "leadership?"

Is that a rhetorical question?

[Billy Cox]

No insult intended. Again, how does going from six GSs to one address this issue?

I was only commenting on the 'democratic system' issue.

In terms of organizational survival, one GS makes far more sense than six. Paying the salary and expenses of six GS's is a high price to pay simply to ensure that a member of the other theological faction doesn't rule the entire fiefdom.

[Billy Cox]

If you are 15 or older, you get a vote. You elect representatives who elect representatives who elect leadership. Every system has flaws. If we changed our system to another system, it would have flaws we could never foresee. However, one potential flaw I can foresee with a one GS system is a polarizing figure who isolates 49% of the church.

I'm not suggesting that this system should be changed, just pointing out that it is not a democratic system. We do not elect representatives, we elect delegates or proxies. A representative queries the electorate on upcoming issues and reports back to them after all is said and done. How many delegates have you seen do this?

My local church doesn't even elect assembly delegates anymore. They are appointed by the pastor and rubberstamped by the board.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Is that a rhetorical question?

Are you kidding me?

[Wes Smith]

My dreams are all at the local level, and they're being lived out in lots of different ways across the US & around the world right now, in a variety of ecclesiastical structures (and sometimes in no structure at all). I feel like I'm living some of that dream myself. 12 years ago, the church I pastor didn't exist. 11 years ago, Dan and his wife were pew-sitters at our parent church. He got involved with our church plant as a volunteer, then as a staff person, and then as a church planter himself. I got to pray over him at his ordination on the Northwest district a year ago. Scott, a volunteer who went with Dan when they started their church, is now an interim pastor at a church on their district. It may not be "exponential," but it is multiplication of leadership, multiplication of churches, and multiplication of kingdom impact.

I don't have a problem with you having your dream, Wes, as long as it doesn't serve as a delaying tactic for you or anyone else. If you wait for someone else to act first -- a DS, the denomination -- then you'll end up waiting a long time. (Twenty years and counting?) If you believe that we as a church won't ever really make a significant missional impact until these structural changes get made... well, that can be a pretty powerful self-fulfilling prophecy.

I'm a fan of ideas. I'm a fan of change & doing things differently. I'm a really big fan of people who take the initiative to make their ideas a reality. For Nazarenes today, that means working within the district structure. If your ideas get implemented, it'll mean working within the zone/cluster structure. Either way, I'll be cheering for those who are taking initiative & taking risks for the kingdom.

Rich,

Apples = Leadership development and various experiments under the present "District" system.

Oranges = A different system than the current District structure that would blow the lid off of the current logjam at the DS level. Zonalization and Cluster Leadership would allow for unlimited exponential multiplication of leadership, since nearly everyone who would aspire to CL could serve in that capacity and not only those who aspire, but also those who do not aspire but whose leadership skills are recognized by others.

Yes, this would take a recommendation to the GA and approval by the GA. Hm. Wonder if there is a group out there that might make such a recommendation? Pointer finger tapping at the corner of my mouth.

Friend,

Wes

[Wes Smith]

I was only commenting on the 'democratic system' issue.

In terms of organizational survival, one GS makes far more sense than six. Paying the salary and expenses of six GS's is a high price to pay simply to ensure that a member of the other theological faction doesn't rule the entire fiefdom.

Billy,

I doubt if it would surprise you that you sometimes annoy me. But, there are time when you give me my best laugh of the day. Thanks!

Friend,

Wes

[Rich Schmidt]

Apples = Leadership development and various experiments under the present "District" system.

Oranges = A different system than the current District structure that would blow the lid off of the current logjam at the DS level. Zonalization and Cluster Leadership would allow for unlimited exponential multiplication of leadership, since nearly everyone who would aspire to CL could serve in that capacity and not only those who aspire, but also those who do not aspire but whose leadership skills are recognized by others.

Two thoughts that your post brings to mind:

1. We have apples now. No sense waiting around for oranges while we starve to death. Let's eat the apples.

2. They're both fruit. In either system, accomplishment of the mission is going to depend on courageous, risk-taking pastors and laypeople at the local church level.

Actually, there's a third thought. A question. You keep referring to this reorg plan as allowing for "unlimited exponential multiplication of leadership" because it will allow for the development of lots of new cluster leaders. Who will a newly-developed cluster leader lead? What churches will be in his or her cluster? I mean, after the initial burst of new cluster leaders when the system is first implemented. It seems that, post-launch, the "unlimited exponential multiplication of leadership" requires/assumes/depends on the planting of large numbers of new churches. After all, that's the only way new clusters will be developed, right? Or am I missing something?

So... what in your new system makes the planting of new churches easier or more likely? What current hindrance to the planting of new churches is your reorg plan going to remove or resolve?

[Susan Unger]

My local church doesn't even elect assembly delegates anymore. They are appointed by the pastor and rubberstamped by the board.

Wow. Ugh.

[Rich Schmidt]

My local church doesn't even elect assembly delegates anymore. They are appointed by the pastor and rubberstamped by the board.

I usually call for volunteers at our annual meeting. :) It's rare that we have people willing to travel and take time off work to serve as delegates. A retired minister and his wife usually serve as our delegates, since they plan to be there anyway.

[Kevin Rector]

My local church doesn't even elect assembly delegates anymore. They are appointed by the pastor and rubberstamped by the board.

Actually Billy, per manual paragraph 113.14 they are "recommended" by the pastor and "approved" by the board, and technically the annual meeting has to approve doing this by a majority vote each year.

It makes it logistically much easier to manage.