Should GSs/DSs be limited to two four-year terms?

[Billy Cox]

It is a perennial topic of discussion on NazNet to speculate on what it would take to 'turn around' the denomination, at least in the USA.

So how about it? What do think about the idea of accelerating change in the denomination by way of term-limiting those in elected institutional leadership positions?

A possibly related question...how often does a DS/GS retire prior to reaching the mandatory retirement age specified in the Manual?

[Shea Zellweger]

Good question(s), Billy. I think I shall answer them with one of my own:
Should Pastors be limited to a certain period of time in a given church?

[Craig Laughlin]

GS - term limits would be good but I have an agenda in that I think it would open the door to more diversity and I think the position is largely a figure head.

DS - should not be limited as it is a vision casting position and that requires lots of time and relationships building. It is better served by a long term relationship.

[Scott Sherwood]

By "turn around," do you mean move from slow growth to slow decline? In what sense, do we need a turn-around?

[Ryan Scott]

I would not be opposed to term limits for General Superintendents. It would help younger leaders to be elected because people wouldn't see it as killing their career. I've heard lots of comments like "he's got too much left to accomplish to vote him a GS" at General Assembly. That's a terrible mindset, which could be helped by limits. A 41 year old GS could be back pastoring by 50.

As for districts, I'm torn. I've seen the absolute good a DS can do on a district, but I've also seen the desolation caused by a poor DS who stays forever. We need a better system of removing bad DSs (better than our current "someone from KC convinces someone else to give them a job and then suggests strongly they take it" system).

On the whole, I think a long term DS is a good thing, if the job is done well. I have seen a number of DSs retire before they're required to do so, but not usually a long time before (5-6 years).

[David Pettigrew]

I know there are times in any organization when those with personality disorders become entrenched in power, and their number one function in their position becomes maintaining that power. These people can be quite charming and adept at what they do, but are equally skilled at causing havoc.

However, I don't see penalizing the majority of functional leaders to resolve a minority problem. We already have term limits for leaders in the CoTN. It's called a Nazarene with a pastel sheet of paper and a pew pencil.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

How's this: in general people who are elected should be able to serve as along as people want to vote for them. People who are appointed should face term limits.

A general concept that likely would have many exceptions.

[Ryan Scott]

How's this: in general people who are elected should be able to serve as along as people want to vote for them. People who are appointed should face term limits.

A general concept that likely would have many exceptions.

We've set up a system where this isn't true, though. The only way to vote someone new in is to vote the current person out. This is a negative commentary on them and not just a positive commentary on the new person.

We also have a system that says a GS is in until they age out. It's not explicit, but it's certainly de facto. People feel as though it's an insult for a GS to move to a different position - and most of the people in the position feel it would be an insult to the denomination to ask out.

We'd have to change the perception of the office and the role before we could really have the kind of unbiased voting you're talking about (one with which I don't have a problem with).

[Jim Franklin]

If it ain't broke don't try to fix it. There was no reason to limit Dr. Stowe or Dr. Porter to 8 years.

[Shea Zellweger]

What if, instead of term limits, we did away with the yes/no ballots for incumbent GSs? When voting in the matter of DS and Pastoral relationships, there are (in my estimation) to major reasons that a person might vote against continuing the relationship- they don't want this person to be the DS/Pastor anymore, or they want someone else even more. Regardless of the reason, there is just one DS or Pastor, and all of those "no" votes go into the same category.
When it comes to the GS, there are 6 slots being voted on every year. It's entirely possible (likely, even) that every delegate has someone (or several people) in mind who s/he would like to see as GS who currently is not, but they may disagree on which slot that person should take. So some vote "no" on this incumbent, others vote "no" on that one, but it's not particularly coordinated, and everybody goes home wishing his/her candidate had gotten a shot.
Even last GA, when 3 incumbents were retiring, there may have been a majority who had 4 or more non-GSs who they wanted to see be GS, but they couldn't agree on which non-retiring incumbent to replace.
I know that if a wave of insanity swept the GA, and I were elected GS, and then I drank whatever koolaid everyone else had been sipping and accepted, 4 years later I'd probably appreciate the job security which comes with the yes/no vote. And personally I think our church has historically done a good job of electing General Superintendents, so I'm not particularly convinced we need to change that aspect of our polity. But if we were going to, that would be the first step I would take.

[Craig Laughlin]

Listening to you guys it occurs to me that even better than term limits would be a culture that says you only serve 2 or 3 times then you step down and take a church.

This would be very good for us as a denomination. Those former GS's would bring to the the pastorate a whole new perspective and it would allow us to expand the number of people with that big picture perspective. It would also accomplish the other things that have been mentioned.

Another thought is that they could be used to ordain people and help reduce the load on the acting GS's.

Should we start a campaign asking a GS's to step down and take a church? Who is the most popular? If that person would do it we might have a chance of getting things going.

Porter is probably the least popular (Not to me) and most deserves the rest but it would play into the things Ryan mentioned.

[Craig Laughlin]

If it ain't broke don't try to fix it.

Agreed. But it is broken and in desperate need of a fix.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

I guess it would be fair for me to add that my opinion of being elected DS or GS is that they are being sentenced to something rather than being elevated to something. I wouldn't want either one.

That may color my perspective a bit. I'm surprised that they don't serve a couple of terms and declare that they've served their sentence and want some time off for good behavior - find a good church to pastor and enjoy their family and some consistent relationships in the ministry.

[Hans Deventer]

Term limits are a bad idea. We can get rid of good ones too soon, and bad ones too late. What we really need is a good review system. I still don't understand why we have it for pastors, but not for DS's and GS's. (let it be known though that on our district, the DS always requests a review).

[Ryan Scott]

Should we start a campaign asking a GS's to step down and take a church? Who is the most popular? If that person would do it we might have a chance of getting things going.

It'll just take one. I don't expect Stan Toler will be doing this for 20 years. He's the practically-minded sort of guy who might just leave early. In fact, it may simply be a generational attitude that once the denomination calls, one can't argue. Once the precedent has been set, it will be easier for them to move on to other things.

The Wesleyan Church just lost a GS to its own compassionate ministry organization.

[Jon Twitchell]

I was thinking about this just the other day. My cousin was just appointed as the Regional Superintendent of the Northeast Region of the Advent Christian Church. The Northeast Region covers New England, parts of New York, and parts of Canada.

Greg was a senior in High School when I was a Freshman. (Which means that he's about 39 years old!)

This caused me to ask a couple of questions:

1) How many 39-year-olds do you suppose we have ever elected to the office of District Superintendent?
1a) I wonder if the AC Church has a different view of RS... will Greg serve for a few years and then move back to local church ministry?
2) Is it to our detriment that we tend to view the position of DS as a "terminal" position?
2a) If we didn't view the position of DS as a "terminal" position, would we be able to benefit both districts and local churches in a new way?

I recall Dave McClung saying that the greatest cost of the superintendency is not the salary--but removing qualified pastors from local churches. Perhaps an adjustment in our view of the superintendency is warranted.

[Craig Laughlin]

I was thinking about this just the other day. My cousin was just appointed as the Regional Superintendent of the Northeast Region of the Advent Christian Church. The Northeast Region covers New England, parts of New York, and parts of Canada.

Greg was a senior in High School when I was a Freshman. (Which means that he's about 39 years old!)

This caused me to ask a couple of questions:

1) How many 39-year-olds do you suppose we have ever elected to the office of District Superintendent?
1a) I wonder if the AC Church has a different view of RS... will Greg serve for a few years and then move back to local church ministry?
2) Is it to our detriment that we tend to view the position of DS as a "terminal" position?
2a) If we didn't view the position of DS as a "terminal" position, would we be able to benefit both districts and local churches in a new way?

I recall Dave McClung saying that the greatest cost of the superintendency is not the salary--but removing qualified pastors from local churches. Perhaps an adjustment in our view of the superintendency is warranted.

Excellent points.

Jess Middendorf went from DS to pastor of KC first which is a super prestigious church but we don't really hear much of DS's moving back to the parish. I think it could be a healthy trend. (It could also become a stepping stone to bigger churches as some churches are probably more prestigious than being the DS) I could see someone doing DS for awhile and then coming to understand that God gave them a specific task which was now completed. Time for someone else. They could then move into a local church with a whole new set of skills and probably be a big help to the new DS. - I could see this as potentially very healthy.

[Jim Franklin]

Pastor Craig, I guess I am out of the loop when you say it is broken. Having never attended a GA in my 74 years of being a Nazarene, how so, or would you excommunicate me for never been to the Holy Grail? From way out in the hinterland, "What you talken about Willis (Craig)?"

[Dennis M. Scott]

We might want to think about whether or not a DS who wasn't especially making it as a DS would do especially well "back in the pastorate." I have known more than one that was on their last leg as a pastor when elected DS. In fact, I've known three or four who had been voted out of their church when they went to district assembly and were elected DS. I suspect there is a considerable difference between skill sets/energy levels and "fairness" of someone being a DS for a long time. Growth is local, and I am one pastor that needs to focus on the tasks before me. An observation is that when local pastors do their jobs fairly well, the DS miraculously does better, too.

[Marian Schwaller Carney]

Excellent points.

Jess Middendorf went from DS to pastor of KC first which is a super prestigious church but we don't really hear much of DS's moving back to the parish. I think it could be a healthy trend. (It could also become a stepping stone to bigger churches as some churches are probably more prestigious than being the DS) I could see someone doing DS for awhile and then coming to understand that God gave them a specific task which was now completed. Time for someone else. They could then move into a local church with a whole new set of skills and probably be a big help to the new DS. - I could see this as potentially very healthy.

I find the notion of a "prestigious church" in the COTN offensive (Craig, I don't find you offensive) I do see a tendency in COTN to prefer bigger churches with charismatic pastors over smaller ones with, well, not so charismatic pastors.

[Billy Cox]

Good question(s), Billy. I think I shall answer them with one of my own:
Should Pastors be limited to a certain period of time in a given church?

That's easy. No.

Whereas longevity tends to correlate positively to the pastor as change agent, I'm not so sure that the same would be true for administrative longevity.

[Billy Cox]

I guess it would be fair for me to add that my opinion of being elected DS or GS is that they are being sentenced to something rather than being elevated to something. I wouldn't want either one.

That may color my perspective a bit. I'm surprised that they don't serve a couple of terms and declare that they've served their sentence and want some time off for good behavior - find a good church to pastor and enjoy their family and some consistent relationships in the ministry.

Haha, maybe we need a system of plea bargaining?

[Shea Zellweger]

I find the notion of a "prestigious church" in the COTN offensive (Craig, I don't find you offensive) I do see a tendency in COTN to prefer bigger churches with charismatic pastors over smaller ones with, well, not so charismatic pastors.

I think this is a tendency in most churches. While I can see why this would be frustrating (and have experienced that frustration myself), I wonder why you find the term offensive?


That's easy. No.

Whereas longevity tends to correlate positively to the pastor as change agent, I'm not so sure that the same would be true for administrative longevity.

Do you have a reason for believing the contrary? It seems to me that the best administrators do not have expiration dates on their gifts, apart from something which might reduce their mental faculties (death, deterioration...). In recent history, several major companies have seen the departure of long-time CEOs hurt the culture of that company, and only solved the problem by bringing back the same CEOs. I think having the right GSs in place is very similar to having the right CEO (or pastor, for that matter) in place. So long as that person is there and the relationship is working, it seems foolish to end it, particularly over something so arbitrary as "your time's up."

IMHO, we should be trying to find a way to remove the stigma of failure/offense that comes with having the GS/DS/Pastor-Church relationship come to an end when it's not working, rather than more rapidly forcing out those individuals for whom it is working.

[Billy Cox]

Do you have a reason for believing the contrary? It seems to me that the best administrators do not have expiration dates on their gifts, apart from something which might reduce their mental faculties (death, deterioration...).

Two things inform my observation:

1. There is widespread opinion among people who know the denomination better than I, that a turnaround is needed.

2. Among those same people, there is a consensus that our current administrative hierarchy supports inertia.

Maybe we just have too many administrators where leadership is required.



In recent history, several major companies have seen the departure of long-time CEOs hurt the culture of that company, and only solved the problem by bringing back the same CEOs.

Really? Can you name three?

Regardless, it's an apples and oranges comparison since the CotN does not have a CEO beyond the local level.

[Shea Zellweger]

1. There is widespread opinion among people who know the denomination better than I, that a turnaround is needed.

2. Among those same people, there is a consensus that our current administrative hierarchy supports inertia.


I'm willing to tentatively buy this. I still don't see how term limits solve this. If we got some people in administration who reversed this inertia, why would we want them expelled from leadership positions after 8 years?



Really? Can you name three?


Well, the three highest profile ones in recent history would be Howard Schultz, Steve Jobs, and Michael Dell, although the turnaround of Dell is open to debate. I'd say that qualifies as "several."

[Craig Laughlin]

I find the notion of a "prestigious church" in the COTN offensive (Craig, I don't find you offensive) I do see a tendency in COTN to prefer bigger churches with charismatic pastors over smaller ones with, well, not so charismatic pastors.

If prestige was simply an issue of size I would agree. I do not think bigger is better. However prestige is much different that size in this case. KC first is a pretty good example. While it is a larger church there are lots of COTN that are much larger and there are lots of churches around it that are much larger. The prestige, in my opinion, comes from its history. It is among our oldest churches and has hosted many general assemblies. (They have the pictures on the walls) It has also been pastored by some truly great and deeply influential men of God. (No women yet) It has also been the place of worship and service to some great influencers in our denomination and some truly great theologians include Mildred Bangs Wynkoop who, in my opinion is our greatest theologian. For those reason, not size, I and many others, consider KC First a prestigious church.

I read you post last night after getting back from our Trunk or Treat and was way to tired to reply. As I was thinking about this today I had a further thought. To avoid side tracking this thread (one of my spiritual gifts) I have started another on the topic of Prestigious churches.


http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?6464-We-Need-More-Prestigious-Churches&p=106446#post106446

[Rich Schmidt]

Well, the three highest profile ones in recent history would be Howard Schultz, Steve Jobs, and Michael Dell, although the turnaround of Dell is open to debate. I'd say that qualifies as "several."

In the case of Steve Jobs, he was a co-founder of Apple, but he wasn't a "long-time CEO." In fact, I don't believe he ever served as CEO until after his return to the company.

Edited to add: Here's the history of Apple CEO's - http://blog.insideview.com/2011/08/25/the-history-of-apple-ceos/

[Billy Cox]

I'm willing to tentatively buy this. I still don't see how term limits solve this. If we got some people in administration who reversed this inertia, why would we want them expelled from leadership positions after 8 years?

By this logic, we really should get rid of the mandatory retirement age as well. Just think how much Talmadge Johnson or Nina Gunter could have done (theoretically :rolleyes:) if they had served more than four years. Of course it's also fair to wonder whether Johnson or Gunter would have gotten elected at all without the assurance that their term would be only four years.

I suspect that a true change agent GS/DS would probably be 'done' after 8 years anyway.



Well, the three highest profile ones in recent history would be Howard Schultz, Steve Jobs, and Michael Dell, although the turnaround of Dell is open to debate. I'd say that qualifies as "several."

Haha, I'll keep that definition in mind for future generalizations. :)

[Bill Morrison]

Term limits mean that sooner or later (perhaps frequently) we would lose a G.S. or D.S. that is providing great leadership. Why would we ever want to do that? If we are concerned about removing ones who are not so good or stale in their leadership (however people define that), why not raise the bar for re-election? Currently all G.S's are subject to a vote at each GA, I think only 2/3 "YES" is required for re-election. If the "YES" level required was raised to say 80% or 90%, it would allow more possibility for turnover in situations where delegates are not highly pleased with the current leadership being continued. A similar thing could be done for D.S's (whom I think are subject to re-election every two years).
(OR we could just require re-election to be based on unanimous vote of the delegates........which would only be fair if there is any truth to the derisive gossip I have heard that all the decisions of the Board of General Superintendents are "unanimous":smile:)

BILL

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Personally, I'd be okay if the GS position was like the Supreme Court - lifetime till death, resignation or retirement.

You don't see the Catholics voting on their pope every four years.

(Almost serious, not quite)

[Craig Laughlin]

Pastor Craig, I guess I am out of the loop when you say it is broken. Having never attended a GA in my 74 years of being a Nazarene, how so, or would you excommunicate me for never been to the Holy Grail? From way out in the hinterland, "What you talken about Willis (Craig)?"

It is broken because it (almost) exclusively elects from a minuscule segment of our church. (White, male, Midwestern and more recently Kansas city affiliated and more recently College church Olathe pastor) There are more Nazarenes outside the US than inside, there are more Nazarenes who do not speak English as a 1st language than do. We have elected exactly one non English as a first language person and one women and she fit the rest of the profile. This is broken in the extreme.

[Billy Cox]

It is broken because it (almost) exclusively elects from a minuscule segment of our church. (White, male, Midwestern and more recently Kansas city affiliated and more recently College church Olathe pastor)

I have observed this on more than one occasion and the response has either been deafening silence or shame that I would be an accuser of the brethren.

In my opinion, something is desperately wrong with the denomination when it has elected every former pastor of Olathe College Church to the general superintendency, including 2 of the 6 sitting GSes. I think it is entirely possible to say that without disparaging College Church or casting doubt on the qualifications of the individuals in question.

It just doesn't smell right. Is the rest of the denomination so bereft of qualified leadership that we keep 'electing' people from the same pond?

[Ryan Scott]

Personally, I'd be okay if the GS position was like the Supreme Court - lifetime till death, resignation or retirement.

You don't see the Catholics voting on their pope every four years.

(Almost serious, not quite)

But when they do vote for pope, he can't be over 80.

[Billy Cox]

Term limits mean that sooner or later (perhaps frequently) we would lose a G.S. or D.S. that is providing great leadership. Why would we ever want to do that? If we are concerned about removing ones who are not so good or stale in their leadership (however people define that), why not raise the bar for re-election?

For all of our discussions about a turn around for the denomination, we seem to favor leadership that supports plowing straight ahead. We dream of transformational leadership, but then we elect long-haul leaders and give them every incentive to lead in such a way as to not lose ground.

The problem with term limits is not the fact that we would be firing someone who is providing great leadership, but is rather the fact that we need to rethink what great leadership is to start with.

[Bill Morrison]

In my opinion, something is desperately wrong with the denomination when it has elected every former pastor of Olathe College Church to the general superintendency, including 2 of the 6 sitting GSes. I think it is entirely possible to say that without disparaging College Church or casting doubt on the qualifications of the individuals in question.


As a 31 year member of Olathe College Church, I'd ask you to consider the possibility that our Church Board is just plain good at choosing great pastors and maybe God has a little something to do with it too:smile:
My fear now is that the denomination will soon take Pastor Power from us since he is such a mission-minded, multicultural experienced, down-to-earth intellectual pastor.

BILL

[John Kennedy]

Term limits mean that sooner or later (perhaps frequently) we would lose a G.S. or D.S. that is providing great leadership. Why would we ever want to do that? If we are concerned about removing ones who are not so good or stale in their leadership (however people define that), why not raise the bar for re-election? Currently all G.S's are subject to a vote at each GA, I think only 2/3 "YES" is required for re-election. If the "YES" level required was raised to say 80% or 90%, it would allow more possibility for turnover in situations where delegates are not highly pleased with the current leadership being continued. A similar thing could be done for D.S's (whom I think are subject to re-election every two years).
(OR we could just require re-election to be based on unanimous vote of the delegates........which would only be fair if there is any truth to the derisive gossip I have heard that all the decisions of the Board of General Superintendents are "unanimous":smile:)

BILL

Up front, let it be noted that this post is in no way, shape, or form, related to the election of GS/DS - being non-Naz I don't have a horse in that race. I am, instead, making an observation about 'super-majorities' (60% - 80%) being required for approval.

The problem with a super majority is that it gives effective veto power to those in opposition - in a 2/3 majority situation, for example, a no vote has twice the clout of a yes. So while a super majority may well inject a note of careful prudence into a decision, it could also thwart the will of the majority.

California furnishes some excellent examples of this - it is possible to amend the constitution by a simple majority - a repeal of that provision, should it prove unsatisfactory, requires a 2/3.

[Hans Deventer]

As a 31 year member of Olathe College Church, I'd ask you to consider the possibility that our Church Board is just plain good at choosing great pastors and maybe God has a little something to do with it too:smile:

Bill, it's certainly not up to me to delete God from the equation, nor to doubt the quality of the leadership at OCC. However, neither would I dare to say that these are the only influenses.

[Jim Chabot]

Personally, I'd be okay if the GS position was like the Supreme Court - lifetime till death, resignation or retirement.

You don't see the Catholics voting on their pope every four years.

(Almost serious, not quite)

Personally I would be happy to see the three most recently elected GS's serve until they age out.

Is that the problem?

[Jim Chabot]

It is broken because it (almost) exclusively elects from a minuscule segment of our church. (White, male, Midwestern and more recently Kansas city affiliated and more recently College church Olathe pastor) There are more Nazarenes outside the US than inside, there are more Nazarenes who do not speak English as a 1st language than do. We have elected exactly one non English as a first language person and one women and she fit the rest of the profile. This is broken in the extreme.

Yes, but as the church grows and matures overseas, this problem will correct itself.

[Craig Laughlin]

Yes, but as the church grows and matures overseas, this problem will correct itself.

Why do you think that?

Even if it is true and I do not believe that is the case, it does not justify what is happening.

Finally, it is the final place of resistance when the minority is in power. Just wait it will get better...

[Shea Zellweger]

Yes, but as the church grows and matures overseas, this problem will correct itself.

The church has grown and matured overseas. We have plenty of excelelnt non-American leaders from whom to choose. If there's a problem with maturity, it's the US church not having the maturity to recognize this.

[Jim Chabot]

Why do you think that?

Even if it is true and I do not believe that is the case, it does not justify what is happening.

Finally, it is the final place of resistance when the minority is in power. Just wait it will get better...

What is happening? At the last GA, we elected Eugenio Duarte, and we did so very quickly! Gustavo Crocker also placed high in much of the voting as well. If the perceived problem is diversity in representation, then it is getting better.

I would also argue that we shouldn't be looking to set quotas, we should be looking to elect the best leaders. Was there someone who would have served us better that the three we elected last?

[Jim Chabot]

The church has grown and matured overseas. We have plenty of excelelnt non-American leaders from whom to choose. If there's a problem with maturity, it's the US church not having the maturity to recognize this.

Can we be so certain that the US church has not recognized this? Was there someone specific who was overlooked?

I suppose that we could schedule the next GA in Brazil, or South Africa, would that help?

Don't get me wrong here, I would love to see the next three GS's come from South America and Africa. They are more conservative that those in the US for the most part.

[Shea Zellweger]

Can we be so certain that the US church has not recognized this? Was there someone specific who was overlooked?
I'd have to go back through the voting to verify this, but I'm pretty sure Valvassoura was leading three times before being overtaken by Dr.s Toler, Bowling, and Graves. I believe the Europe region's RC was leading in the polls for awhile as well. Also, Carla Sundberg's name rose pretty high before lunch... So, ya know, take your pick :D.
Do I think any of these individuals is more or less qualified than the folks we elected? I couldn't honestly say. What I can say is that the US has sufficient delegation to resist non-american elections, and appears to be collectively willing to do so. No other world region has that privilege.



I suppose that we could schedule the next GA in Brazil, or South Africa, would that help?
Sure! You wanna fund that?


Don't get me wrong here, I would love to see the next three GS's come from South America and Africa. They are more conservative that those in the US for the most part.

They're quite a different kind of conservative. You might want to ask Gabriel Salguero about how Brown people fall on the conservative/liberal spectrum before so readily embracing the matter ;).

[Hans Deventer]

What is happening? At the last GA, we elected Eugenio Duarte, and we did so very quickly! Gustavo Crocker also placed high in much of the voting as well. If the perceived problem is diversity in representation, then it is getting better.

I got the impression that the pressure to finally elect a non-North American was so high, the GA could not resist anymore. But as soon as the token GS was elected, we got back to electing from the well established pool of candidates.


I would also argue that we shouldn't be looking to set quotas, we should be looking to elect the best leaders. Was there someone who would have served us better that the three we elected last?

Jim, your question indicates precisely where the problem is. You don't know, nor do the delegates. But since the church elsewhere is growing rapidly, obviously the answer is a resounding YES. Hence the system is broken and in dire need of repair. What worked when the church was small and everyone knew pretty much everyone, no longer works.

[Jim Chabot]

I got the impression that the pressure to finally elect a non-North American was so high, the GA could not resist anymore. But as soon as the token GS was elected, we got back to electing from the well established pool of candidates.

I had and still have the impression that we allow the Spirit to guide our decision. Our process is as open as it is possible to the Spirit's leading. I believe that we have the GS's that are the best for our time.


Jim, your question indicates precisely where the problem is. You don't know, nor do the delegates. But since the church elsewhere is growing rapidly, obviously the answer is a resounding YES. Hence the system is broken and in dire need of repair. What worked when the church was small and everyone knew pretty much everyone, no longer works.

No my question says no such thing. My question was/is rhetorical in nature. I believe that we have who the Spirit wishes and I'm ok with our system. No need to mess things up with a bunch of human meddling. It seems as if we are questioning the Spirits ability to influence delegates.

[Jim Chabot]

I'd have to go back through the voting to verify this, but I'm pretty sure Valvassoura was leading three times before being overtaken by Dr.s Toler, Bowling, and Graves. I believe the Europe region's RC was leading in the polls for awhile as well. Also, Carla Sundberg's name rose pretty high before lunch... So, ya know, take your pick :D.
Do I think any of these individuals is more or less qualified than the folks we elected? I couldn't honestly say. What I can say is that the US has sufficient delegation to resist non-american elections, and appears to be collectively willing to do so. No other world region has that privilege.

Yes, I was of the impression that Gustavo Crocker was very close. Still I am of the impression that the Spirit leads.

You may have a valid point about representation. I'm going to assume that we allow a certain number of delegates based upon the number of folks represented? And I'm going to assume that some don't send all of the delegates allowed due to cost? Would that be correct?

On the other hand, maybe it could be said that we are a US based church with branches located outside our borders. Perhaps we aren't big enough to call ourselves international. Delusions of grandeur perhaps?

Should we limit the number of delegates from a certain radius of the GA locus, to a percentage of those attending from without?


Sure! You wanna fund that?

What, you want a free solution?:tongue:


They're quite a different kind of conservative. You might want to ask Gabriel Salguero about how Brown people fall on the conservative/liberal spectrum before so readily embracing the matter ;).

I'm aware, it isn't like I hang out with white people all the time.:smile:

[Hans Deventer]

It seems as if we are questioning the Spirits ability to influence delegates.

You can't be serious. All we have is a human system and now all of a sudden, a change means questioning the Spirit?

Anyway, the very fact that you and I and the rest of the GA had no clue about other leaders, effectively diminishes any guiding. People simply do not vote for candidates they do not know, unless they are aware of serious backing from other delegates who do know the person.

I personally no longer believe in the system. I've seen it work in the election of all the GS's since 1997. And if there is one major influence, we call it "lunch break".

The role of the Spirit is to qualify the called, and thank God, that is what He seems to be doing. God is an expert at creating something good out of our mess, thankfully.

BTW, the proof is in the people who pulled back or even rejected their election. Either they were not able to understand the leading of the Spirit, or the GA did not. You simply can't have it both ways. So who didn't listen, Jim? Dr. Bowling or the GA?

I say both tried to act as well as they could, understanding what God wanted them to do. I have no clue who was right, but I'm pretty certain God could have used Dr. Bowling as GS, as much as He can while he's still at Olivet.

The will of God is much more flexible that we give Him credit for. Considering who we are, He has to.

[Hans Deventer]

I'm going to assume that we allow a certain number of delegates based upon the number of folks represented?

We have delegates based on income. Where the money is, that's where the delegates are. And of course some can't make it because of visa problems, but even if they could, it would not change much.

In 1997 the system was changed in order to avoid non-Americans to gain a voting majority, though of course the official rationale was to preserve the balance between laity and clergy. The GA effectively said it cared more about that balance, than about the representation of the 130 phase 1 districts (at the time, who of course by mere chance also happened to be all outside of the USA).

[Ryan Scott]

I'll say that one of the biggest problems I've noticed is that most US delegates have no sense of the contextual differences in effect throughout the world. They look for leaders from outside the US whose career path, training, education, and reputation match those leaders they would elect from the US. They don't understand that all of their expectations of a leader are culturally conditioned from a US perspective. It's a kind of ethnocentrism to which we all (me most definitely included) fall prey. If 60% of the delegates were from Brazil, you better believe we'd be electing Brazilians most of the time. That's just sort of how these things go. In my view, it is the responsibility of the majority culture to assess themselves and actively look to expand their understanding of leaderships so as to, as much as possible, avoid the bias.

The second observation is simply that if the Spirit is moving, the Spirit has some influential, well planned, and vocal help from veteran leaders and delegates. You can't walk two feet during lunch time or breaks without hearing a conversation in which a long time delegate is explaining to a newby all the reasons why the denomination is just not ready for __________ or _________ to take a GS position.

There's a strict ban on candidates campaigning for themselves, but there's a very strong campaign for and against various candidates at every General Assembly.

Finally, to echo Hans' point. The system has been set up to reward those with the most money and the most connections. I'm sure with the recent cutbacks at headquarters this will be less of an issue, but at one point there were some 60 odd ex officio delegates based on their position at HQ - all of which went to middle aged white guys.

The most recent GA was our smallest percentage of US delegates, something like 58% from the US - even though only about 35% of those elected were from the US.

It's not fair. For an organization claiming to represent Christ, the best possible solution is for those with power to give it up.

(On a side note, I wonder if my district could elect delegates from Africa and then pay for them to come and represent us at GA?)

[Wes Smith]

Interestng thread. Even if it has wandered from the original question...should there be term limits for DS's & GS's.

I've pretty much abandoned any hope that substantial change is anywhere in the future of our denomination. My opinion has not changed...we are up against crises in many areas, but we lack the will to change.

Term limits would be a change, but in my opinion would be a change that would continue to propogate the way we've always done things. Changing personnel without seriously considering the organizational and structural changes that need to happen will only insure that we keep doing things basically the way we've always done them and seeing continuing dwindling away of our life and vision.

Change can be conducted in at least a couple ways...through the efforts and leadership of visionaries, or, forced change where principals more or less respond to crises as they go along. Which way do you see us taking?

Friend,

Wes

[Craig Laughlin]

What is happening? At the last GA, we elected Eugenio Duarte, and we did so very quickly! Gustavo Crocker also placed high in much of the voting as well. If the perceived problem is diversity in representation, then it is getting better.

I would also argue that we shouldn't be looking to set quotas, we should be looking to elect the best leaders. Was there someone who would have served us better that the three we elected last?

I haven't read the rest of this thread so others may have replied to this but since it was directed at me...

Frankly I'm flabbergasted by your response. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it is ignorance of the facts rather than some sort of ... well I'll avoid speculating, what would cause you to argue that the overseas church is not mature enough to have GS's from their country.

We have been in Africa since 1901, Asian Pacific since 1905, Eurasia since 1898, Central America since 1908, and South America since 1908. This means we have been in those areas as long as the church of the Nazarene has existed. Additionally 5 of the top 6 largest Nazarene churches in the world are not in the US and there are more Nazarenes off shore than in the US. Africa produced more than twice as many New Nazarenes as USA/Canada did last year. (We won't mention that in Africa that probably represents mostly new believers while in the US the new members is probably mostly folks from other churches)

So would you like to reconsider your premise that the rest of the church of the Nazarene is not mature enough? If not, then in what way is it that you think they need to mature?

[Billy Cox]

Interestng thread. Even if it has wandered from the original question...should there be term limits for DS's & GS's.

I've pretty much abandoned any hope that substantial change is anywhere in the future of our denomination. My opinion has not changed...we are up against crises in many areas, but we lack the will to change.

Term limits would be a change, but in my opinion would be a change that would continue to propogate the way we've always done things. Changing personnel without seriously considering the organizational and structural changes that need to happen will only insure that we keep doing things basically the way we've always done them and seeing continuing dwindling away of our life and vision.

Change can be conducted in at least a couple ways...through the efforts and leadership of visionaries, or, forced change where principals more or less respond to crises as they go along. Which way do you see us taking?


If history is any indicator, the denomination typically follows a reactive model of change. GMC got serious about financial responsibility only in response to a huge shortfall in WEF revenue. Money or the lack thereof is the only surefire way to get the attention of upper leadership. Find a way to clearly and convincingly monetize visionary leadership, and the denomination will embrace it in a heartbeat.

[Greg Farra]

Have we ever considered electing Generals by region?

[Billy Cox]

Have we ever considered electing Generals by region?

There's been conversation, but I don't know that it has ever gone beyond the nazarene peanut gallery. The interesting question would be, "is the USA/Canada one region overall, or would each educational zone be a region?"

Can you imagine the country that supplies most of the denomination's money getting only one seat on the BGS?!?! Oh, the injustice!

[Jim Chabot]

I haven't read the rest of this thread so others may have replied to this but since it was directed at me...

Frankly I'm flabbergasted by your response. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it is ignorance of the facts rather than some sort of ... well I'll avoid speculating, what would cause you to argue that the overseas church is not mature enough to have GS's from their country.

We have been in Africa since 1901, Asian Pacific since 1905, Eurasia since 1898, Central America since 1908, and South America since 1908. This means we have been in those areas as long as the church of the Nazarene has existed. Additionally 5 of the top 6 largest Nazarene churches in the world are not in the US and there are more Nazarenes off shore than in the US. Africa produced more than twice as many New Nazarenes as USA/Canada did last year. (We won't mention that in Africa that probably represents mostly new believers while in the US the new members is probably mostly folks from other churches)

So would you like to reconsider your premise that the rest of the church of the Nazarene is not mature enough? If not, then in what way is it that you think they need to mature?

Benefit of the doubt? Well how nice of you.

My concern is with those who would look to set quotas, honestly all of this talk of how the system is broken seems to be predicated on the makeup of the board. I don't believe that the system is broken, rather I believe that God has provided us with the best folks for the job. Quite frankly, I don't care one bit what color the GS's are or what country they hail from.

[Jim Chabot]

We have delegates based on income. Where the money is, that's where the delegates are. And of course some can't make it because of visa problems, but even if they could, it would not change much.

In 1997 the system was changed in order to avoid non-Americans to gain a voting majority, though of course the official rationale was to preserve the balance between laity and clergy. The GA effectively said it cared more about that balance, than about the representation of the 130 phase 1 districts (at the time, who of course by mere chance also happened to be all outside of the USA).

Ummmm, no we have delegates equally drawn from laity and clergy representing members in fully functioning districts. And it appears that you would like to see the developing districts represented. I'm thinking that it might be best for us to agree to disagree.

[Ryan Scott]

Ummmm, no we have delegates equally drawn from laity and clergy representing members in fully functioning districts. And it appears that you would like to see the developing districts represented. I'm thinking that it might be best for us to agree to disagree.

If it were a question of functioning, then I would agree with you; it's not a question of functioning, it's a question of money. There are districts with thousands of local churches who aren't given equal representation because they're dirt poor and can't raise enough to pay a DS the salary KC thinks they should make.

I am more inclined to use the number of credentialed clergy as an indicator than I am money, but it still skews us towards the richer, more educated areas.

As for the make-up of the board. I don't have any specific problems with any of them or with their nationality. The one whose election I was least happy about has turned out to be rather impressive, proving again that God general blesses the people we elect to lead us, no matter how flawed our system may be.

I do believe that our system is dysfunctional, but that God does give grace to our chosen leaders as they lead faithfully.

If we had an election truly representative of our membership and we still got six white guys from Kansas, so be it. I'm much more concerned about the process than the results.

[Marian Schwaller Carney]

[QUOTE=Shea Zellweger;106392]I think this is a tendency in most churches. While I can see why this would be frustrating (and have experienced that frustration myself), I wonder why you find the term offensive?

Shea,
I think of prestigious as a word that implies some sort of preference over another thing. Yes, there are some churches that work hard and achieve goals and can support the pastoral staff and have lots and lots of members (hundreds+) among which are lots of active members. I think that is what we often think of as 'prestigious', and that it is the measure by which all other churches can be prestigious.
Now, maybe i am wrong and assumed a meaning Craig does not intend. But the sense of any church being somehow preferred for a leader to move on to leaves me cold. It seems antithetical to all Christ teaches us about humility, the Body, esteeming other better than ourselves. Some churches will never be 'prestigious' to anyone but the people who live in and love them, that is, the local congregation that is so far out in the hinterlands that few know they exist.Yet they love and serve Christ as much as a bigger, more 'notable' church elsewhere does.

I guess I'd like another word used other than 'prestigious' for Craig's sentence, and what I think is his meaning. Not sure what that word is.

[Craig Laughlin]

Benefit of the doubt? Well how nice of you.

My concern is with those who would look to set quotas, honestly all of this talk of how the system is broken seems to be predicated on the makeup of the board. I don't believe that the system is broken, rather I believe that God has provided us with the best folks for the job. Quite frankly, I don't care one bit what color the GS's are or what country they hail from.

So this means you were wrong about the maturing?

Am I reading your post correctly that you think people from other countries are not the best people for the job?

Is it your contention that having now elected one person from overseas we need to be concerned about quotas?

The benefit of the doubt I have extended to you was because you are going down a path that can lead to some pretty nasty conclusions. I don't want to push you that way but you seem to be passing on the opportunity to clarify or nuance.

[Jim Chabot]

So this means you were wrong about the maturing?

Am I reading your post correctly that you think people from other countries are not the best people for the job?

Is it your contention that having now elected one person from overseas we need to be concerned about quotas?

The benefit of the doubt I have extended to you was because you are going down a path that can lead to some pretty nasty conclusions. I don't want to push you that way but you seem to be passing on the opportunity to clarify or nuance.

See, now you are sending mixed signals. On one hand you speak of extending the benefit of doubt. Then on the other hand you allude to veiled threats of where we could go if you didn't. And you continue to try to make something out of nothing.

Sorry Craig, but the system isn't broken, nor have you presented anything that would indicate that it is.

[Hans Deventer]

Sorry Craig, but the system isn't broken, nor have you presented anything that would indicate that it is.

The system is totally broken, the fact that you don't choose to see it, because you choose to believe it is good, doesn't change a thing when it comes to the facts. We are unable to elect the people best qualified for the job. A simple fact. The churcb is growing leaps and bounds in South America and Africa. And we elect leaders from an area where it has been stagnent for decades. The reason being the broken human system: the delegates simply do not know these leaders. God is doing His very best to amend our failures by equipping the elected. A child can see "something's rotten in the state of Denmark." But if you choose to believe otherwise, no fact will change your mind, obviously.

If I choose to believe that 1 + 1 actually makes 3, how will you prove to me it is 2?

And I noticed you conveniently didn't reply to my example about the election of Dr. Bowling. I understand though. There is no answer to that question within your chosen framework.


Ummmm, no we have delegates equally drawn from laity and clergy representing members in fully functioning districts. And it appears that you would like to see the developing districts represented. I'm thinking that it might be best for us to agree to disagree.

What defines a "fully functioning district"? Money, Jim, and nothing else. The number of churches, elders etc is irrelevant beause that is never the issue. Everything that matters is ultimately about money. And it so happens (amazing, isn't it) that with perhaps one exception, all non-fase 3 districts are outside the USA. So we've effecitvely and hypocritically diminished the number of delegates from the phase 2 districts, and made the delegates of the phase 1 districts non-voting members. It is a crying shame for a church that pretends to be international. If we'd see the number of vibrant, growing but poor Nazarenes that simply have no representation whatsoever, we'd turn red in shame.
Oh, btw, a phase 2 or phase 1 district also cannot be represented on the General Board. God forbid they'd have any say over a Regional Director they did not elect, or a Field Strategy Coordinator they did not elect either.

[Jim Chabot]

The system is totally broken, the fact that you don't choose to see it, because you choose to believe it is good, doesn't change a thing when it comes to the facts. We are unable to elect the people best qualified for the job. A simple fact. The churcb is growing leaps and bounds in South America and Africa. And we elect leaders from an area where it has been stagnent for decades. The reason being the broken human system: the delegates simply do not know these leaders. God is doing His very best to amend our failures by equipping the elected. A child can see "something's rotten in the state of Denmark." But if you choose to believe otherwise, no fact will change your mind, obviously.

If I choose to believe that 1 + 1 actually makes 3, how will you prove to me it is 2?

And I noticed you conveniently didn't reply to my example about the election of Dr. Bowling. I understand though. There is no answer to that question within your chosen framework.

I get it. You think that the system is broken, therefore it must be so. Sorry, but I don't see it that way.

At the last GA we actually elected a fine gentleman from the African continent as one of our GS's. Your response was to refer to him as a token candidate. Now I have heard him say on more than one occasion publicly and once personally that he believes that our system of voting with a blank slate represents our best efforts to allow the Spirit to work in our selection. Rather than thinking of him as a "token" I have chosen to see him as a person who is capable of leading us. In fact I think very highly of him and I'm going to take him at his word on this one.

The fact that you have asked the age old question about whether God can make a rock large enough that He cannot pick it up isn't really germain. Yes you are right, there is no answer to your question. Then again it is a gotcha question, thus no answer is deserved either.



What defines a "fully functioning district"? Money, Jim, and nothing else. The number of churches, elders etc is irrelevant beause that is never the issue. Everything that matters is ultimately about money. And it so happens (amazing, isn't it) that with perhaps one exception, all non-fase 3 districts are outside the USA. So we've effecitvely and hypocritically diminished the number of delegates from the phase 2 districts, and made the delegates of the phase 1 districts non-voting members. It is a crying shame for a church that pretends to be international. If we'd see the number of vibrant, growing but poor Nazarenes that simply have no representation whatsoever, we'd turn red in shame.
Oh, btw, a phase 2 or phase 1 district also cannot be represented on the General Board. God forbid they'd have any say over a Regional Director they did not elect, or a Field Strategy Coordinator they did not elect either.

Phase 1 and 2 districts represent our outreach. It makes perfect sense that the ones reaching out would also be the ones to decide how the organization is led. This follows the example of the early church as Paul instructed Timothy that a bishop was not to be a newcomer. It is scriptural to have the experienced lead the inexperienced, the word discipleship comes to mind, and I am mindful that Jesus did not ask us to produce converts but rather he asks us to disciple.

Oh, it's all about money you say. I would respond that isn't the whole story at all. It is all about whether a district is fully functioning or not. Part of full function is reproduction outside of ones immediate locus. Many refer to the charge to reach out as the great commission, it is why we reach out and establish phase 1 districts in the first place. I think that you would agree that the phase 1 and 2 districts only because the phase 3 districts have given. Without phase 3 districts there would be no conversation about the others because they wouldn't exist in the first place. This isn't about poverty, it's about maturity and mature christians give, simple as that. As sure as the widow gave her two mites, I have witnessed mature christians give, even when their situation would give them a pass. Haggai gives some good advise as to the cause and effect of giving as he explains how God enters the picture there.

[Jon Twitchell]

I'm just curious how the sacrificial giving of chickens and goats by mature Christians factors into the formula of whether or not a district is promoted to a Phase 2 or Phase 3 District...

[Jim Chabot]

I'm just curious how the sacrificial giving of chickens and goats by mature Christians factors into the formula of whether or not a district is promoted to a Phase 2 or Phase 3 District...

This would be way funny, except that I wouldn't want to assume that your not serious. Although I sincerely hope that your not serious.

Easy, the goats and chickens get sold on the open market and some of the money goes to help fund further outreach. Pretty much the same way they did it back in the day.

Then again, if all you have are goats and chickens, I'm thinking that being a delegate at a GA isn't really something that your worried about.

[Jon Twitchell]

This would be way funny, except that I wouldn't want to assume that your not serious. Although I sincerely hope that your not serious.

Easy, the goats and chickens get sold on the open market and some of the money goes to help fund further outreach. Pretty much the same way they did it back in the day.

Then again, if all you have are goats and chickens, I'm thinking that being a delegate at a GA isn't really something that your worried about.

1) I am serious.

2) Your last sentence has made the point splendidly. It's not about whether they are worried about being represented at GA... it's about whether or not WE are worried about them being represented at GA. Basically, you just told us all that you couldn't care less whether the chicken/goat giving farmer (who may be giving his last two mites) is represented at GA. That is why people are saying that something is broken.

[Jon Twitchell]

On a side note... I'm not required to pay "budgets" on the chickens and goats that are brought to me, as the IRS doesn't consider them a tax-deductible contribution (for which I need to issue a receipt). Once I receive the chickens and goats, I can sell them... and that money is STILL not a tax-deductible contribution.

But that's really irrelevant to the point at hand.

Speaking of irrelevant... your dismissal of Hans serious question about Dr. Bowling betrays the weakness of your position. This is not a "Can God make a rock so heavy He can't lift it?" question... this is a real question that is germane to the topic at hand: As I see it, two things are possible: 1) someone (either the delegates or the candidate) misheard the voice of the Holy Spirit, or 2) the Holy Spirit told the candidate one thing and the delegates another thing.

If option 1 happened... then we have hard and fast evidence that the system is broken.
If option 2 happened... then we have a whole new set of complexities... Since we won't acknowledge the possibility that the Spirit is schizophrenic, then we have to consider what the Spirit may be trying to tell us... not the least of which is the very real possibility that the Spirit wanted us to have this conversation about the system being broken.

[Wes Smith]

While I agree that the "system is broken," I do so for different reasons.

First, I disagree that there is a post break, after lunch discussions, or rumor mill that influences voting. That is nearly impossible. However, I have seen the voting at GA reflect people changing their votes to join in with the front runner. To say that individuals at GA are influenced by some unseen mandate or even suggestion is fantasy. The primary "force" is simply what elders rise to the top of the voting. I never once had someone come to me and say anything like, "Hey, the new man/woman is...and this is an order or request from headquarters." That is sheer nonsense.

Second, I sense a bit of liberal progress vs. conservative thinking in this conversation. The liberal/progressives might say something like this, "I think the poor people should have a voice in GA and that the well-to-do folks should pay for such." The conservatives might say something like, "The poor should have a voice when they indicate responsibility by making a satifactory stewardship investment in the organization." This one is very hard to resolve since most of our growth is among the poor folks. However, it might be worth pointing out that, as has been stated in other threads, our denomination came from very poor roots. Poor people were in charge during some of our most growing years. They sacrificed like crazy to develop the mission aspect of the church and sacrificed like crazy to attend General Assemblies.

Third, when I say that the system is broken and I am very tempted to agree with Hans's "hopelessly," I am saying that we are broken because we don't even know what to be radically concerned about. The heat on this thread proves it in my way of thinking. Everything that has been said (and, I know that is an overstatement) assumes that something good would come from keeping things the same or tweaking the organization in order to bring more people to the GA table. My opinion...keeping it the same or bringing more people to the GA table will net nothing. NOTHING.

Drum roll, please! The vital issue we face is...REGIONALIZATION! Our denomination should be expending its strongest attention these days in removing barriers to grow all around the world. We currently have an organization that is Olathe and North American (wealth) centered. Have done with it. Quit this nonsense of implying or flat out saying that the historic or North American model of Nazarenism has any value, save the ability to financially underwrite productive efforts around the world. The cloud and the pillar of fire has moved. Let's bail everything and run to catch up! The alternative is to sit in our lonely gatherings and watch the last campfires dwindle and go out.

North America should be one region represented on the world scene with one Regional Superintendent. North America should abandon the current district system and organize into "zones" that reflect approximately the current educational zones.

If we have the courage to make such moves, this entire discussion would take on vast new meaning. General Assembly would be a flat table that would reach (technologically) to the ends of the earth. North American representation would become a group of people seeking to support evangelistic and discipleship efforts where the action is happening and exactly where the needs are

We currently have no capacity to really care about the harvest because we are too inclined to argue about keeping the organization the way it is and what the make-up of a mind-boggling, impossibly expensive quadrennial gathering is going to be. All I can say is, "Please God, forgive us! Help us see your "immeasurably more" instead of our "little bit more!"

Tinkering may have had some value at some point in the past. Not now. What we need is a major overhaul.

Friend,

Wes

PS. I'd predict that some/most will want to discuss point number two above. My opinion is that such an approach will hasten things remaining as they are. The grand possibility of global regionalization is that telecommuting as a denomination will bring us to a fellowship table that reaches wherever we exist. Think global. Think regional.

[Craig Laughlin]

See, now you are sending mixed signals. Actually I was asking questions. Which I noticed you managed to ignore.



On one hand you speak of extending the benefit of doubt. Then on the other hand you allude to veiled threats of where we could go if you didn't. It wasn't me that was going there, you are all alone on this boat. I'm the guy on the shore waving his arms and shouting trying to keep you off the rocks.


And you continue to try to make something out of nothing.

Sorry Craig, but the system isn't broken, nor have you presented anything that would indicate that it is.

Speaking of boats, you appear to be sailing on that river in Egypt.

That being said you have managed to changed the subject and I'm thinking that is a good thing.

[Hans Deventer]

Everything that has been said (and, I know that is an overstatement) assumes that something good would come from keeping things the same or tweaking the organization in order to bring more people to the GA table. My opinion...keeping it the same or bringing more people to the GA table will net nothing. NOTHING.

Wes, I've said it before and will gladly repeat it: I don't see much use in a GA at all. But if we have one, we should do it in the best possible way, not punishing people who give sacrificially and help the gospel spread like crazy, while favouring those who in their arrogance and wealthy circumstances appear mainly concerned with maintaining power.

I'm sorry for using so much understatements and not stating my true feelings.

[Wes Smith]

And, again, the "Thanks" button is an understatement. It is good for us to consider that this is...2011 A.D. It is no longer 1960. The world is radically different. Let's accept that.

In 2011 and beyond, we have the capacity at a fraction of the cost to meet with regional delegations on level ground at a level, inclusive GA table. The implications of this are mind boggling.

What must it say to our International delegates who are thriving (and dieing), when we invite them to a Western assembly conducted in the comfort and ambiance of Western luxury? Through the miracle of the internet we could represent the accomplishments, hopes, vision and needs of our region and then elect leaders that have the proven capacity to know the various leadership nuances of the region.

Again, my opinion, but one of which I am thoroughly convinced...the General Superintendency must decrease and Regional Leadership must increase. The time has come for "Missionaries" to go home. We have beachheads that are more than established. If we have not established ourselves in one hundred years, it isn't going to happen. It is time for Regional Leaders totally take the helm.

We should have one General Superintendent. He/She would powerfully declare the vision of the church. The vision would be developed by a Regional Board (not General Board) made up by the Regional Supts. and other Regional Reps.

Let's get most of our good leaders back into our highest office...the pastorate!

Is there anybody out there? Is anyone listening?

Retired Friend,

Wes

[Wes Smith]

1. The system isn't broken. It is working in precise functionality with its development and conductors.

2. The system is broken in the sense that it reflects dysfunctionality and irrelevance in regards to the 2011 world and to the makeup of our denomination that has radically changed and has potential beyond our wildest dreams.

We don't need to fix the system. We need a new system.

Friend,

Wes

[Bill Morrison]

As I read the heated posts being put forward in this thread, I am honestly trying to understand what the best solution is for our denomination. It hasn't been said in specific terms, but what I am hearing in the debate is that the side that feels we are hopelessly broken in our present governance scheme feels that an ideal Board of GS would have a Brazilian and an African for sure, probably a European and an Asian also, someone from another world area, and a maximum of one from North America (preferably NOT a former pastor of Olathe College Church!) This sure looks like a regional type of organization to me, and the only way to get a board with that composition would be to let each region elect their own GS. Let's change our denominational structure if that is what is needed and if we truely believe that will further the spread of scriptural holiness around the world. (And, to be truly representative, we also would need to have three of these be women. I don't know how to ensure that, at least until we dramatically change the ratio of women to men who are ordained elders in the denomination)

I do feel some dismay (and a little resentment) that we who live in Olathe are all being portrayed as rich, arrogant, power-hungry individuals. I sure don't feel that way as I try to hang on to my job at a Nazarene University that is in a state of financial exigency and which feels free to break faculty contracts with no notice, and as I watch the numerous people being let go at GMC, many who have sacrificially given their lives to serve the denomination and serve God. As one who has had Cunningham, Warrick, and Graves as pastors, I can also assure you they are as far from the caricature being made of them as can be imagined.

BILL

[Hans Deventer]

I do feel some dismay (and a little resentment) that we who live in Olathe are all being portrayed as rich, arrogant, power-hungry individuals.

Well, I didn't say nor intent so. I know you and the Felters as living there and for all I know, you and they are fine people. And likewise the entire GA is most certainly composed of fine people, who nevertheless have created a grave injustice if we look at the church as an international body. They elect people they know, and since the US is the largest group where people more or less know each other, naturally the system results in virtually always electing American GS's.

We may pray as much as we want, and I'm probably a total heathen for saying so, but I've voted for a GS during the last 4 GA's and as yet never got a note from the Holy Spirit saying who to vote for. I'll go out on a limb and suggest the same goes for the other 999 delegates. So we use our God given minds. Unfortunately, the system does not help us in learning from leaders outside our area, which means that as I wrote, the largest more or less knowledgeable body produces the candidates.

Therefore I have suggested we should let the caucusses come up with a few names that have the support of the specific region. If I see a few names coming up per region, I can check with people from that region and be informed. (Which is what I always do, for I generally don't know at least half of the names we're voting for). I am not so cynical as to presume that people are actually unwilling to elect leaders outside of their knowledge. But they have to be informed and good backup from a region plus some information, might very well do the trick.

Let's say the South American Region comes up with a person who has been instrumental in mobilizing many districts and churches in such a way that they started growing rapidly. Couldn't the general church use such a (wo)man? I'd say we do and I'd vote for such a person in a heartbeat.

Which brings me directly to the office: I'd love to have these people as vision casters and consultants, rather than as chairperson of District Assemblies. We could use them so much better.

[Billy Cox]

I'd have to go back through the voting to verify this, but I'm pretty sure Valvassoura was leading three times before being overtaken by Dr.s Toler, Bowling, and Graves.

There was no way in Sheol that we were going to elect more than one non-white. Perhaps Duarte was deemed to be the non-white least likely to challenge the denominational status quo.

[Billy Cox]

The time has come for "Missionaries" to go home. We have beachheads that are more than established. If we have not established ourselves in one hundred years, it isn't going to happen. It is time for Regional Leaders totally take the helm.

Without the missionaries, the GMC would have great difficulty raising the amount of money that is currently diverted from the WEF to cover administrative expenses. It would be the equivalent of a Feed the Children commercial that only showed video footage of conference rooms filled with men in suits.



We should have one General Superintendent. He/She would powerfully declare the vision of the church. The vision would be developed by a Regional Board (not General Board) made up by the Regional Supts. and other Regional Reps.

I can respect the rationale for a singular GS, but the stumbling block for people of widely varying points of view is, "would I really want _______ (insert GS name) to potentially have even more sweeping power than he already has?" We cannot all be like Jim Chabot and ascribe popelike authority/respect to whoever the general assembly elects to the BGS.

[Billy Cox]

I do feel some dismay (and a little resentment) that we who live in Olathe are all being portrayed as rich, arrogant, power-hungry individuals.

This thread is not about Olathe, nor is it about College Church or any of its former pastors. It is most definitely not about the employees of the GMC, most of whom earn far less than market rates for their level of education and skill. Whether or not your former pastors are great men of God is beside the point. Nobody has suggested otherwise.

It is about a denomination that has chosen to elect leaders from within a very narrow slice of what would seem to be a widely distributed group of people. It is about a denomination that has taken steps to dilute the influence of non-American Nazarenes. I think there is something very wrong with that.

[Bill Morrison]

This thread is not about Olathe, nor is it about College Church or any of its former pastors. It is most definitely not about the employees of the GMC, most of whom earn far less than market rates for their level of education and skill. Whether or not your former pastors are great men of God is beside the point. Nobody has suggested otherwise.

It is about a denomination that has chosen to elect leaders from within a very narrow slice of what would seem to be a widely distributed group of people. It is about a denomination that has taken steps to dilute the influence of non-American Nazarenes. I think there is something very wrong with that.

I DO feel your pain.....or at the very least I am trying my best to do so. As I suggested in post #73, perhaps regionalization of GS elections would solve the lack of representation problem. Hans seems to suggest an allied idea in his post #74 (regional caucuses to vet/promote names from their areas). I have not detected much support for term limits (as much I fantasize about that when it comes to certain American Congressional leaders!), probably because it would not solve the problem of global representation on the Board of GS's (term limits would just allow the next Olathe College Church pastor to replace a current G.S.:smile:)

BILL

[Bill Morrison]

Some may want to know that the situation is even "worse" than has been portrayed in this discussion so far. Not only have ALL my highly respected pastors of the last 31 years from Olathe College Church been elected G.S. by the G.A., but in the 1980's I lost my much loved boss to GS-dom, Dr. Don Owens who was then President of MidAmerica Nazarene University. I would love to see better representation from world areas, but I can't imagine we would ever top Dr. Owens! I would love to list the qualities of this remarkable man, but won't do it because in his humility he would be embarrassed if someone showed it to him. The Spirit is leading us, in spite of our foibles. This reminds me of the Acts 6 situation......I just pray none of us ever get stoned as a result of it. (Although seeing Jesus standing at the right hand of God to receive you wouldn't be a bad way to go!)

BILL

[Billy Cox]

I DO feel your pain.....or at the very least I am trying my best to do so. As I suggested in post #73, perhaps regionalization of GS elections would solve the lack of representation problem. Hans seems to suggest an allied idea in his post #74 (regional caucuses to vet/promote names from their areas). I have not detected much support for term limits (as much I fantasize about that when it comes to certain American Congressional leaders!), probably because it would not solve the problem of global representation on the Board of GS's (term limits would just allow the next Olathe College Church pastor to replace a current G.S.:smile:)

I don't personally favor term limits either, but a discussion of them helps to identify the dynamics behind our selection of leadership.

[Bill Morrison]

I don't personally favor term limits either, but a discussion of them helps to identify the dynamics behind our selection of leadership.

Appreciate you starting the post. It is an issue that needs to be discussed.

BILL

[Jim Chabot]

Actually I was asking questions. Which I noticed you managed to ignore.

I'm sorry, my mistake. I honestly thought that you knew the answers to these questions, I though that they were rhetorical. If you honestly don't know the answers just say so and I will try to answer if I can.



It wasn't me that was going there, you are all alone on this boat. I'm the guy on the shore waving his arms and shouting trying to keep you off the rocks.

I don't see any rocks. Sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about. Honest.

[Jim Chabot]

1) I am serious.

2) Your last sentence has made the point splendidly. It's not about whether they are worried about being represented at GA... it's about whether or not WE are worried about them being represented at GA. Basically, you just told us all that you couldn't care less whether the chicken/goat giving farmer (who may be giving his last two mites) is represented at GA. That is why people are saying that something is broken.

No, I'm not saying that at all. I don't believe that this is about money, I believe it is about a district which is fully functioning. I'm trusting that there are some folks who are far better informed that you, I, Hans, or Craig who are guiding these decisions.

[Jim Chabot]

On a side note... I'm not required to pay "budgets" on the chickens and goats that are brought to me, as the IRS doesn't consider them a tax-deductible contribution (for which I need to issue a receipt). Once I receive the chickens and goats, I can sell them... and that money is STILL not a tax-deductible contribution.

But that's really irrelevant to the point at hand.

Maybe true in your district, not the case in ours. We are expected to pay budgets on all "in kind" contributions. Recently we completed a project at our church where I had made a small in kind contribution of materials. I calculated the "vig" on my chickens and a half of a goat and made a cash donation to cover the budget obligation.


Speaking of irrelevant... your dismissal of Hans serious question about Dr. Bowling betrays the weakness of your position. This is not a "Can God make a rock so heavy He can't lift it?" question... this is a real question that is germane to the topic at hand: As I see it, two things are possible: 1) someone (either the delegates or the candidate) misheard the voice of the Holy Spirit, or 2) the Holy Spirit told the candidate one thing and the delegates another thing.

If option 1 happened... then we have hard and fast evidence that the system is broken.
If option 2 happened... then we have a whole new set of complexities... Since we won't acknowledge the possibility that the Spirit is schizophrenic, then we have to consider what the Spirit may be trying to tell us... not the least of which is the very real possibility that the Spirit wanted us to have this conversation about the system being broken.

Really? Hans said it himself, he said that "there is no answer to that question within your chosen framework."

So you see it was not intended to be a question at all, let alone a serious one.

As to the answer. Of course speculation could provide one, but all that accomplishes is to kick the can a little farther down the road.

So just for fun, since it really doesn't change anything.

Yes the Spirit is not schizophrenic, no argument there. Thus our ability to listen or our will to obey must be lacking. But who? Well that would be anybody's guess, would it not. For instance, I am sure that it isn't me, and you are equally sure that it isn't you. It's a conundrum, unless I agree with you, or better yet you agree with me.

Lets see, Hans provided two options, one being Dr. Bowling and the other being the delegates who voted for him. But could there be a third option. I do remember that folks who were close to the situation being of the opinion that the decision was quite possibly made by yet another person. So I suppose that the delegates were listening, and perhaps Dr. Bowling was as well, while someone else might not have gotten the memo? One never knows, that's the beauty of speculation.

The point is who cares because it isn't germain. Our system of voting is about the best way that is humanly possible to ascertain the Spirits desire. We don't attempt to define the Spirits choices in any way. It is entirely possible to elect a fellow riding a goat to the position of GS, so long as he had already donated his chicken.

Thus if it pleases the Spirit to elect six old white guys from Kansas City to lead our denomination, I'm not going to object.

Now if option 1 is actually hard and fast proof that the system is broken. Lets acknowledge that is is irreparably broken with no possibility of repair or replacement. We are utterly without any hope at all, done for, finished, and kaput. My guess is that we have no hard and fast proof that the system is broken. At least none that I have heard.

[David Graham]

Yes, but as the church grows and matures overseas, this problem will correct itself.

Thanks Jim, but unless things have changed in recent times, the church international has been outpacing the US churches growth for decades. As for maturity, I'd suggest that there are a lot of very capable and spiritually mature leaders in other world areas...... with respect Jim, to suggest in general that leaders overseas need to "mature" indicates a rather patronising point of view.....i.e. "You guys are not as "mature" as us!" ...... hmmm I wonder!?!

I'm oppossed to long term leadership in general because it tends to lead to stagnation. Shea suggested before that maybe Pastors or ministers should have "set terms", and I agree that they should. In my denomination the a minister can only serve a maximum of 2 terms (i.e. 10 years] unless there are other extraordinary circumstances at work such as the minister being only a couple of years from retirement or the church is at a critical stage in their life e.g. the completion of a building programme and need the continuity of leadership to complete it.

Likewise we place stong restraints upon our denominational leadership. Our Synod Moderators only serve in that capacity for 18 months. They are elected at a synod prior to their taking up office and are designated as Moderator Elect, and are given certain responibilities with respect of that office (mainly as observers); like wise when they have served their term they are called Past Moderators and assist the present Moderator in their term of office, after which they return to their previous Ministry calling.... i.e. Minister or Deacon.

Likewise the office of the National President follows the same path only with three year terms, and at the end of that term they return to their ministry calling role.

We do this because we place the role of the episcopacy in the councils of the church rather than in a single person. The end result is that all ministers, deacons and lay people who are members of these councils have equal say in the running of the church, for as much as is possible we like to reach concensus on every issue.

In practice, however, the Moderator and President have a lot more influence than most other people, and they can use their influence to help guide the church via its councils. And while change is difficult radical change has occured over the last two decades of the church..... including the "Possibility" of ordaining practicing homosexual ministers in those Parishes where their Synod and their Presbytery have allowed that to happen.

The Previous Past President and President have guided that policy direction through the National Assembly, however the President Elect is a little more conservative and may try to moderate that policy..... time will tell if he does; I certainly hope he does so.

So in summery, I believe that limiting the terms of office available to an individual allows others to step up to the plate and use their influence to guide the church. Therefore, a greater diversity of opinion is possible, including radical ideas, especially when their power reduced more to influence rather than being directive. In the CoTN's case, it also allows for a greater possibility of leaders being selected from world areas which can only enrich the reputation of the church as a "world church" and also breathe new life into the culture of the International HQ of the denomination which I suggest may be struggling with the fruits of 100 years of a nearly exclusive "North American world view....... a view which may also be leading the North American church to stagnate..... IMHO!

[Jon Twitchell]

Maybe true in your district, not the case in ours. We are expected to pay budgets on all "in kind" contributions. Recently we completed a project at our church where I had made a small in kind contribution of materials. I calculated the "vig" on my chickens and a half of a goat and made a cash donation to cover the budget obligation.

It's going to seem like a hit-and-run answer... because I'm responding to this... and can't get to the rest of your post right now... In fact, it will probably be early next week before I can get back into this discussion...

But if you're talking about your World Evangelism Fund allocation, then your district is specifically outside the bounds of the Manual. The authority to calculate WEF apportionments was given to the BGS in consultation with the General Board, and that funding formula doesn't have a way to calculate chickens and goats. In other words, gifts-in-kind are not part of the budget formula.

I guess they can use whatever formula they want to generate District funds... although that seems like a lot of additional mathematics!

[Hans Deventer]

Really? Hans said it himself, he said that "there is no answer to that question within your chosen framework."

So you see it was not intended to be a question at all, let alone a serious one.

Wrong. The question was very serious indeed. And you simply cannot make another statement than I do on this issue, for God and I alone know whether it was serious or not. And you are neither me nor God.

If you support a climate theory which makes it impossible to ever see snow in Maine, the question "and what about the snow we've seen in recent winters?", is not an unimportant question nor just a manner of speech, but it is a fact meant to show the folly of the theory.

And you're wrong on another point as well: I did not choose to believe what I do today. I came to my first GA in 1997, very much a believer in the system. Pretty much equating the voice of the GA with the voice of the Holy Spirit. But unlike you, I'm not dismissing facts in order to maintain my beliefs. So after a couple of GA's, and having seen first hand how the system works, and what it inevitably produces, I had to adjust my belief, my theory to account for these facts.

Presuming the system is meant to allow the Holy Spirit to place the right persons in these positions (I guess that's about the only thing on which we agree), any person, unless extremely biased in favour of North Americans, can see that it pretty much continuously fails to do so.


Thus if it pleases the Spirit to elect six old white guys from Kansas City to lead our denomination, I'm not going to object.

Neither am I. Nor if He wants to have 6 young female elders from Bangladesh. We recently ordained 30 of them so He has a choice.

The only thing is, none of us have the direct and intimate knowledge of God's will to be able to make such a statement, so it's value is null and void and we have to make do with what our minds tell us.

And they tell us that when we look at how the system works, we must conclude it is incredibly biased towards these six old white guys from Olathe. And then all of a sudden we claim private revelation and say that apparently this is the will of God?

That's like going to a dealership to order a new car, only to find out that the factory that is meant to produce cars is actually turning out chariots for horses. And then tell the customer that the chariot is what he really wants.

I'm sorry, but this customer isn't buying and anyone who has eyes to see, won't buy either.

So you're trying to sell how we seek leaders for our international church from an area where the church is dying, if not dead already? And pass by the many areas where the Spirit is moving mightily and the church is more than alive? But no, we in the West arrogantly presume we have nothing to learn from these people.


Our system of voting is about the best way that is humanly possible to ascertain the Spirits desire. We don't attempt to define the Spirits choices in any way. It is entirely possible to elect a fellow riding a goat to the position of GS, so long as he had already donated his chicken.

Jim, beliefs don't equal facts.


Now if option 1 is actually hard and fast proof that the system is broken. Lets acknowledge that is is irreparably broken with no possibility of repair or replacement. We are utterly without any hope at all, done for, finished, and kaput. My guess is that we have no hard and fast proof that the system is broken. At least none that I have heard.

Ah, but you simply aren't listening, you don't understand how the system works and you use circular reasoning to maintain your theory.

Not a great starting position for a successful discussion so it seems best to leave it here. At least, that's what I'll do.

Jim, I've often defended you in recent years towards others here on NazNet. But when I read stuff like this, you leave me empty handed when it comes to arguments for your defence.

[Jim Chabot]

It's going to seem like a hit-and-run answer... because I'm responding to this... and can't get to the rest of your post right now... In fact, it will probably be early next week before I can get back into this discussion...

But if you're talking about your World Evangelism Fund allocation, then your district is specifically outside the bounds of the Manual. The authority to calculate WEF apportionments was given to the BGS in consultation with the General Board, and that funding formula doesn't have a way to calculate chickens and goats. In other words, gifts-in-kind are not part of the budget formula.

I guess they can use whatever formula they want to generate District funds... although that seems like a lot of additional mathematics!

I was speaking of the district mechanism which is 15.6 percent of the "take." I didn't realize that you were speaking to the WEF payment. My mistake, I missed the context that you were posting this to.

[Jim Chabot]

Wrong. The question was very serious indeed. And you simply cannot make another statement than I do on this issue, for God and I alone know whether it was serious or not. And you are neither me nor God.

If you support a climate theory which makes it impossible to ever see snow in Maine, the question "and what about the snow we've seen in recent winters?", is not an unimportant question nor just a manner of speech, but it is a fact meant to show the folly of the theory.

Either way, your approach was antagonistic. Did you really feel that you were entitled to an answer other than a critique of your approach.


And you're wrong on another point as well: I did not choose to believe what I do today. I came to my first GA in 1997, very much a believer in the system. Pretty much equating the voice of the GA with the voice of the Holy Spirit. But unlike you, I'm not dismissing facts in order to maintain my beliefs. So after a couple of GA's, and having seen first hand how the system works, and what it inevitably produces, I had to adjust my belief, my theory to account for these facts.

Presuming the system is meant to allow the Holy Spirit to place the right persons in these positions (I guess that's about the only thing on which we agree), any person, unless extremely biased in favour of North Americans, can see that it pretty much continuously fails to do so.

And it would be every bit as valid to say that you and others are questioning the selections of the Spirit. It would be equally valid to say that you are simply biased against North Americans. You must at least admit that you do often make statements that show that there is a possible bias on your part. Just recently you made the prediction that our next selection for a GS would be a white North American. At least admit that you are jaded on this issue.


Neither am I. Nor if He wants to have 6 young female elders from Bangladesh. We recently ordained 30 of them so He has a choice.

The only thing is, none of us have the direct and intimate knowledge of God's will to be able to make such a statement, so it's value is null and void and we have to make do with what our minds tell us.

Actually there is no need for them to be elders is there? But yes you are right we do not have direct knowledge, thus we cannot appraise the process.


And they tell us that when we look at how the system works, we must conclude it is incredibly biased towards these six old white guys from Olathe. And then all of a sudden we claim private revelation and say that apparently this is the will of God?

That's like going to a dealership to order a new car, only to find out that the factory that is meant to produce cars is actually turning out chariots for horses. And then tell the customer that the chariot is what he really wants.

I'm sorry, but this customer isn't buying and anyone who has eyes to see, won't buy either.

Exactly! Can you then admit that you have already decided what you want to see then? Because I didn't order a new car, I'm trusting the Spirit.


So you're trying to sell how we seek leaders for our international church from an area where the church is dying, if not dead already? And pass by the many areas where the Spirit is moving mightily and the church is more than alive? But no, we in the West arrogantly presume we have nothing to learn from these people.

Maybe I need to restate my concern that while we are calling ourselves an international church, we aren't necessarily "there" yet. We are a missionary church, we have a message to tell the world, that's what the Phase 1 districts are, they are our mission field.

No one is saying that we have nothing to learn. Just because you accuse does not make it so. I'll trust our leadership to make those decisions. And I am especially encouraged that Rev. Duarte will be bringing his extensive experience and observations right to the top. We no longer have six white guys from Olathe, this is not the time to complain, rather this is a time to be enthusiastically expectant.


Ah, but you simply aren't listening, you don't understand how the system works and you use circular reasoning to maintain your theory.

Not a great starting position for a successful discussion so it seems best to leave it here. At least, that's what I'll do.

You are right, I am not doing a lot of listening. I have been doing some reading in an attempt to better apprise myself of the situation. But no I'm not listening, nor should I. If it is your desire to have me listen to you, then drop the antagonism, it reduces your standing.


Jim, I've often defended you in recent years towards others here on NazNet. But when I read stuff like this, you leave me empty handed when it comes to arguments for your defence.

And I have defended you as well, I look forward to doing more of it! But since we are on opposite ends of this, it would be rather odd for one of us to defend the other right now. So I'm puzzled by this statement, it seems self evident.

Remember that I am more than willing to listen, once you become willing to explain.

[Jim Chabot]

Thanks Jim, but unless things have changed in recent times, the church international has been outpacing the US churches growth for decades. As for maturity, I'd suggest that there are a lot of very capable and spiritually mature leaders in other world areas...... with respect Jim, to suggest in general that leaders overseas need to "mature" indicates a rather patronising point of view.....i.e. "You guys are not as "mature" as us!" ...... hmmm I wonder!?!

I'm sorry I haven't made it clear where I have been coming from. Then again I wasn't coming from there at all until Craig decided to push me there.

I'm coming from our statements in the manual that determine whether a District is Phase 1, 2 or 3. Growth isn't the prime consideration contemplated there, and I think that you might agree that growth is not maturity. I don't know all of the details of how these decisions are made, but the methodology that comes through in the manual text appears to be scriptural sound. So I'm placing my trust in those who envisioned and administer this system rather than the naysayers.

I'm not rabidly defending the status quo. But I haven't seen an expression of substance leveled against it here.

[Ryan Scott]

I'm coming from our statements in the manual that determine whether a District is Phase 1, 2 or 3. Growth isn't the prime consideration contemplated there, and I think that you might agree that growth is not maturity. I don't know all of the details of how these decisions are made, but the methodology that comes through in the manual text appears to be scriptural sound. So I'm placing my trust in those who envisioned and administer this system rather than the naysayers.

But money raised is currently one of our measures of maturity - not percentage or participating in giving, but straight dollars and cents. That's what most people object to.

Ultimately it's scary to those of us with a long history of one way of "doing Christianity" to think that our future may be shaped by people who see and do Christianity differently. It's incredibly scary to me. Terrifying. To think that people may be in leadership who don't have the western mindset in which I've been formed. I understand the fear people have of losing control. I just don't agree that we have the right to decide - which also terrifies me. I just hope that those people will have more grace and trust for us than we do for them.

Again, I'm not accusing anyone of thinking this way consciously, but it certainly underlies a lot of our decisions.

[Bill Morrison]

A question raised out of curiosity AND because it is relevant to much of the discussion that has gone on in this thread:
What is the country of origin make-up of the General Board of the Church of the Nazarene?
How is this make-up determined by the general church? I am sure the "balance" will still be too much "North American tilted" for some participants in the thread, and the Board members will tend to be "wealthy". Still, I suspect it is much better balanced than the 1 out of 6 international G.S's. And, my impression is that the General Board really has the decision-making power in the denomination, more so than the G.S's and for the four years between GA more power than GA delegates have.
The robbing of power of our international members by the "arrogant money-driven Lenexa mob" (not my judgment, but what I have seen as the view of some posters)is still an issue needing to be debated, but maybe it isn't quite as bad as it appears if we look at General Board and not just GS's.
I eagerly(?) await information, comment and correction from those who know more about our denominational governance than I do. Please be kind.

BILL

[Jeremy D. Scott]

I haven't read this whole thread, but there was some purporting about who rose and fell in the 2009 voting. For your reference, here are our unofficial results. You will need to work through the tabs to see the data or the charts. There are four tabs. Two of them are through the first three elections (Duarte, Bowling, Graves) and the other two are for the last election after Bowling's rescinded acceptance (Toler).

0Ai4UF1-tMKDdckFjWkJxRnhyZWhaNkhSVjVPOGpmcFE


Edited: Hmm...it didn't work. I'll have to work on this. I can't figure out why it won't embed. Maybe Scott can fix it. For now, you'll just have to go to the file to see the data & charts. Go here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ai4UF1-tMKDdckFjWkJxRnhyZWhaNkhSVjVPOGpmcFE).

[Craig Laughlin]

I'm sorry, my mistake. I honestly thought that you knew the answers to these questions, I though that they were rhetorical. If you honestly don't know the answers just say so and I will try to answer if I can.

The questions were not rhetorical. Let's hear the answers.


I don't see any rocks. Sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about. Honest.

The implication that there is no one better than the American Mid westerners despite the fact that they are a minuscule minority in the church implies that everyone else is less qualified. Is it your contention that people in Africa, South America, Europe, Asia are less qualified than Americans? (to avoid confusion let me be clear, this is not a rhetorical question and I would appreciate a direct answer not an avoidance like blaming the elections on the Holy Spirit)

[Rich Schmidt]

The implication that there is no one better than the American Mid westerners despite the fact that they are a minuscule minority in the church ...

Just curious... Are they a minuscule minority? I know there are more Nazarenes outside the USA than inside it, but "outside the USA" isn't a unified block. Is there any other group that outnumbers American Midwesterners?

[Craig Laughlin]

Just curious... Are they a minuscule minority? I know there are more Nazarenes outside the USA than inside it, but "outside the USA" isn't a unified block. Is there any other group that outnumbers American Midwesterners?

If one ask the question what percentage of "Eligible clergy" are Midwestern men then yes it would not be minuscule but would still be very small. (Something like 1/3 - given relative representation, which is probably wrong) That distinction would have some (but not much) merit as a political argument. I believe if this same argument were applied to the issue of women clergy in the superintendency they would have a weaker position than the world church. Even from a political perspective if a group representing something like 1/3 of the eligible voters wins (virtually) all the elections then something is very wrong.

Of course in the church the argument is a moral one. Which in our case is that huge segments of our church, well over half have had virtually no representation on the board of GS despite while having lots and lots of qualified candidates. Give the breath of the church the folks who almost always win election to GS are indeed a minuscule part of the demographics of the Church of the Nazarene.

[Rich Schmidt]

If one ask the question what percentage of "Eligible clergy" are Midwestern men then yes it would not be minuscule but would still be very small. (Something like 1/3 - given relative representation, which is probably wrong) That distinction would have some (but not much) merit as a political argument. I believe if this same argument were applied to the issue of women clergy in the superintendency they would have a weaker position than the world church. Even from a political perspective if a group representing something like 1/3 of the eligible voters wins (virtually) all the elections then something is very wrong.

I'm in favor of greater diversity among our General Superintendents. Don't get me wrong. But I want to make sure I'm understanding the situation clearly.

Let's say you're right that 1/3 of GS candidates are white American Midwesterners. Is there any other group that makes up a larger piece of the pie than that? "Everyone else" isn't a very unified 2/3. Given the diversity of that other 2/3, it's not "very wrong" that representatives from that fairly homogenous 1/3 keep getting elected, politically speaking.

If we're most likely to recognize leadership ability in people "like us" who speak our language, etc., then we're likely to vote accordingly. And as long as the largest "voting bloc" is white USAmericans, then white USAmericans are likely to get a relatively large number of votes in GS elections.

Is that the "political argument" you were referring to?

I'm not saying that the end result (electing mostly white USAmericans) is a good one. I'm just saying it makes sense given our current system. It doesn't seem to require anything other than the "normal" bias that's hard-wired into our brains.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

This sure looks like a regional type of organization to me, and the only way to get a board with that composition would be to let each region elect their own GS. Let's change our denominational structure if that is what is needed and if we truely believe that will further the spread of scriptural holiness around the world. (And, to be truly representative, we also would need to have three of these be women. I don't know how to ensure that, at least until we dramatically change the ratio of women to men who are ordained elders in the denomination)


That's the word that comes to my mind every time this topic comes up here on NazNet: Regionalization. I wonder if that's one of the things we're going to hear from the Nazarene Future Commission.

[Craig Laughlin]

I'm in favor of greater diversity among our General Superintendents. Don't get me wrong. But I want to make sure I'm understanding the situation clearly.

Let's say you're right that 1/3 of GS candidates are white American Midwesterners. Is there any other group that makes up a larger piece of the pie than that? "Everyone else" isn't a very unified 2/3. Given the diversity of that other 2/3, it's not "very wrong" that representatives from that fairly homogenous 1/3 keep getting elected, politically speaking.

If we're most likely to recognize leadership ability in people "like us" who speak our language, etc., then we're likely to vote accordingly. And as long as the largest "voting bloc" is white USAmericans, then white USAmericans are likely to get a relatively large number of votes in GS elections.

Is that the "political argument" you were referring to?

I'm not saying that the end result (electing mostly white USAmericans) is a good one. I'm just saying it makes sense given our current system. It doesn't seem to require anything other than the "normal" bias that's hard-wired into our brains.

Yes, very well said.

If our expectation is that body of Christ will behave like those who do not follow Christ then what we are presently getting elected as GS's would be perfectly understandable.


However, we can and must expect more from the body of Christ. Even secular society changed when the minority was shut out of the system. (The civil rights movement) In the case of our church it is more like South Africa in which the majority were ruled by the minority and established rules limiting the political influence of the majority in order to maintain the status quo.

Kind of sounds like us when we changed our political system to a "pay to play" democracy. We must do better.

[Gene Tatsch]

It would seem that leaders of successful (using a mission-defined success metric) subunits of the organization would be desirable in the global leadership role.
However, it seems that the current choosing process lends itself to other choices.
So - might the method of choice be modified so that it aligns with mission success in some way?

[Rich Schmidt]

It would seem that leaders of successful (using a mission-defined success metric) subunits of the organization would be desirable in the global leadership role.
However, it seems that the current choosing process lends itself to other choices.
So - might the method of choice be modified so that it aligns with mission success in some way?

The only thing I can think of -- short of revamping the actual system, whether to a regionalization model or something else -- would be for the denomination to highlight or feature these leaders in ways that will make them better known throughout the denomination.... or at least better known by General Assembly delegates.

Of course, the flip side of that is: Do we really want to pull our most effective missional leaders out of the local churches where they're having such a huge impact to put them into administrative roles? Maybe we do, and their leadership at those levels is exactly what is needed. Or maybe we'd just be removing them from the area of ministry in which they are most gifted and effective.

[Craig Laughlin]

The only thing I can think of -- short of revamping the actual system, whether to a regionalization model or something else -- would be for the denomination to highlight or feature these leaders in ways that will make them better known throughout the denomination.... or at least better known by General Assembly delegates.

I think the first step is to return the vote to every full member of the COTN regardless of district status. The whole second class citizen is deeply problematic morally. Then I think we need to, via electronics, allow for GA voting around the world so the delegates from the southern hemisphere can participate in and vote while staying relatively close to home. We might have to add a day or two to GA to accommodate but that would be a lot cheaper than moving HQ off shore every four years. I agree we also need to highlight non US leaders.


Of course, the flip side of that is: Do we really want to pull our most effective missional leaders out of the local churches where they're having such a huge impact to put them into administrative roles? Maybe we do, and their leadership at those levels is exactly what is needed. Or maybe we'd just be removing them from the area of ministry in which they are most gifted and effective.

I agree GS is not the best place for a good leader because it has relatively small influence. I think if we could get term limits or a culture of leaving after two terms it could be excellent experience for some of our top leaders.

[Wes Smith]

Listen, I am now the white middle American guy (born in SD, raised in IA) that has no horse in the race. Just to say that if I ever had a thought about electing mid-America white men over any qualified candidate from a world area, I no longer (actually never did) do. I'm retired and see myself as a good Nazarene willing to do whatever the Lord directs in a setting that radically different than anything in my past.

I wish you guys could hear yourselves. You are literally and figuratively arguing in circles. You admit that the system is broken in some way or ways and for some of you the solution is to put a different person of a different gender or color or culture as a piece of leadership at the helm and that will solve the problem and we will become dynamic and we will live happily every after.

Is it being so close to the situation, so committed to the way things were that makes you miss the obvious?

Who (or how many or where they are from) is riding a dead horse simply does not matter.

Imagine a carousel with some electrical components that malfunction. Changing horses on the deck will not matter. Put six black ones, six females, one from six different world areas, any mixture you can conceivably come up with. It does not matter. The system is broken.

Your arguments in favor of choosing gifted leaders from various parts of the world to lead in a general sense are no more workable than they have ever been. Dr. Stowe, as gifted a leader as he was "generally" showed pastors around the world how to act American and do ministry the way we do it in the USA. Should we ever choose a leader from Namibia as a General, he will do a good job of telling North American and European pastors how to minister like they do in Namibia. The current system cannot bring us out of the malaise we are in.

It is high time for regionalization. All the world areas should pay their greatest attention to their own region, because that is where they are best schooled to give advice. We can draw immense inspiration from each other, but we should not be instructing each other in how to do what those in the various regions are best at. The General Superintendcency must decrease. Regional Superintendency and Regional Organization must increase.

Honest, it scares me (organizationally/denominationally, not Kingdom-wise) that good people on this board cannot see the peril of their own arguments. The cloud, the pillar of fire has moved. If you choose, you can be the folks tending dieing campfires, dreaming of the good old days or of the days that could be good again if we would only do what we have done better. Of all people, Nazarenes best know the definition of insanity. They laugh and feel good about those unfortunate people who keep doiing the same things and feel good about that...all while riding a carousel that just sits there. But it's fun getting off and on those stationary horses, isn't it?

Friend,

Wes

[Todd Erickson]

Another interesting thing to note...the current selection of GS's tends to reflect a particular age demographic as well. And perhaps even a particular doctrinal bent.

We vote for the DS's we know, whether or not they want to be DS's (that came to a head locally recently, none of the pastors they were attempting to yank really wanted to leave their congregation for that kind of administrative headache, and they had to bring in a DS from out of state). We vote for the GS's that we know. Etc.

It sounds like a concept with strong consideration (regionalism) is whether the system originally designed with DS's and GS's actually functions correctly now as it did when it was initiated, i.e., do we do this because it works, or because it's how the CotN does things, and to do otherwise would be to be other than the CotN?

At what level do the GS's actually exist as a controlling influence AGAINST the Holy Spirit on the behalf of the existing organization?

[Shea Zellweger]

I wish you guys could hear yourselves. You are literally and figuratively arguing in circles. You admit that the system is broken in some way or ways and for some of you the solution is to put a different person of a different gender or color or culture as a piece of leadership at the helm and that will solve the problem and we will become dynamic and we will live happily every after.


Actually, I think most of this thread has been spent discussing whether the system is, in fact, broken, and at least one person has been arguing that it is not.



Your arguments in favor of choosing gifted leaders from various parts of the world to lead in a general sense are no more workable than they have ever been. Dr. Stowe, as gifted a leader as he was "generally" showed pastors around the world how to act American and do ministry the way we do it in the USA. Should we ever choose a leader from Namibia as a General, he will do a good job of telling North American and European pastors how to minister like they do in Namibia
Why is that a problem? I haven't heard any GS go into great detail about how to minister, but if they were going to do so, I think we'd benefit quite a bit more from having an outside (non-American) perspective than we would hearing from a person who has had more or less the same training and experience that we have.



It is high time for regionalization. All the world areas should pay their greatest attention to their own region, because that is where they are best schooled to give advice. We can draw immense inspiration from each other, but we should not be instructing each other in how to do what those in the various regions are best at. The General Superintendcency must decrease. Regional Superintendency and Regional Organization must increase.

Honest, it scares me (organizationally/denominationally, not Kingdom-wise) that good people on this board cannot see the peril of their own arguments. The cloud, the pillar of fire has moved. If you choose, you can be the folks tending dieing campfires, dreaming of the good old days or of the days that could be good again if we would only do what we have done better. Of all people, Nazarenes best know the definition of insanity. They laugh and feel good about those unfortunate people who keep doiing the same things and feel good about that...all while riding a carousel that just sits there.

Going back through the last few pages of the thread, I'm seeing 5 or 6 who have actively engaged the regionalization conversation. Actually, that appears to have been the primary point of discussion for the past several pages. Was it really necessary to step in and basically accuse everyone on this thread of a) neglecting the movement of the Holy Spirit and b) being insane (see bolded parts of your post) when they had already advanced to discussing the very solution you propose?

[Todd Erickson]

If everybody isn't having the conversation that I want to have, it just means that. Not that broad generalizations will accomplish something.

Generally, most conversations on Naznet ride on the LCD. The system is perfectly designed to produce the results that it's getting.

[Gene Tatsch]

... to highlight or feature these leaders in ways that will make them better known throughout the denomination.... or at least better known by General Assembly delegates.

Of course, the flip side of that is: Do we really want to pull our most effective missional leaders out of the local churches where they're having such a huge impact to put them into administrative roles? ...Good points, IMO. Firstly, you're talking about better communication - which would cost resources, yet might genuinely benefit in a sense of global family (rather than the minimally-interacting local congregation silos).
In the second, there is a definite risk. However, other organizations don't generally move leaders from underperforming divisions into global leadership roles. So the potential benefits may outweigh the risk?

[Craig Laughlin]

For the record I'm not necessarily opposed to regionalization and with more work might embrace it. However I am also intimately acquainted with the law of unintended consequences.

My personal thing is that if we are talking about saving the church in America (Doesn't need saving in Africa and South America) then the super structure is irrelevant. Until local churches create change nothing else matters. This is probably more a DS than GS issue. The church is the local bodies of Christ the rest of the structure is there to serve them.

[Wes Smith]

Actually, I think most of this thread has been spent discussing whether the system is, in fact, broken, and at least one person has been arguing that it is not.


Why is that a problem? I haven't heard any GS go into great detail about how to minister, but if they were going to do so, I think we'd benefit quite a bit more from having an outside (non-American) perspective than we would hearing from a person who has had more or less the same training and experience that we have.



Going back through the last few pages of the thread, I'm seeing 5 or 6 who have actively engaged the regionalization conversation. Actually, that appears to have been the primary point of discussion for the past several pages. Was it really necessary to step in and basically accuse everyone on this thread of a) neglecting the movement of the Holy Spirit and b) being insane (see bolded parts of your post) when they had already advanced to discussing the very solution you propose?

My humblest apologies. Was out taking a walk and got to thinking that I had overstated my case. Sorry.

My perception of the direction of this thread is different than you perceive it.

Read me again sans my strong attitude when I wrote it.

Thanks.

Friend,

Wes

[Bill Morrison]

For the record I'm not necessarily opposed to regionalization and with more work might embrace it. However I am also intimately acquainted with the law of unintended consequences.

My personal thing is that if we are talking about saving the church in America (Doesn't need saving in Africa and South America) then the super structure is irrelevant. Until local churches create change nothing else matters. This is probably more a DS than GS issue. The church is the local bodies of Christ the rest of the structure is there to serve them.

I am puzzled: why does the church in Africa and South America not "need saving"? Are you just referencing the obvious fact that their numbers are currently increasing more rapidly than the U.S. church?
I would not at all dispute the fact that the Nazarene denomination in the USA has serious problems and needs saving, after all I teach at one of our institutions and see things that really trouble me. But do we have evidence that the mission field churches are all spiritually vibrant and maturing beyond just numerical growth. I certainly hope this is true. I know there are incredible personal victories and miracles on the non-USA districts. I heard a powerful account of one this morning at Olathe College Church as Gustavo Crocker preached (apropos to this thread, he should be our next G.S. IMHO) Those things happen in American churches too. I hope we are not using numerical growth (which could be due to other things too) as our measure of spiritual vitality. (I know that some pastors here in the USA aren't very thrilled when that criterion is used as the primary measure of our churches!) I am not at all trying to be cantankerous with you, just genuinely interested in the issue and praying the growth of our denomination has a solid foundation undergirding the "numbers".

BILL

[Wes Smith]

For the record I'm not necessarily opposed to regionalization and with more work might embrace it. However I am also intimately acquainted with the law of unintended consequences.

My personal thing is that if we are talking about saving the church in America (Doesn't need saving in Africa and South America) then the super structure is irrelevant. Until local churches create change nothing else matters. This is probably more a DS than GS issue. The church is the local bodies of Christ the rest of the structure is there to serve them.

Craig,

I know that we are not in places where we can make decisions about the future organization of our church. However, I live by a little assumption that there are people who have the capacity to facilitate change or who will be and they are reading what we are writing. If I did not believe that I would not indulge in what I think would be futile exchanges.

I'm glad that you are open to regionalization, but to say as kind of an escape clause that you are "intimately acquainted with the law of unintended consequences" potentially overlooks the ongoing intentional harvest of (negative) consequences that is proceding from our current commitment to an outdated system. It seems to me that your statement describes the prevailing fear within our leadership both on the District and General level.

Regarding your second paragraph, I just don't see how that logic fits with...what is. Irrelevant would suggest to me that corporate culture is meaningless and I just don't see it that way. In a healthy corporate culture (which a denomination must pay attention to), leaders lead. What is the way out of this high centeredness that has come upon us? I wouldn't necessarily trust local churches and local leaders to act much different than what has been until gifted leaders suggest the way out and the way up. And, I have been saying for many years that local churches need a corporate permission and encouragement to make the necessary changes to be relevant in local communities. Some pastors are attempting creative and helpful change on the local level, but are paying a very high price. The "we've never done it that way before" culture is very deeply ingrained. Again, that is a matter of leadership. And general and district leaders should be using every means available to both push for healthy change and to declare their own commitment to healthy and helpful change.

We are mixing many pieces of our need for change in this thread. I am personally, most concerned about going from our historic general church-centric to a regional-centric system. But, I am a broken record in this regard!

Best wishes and prayers for your ministry in Marysville and the surrounding communities!

Friend,

Wes

[Craig Laughlin]

I am puzzled: why does the church in Africa and South America not "need saving"? Are you just referencing the obvious fact that their numbers are currently increasing more rapidly than the U.S. church?
I would not at all dispute the fact that the Nazarene denomination in the USA has serious problems and needs saving, after all I teach at one of our institutions and see things that really trouble me. But do we have evidence that the mission field churches are all spiritually vibrant and maturing beyond just numerical growth. I certainly hope this is true. I know there are incredible personal victories and miracles on the non-USA districts. I heard a powerful account of one this morning at Olathe College Church as Gustavo Crocker preached (apropos to this thread, he should be our next G.S. IMHO) Those things happen in American churches too. I hope we are not using numerical growth (which could be due to other things too) as our measure of spiritual vitality. (I know that some pastors here in the USA aren't very thrilled when that criterion is used as the primary measure of our churches!) I am not at all trying to be cantankerous with you, just genuinely interested in the issue and praying the growth of our denomination has a solid foundation undergirding the "numbers".

BILL

Yes, simply numerical growth is not an adequate measure but it changes the terms of the discussion. In a rapidly growing church I would expect some signifcant issues and some churches that are pretty sick. Rapid growth strains things. However during rapid growth you also have options to change things for the better. So yes, in general I think rapid growth is more healthy than decline and stories of sick churches are to be expected. In general the problems of growth are much better than the problems of decline. I have no doubt that those places exploding with growth have some stuff they can do better, but they don't need to be saved.

Honestly I have reached a point were I'm not sure we (American church) really have the credibility to critique some of the other world areas. When I go to Brazil and see lots and lots of people meeting at 5 am to pray I'm pretty sure they are ahead of us. What if our critiques of them are just arrogance on our part? - Just thinking out loud.

[Craig Laughlin]

Regarding your second paragraph, I just don't see how that logic fits with...what is. Irrelevant would suggest to me that corporate culture is meaningless and I just don't see it that way. In a healthy corporate culture (which a denomination must pay attention to), leaders lead. What is the way out of this high centeredness that has come upon us?

I agree that corporate culture is the way to go but that it no at all the same as organizational structure. The reason I think the position of DS has potential is that he/she may in fact have the power necessary to change the corporate culture of a groups of churches. The DS would do this by hiring strong leaders and mentoring young ones with potential.


I wouldn't necessarily trust local churches and local leaders to act much different than what has been until gifted leaders suggest the way out and the way up.

I think only the pastor has the power to change the culture of any given local church.


And, I have been saying for many years that local churches need a corporate permission and encouragement to make the necessary changes to be relevant in local communities.

This is a point we disagree on. You have rightly said, leaders lead. If they are looking of permission they are not the right leader. I'm for collaborating and working with the district but no DS, GS or regional leader can either give me permission to do what I need to do or stop me. So long as I have the support of my board and church I am good to go.


Some pastors are attempting creative and helpful change on the local level, but are paying a very high price. The "we've never done it that way before" culture is very deeply ingrained. Again, that is a matter of leadership. And general and district leaders should be using every means available to both push for healthy change and to declare their own commitment to healthy and helpful change. I just don't think the DS or GS saying my church needs to change is very helpful at all. They have far less influence than I do as pastor. I agree it is a matter of leadership, but it is the leadership of the parish pastor.


Best wishes and prayers for your ministry in Marysville and the surrounding communities!

Thank you Wes, we are seeing some really exciting things. Marysville has seen a huge turn around and after several years I am having a blast as a pastor again. When it goes well it is the greatest job in the world, can't believe they pay me to do this.

Only thing I can think of that would be better than this would be living in Costa Rica!

[David Graham]

For the record I'm not necessarily opposed to regionalization and with more work might embrace it. However I am also intimately acquainted with the law of unintended consequences.

My personal thing is that if we are talking about saving the church in America (Doesn't need saving in Africa and South America) then the super structure is irrelevant. Until local churches create change nothing else matters. This is probably more a DS than GS issue. The church is the local bodies of Christ the rest of the structure is there to serve them.

Yes indeed, but some churches would rather die than see "change" on their particular district.....
In that respect, if the American Church now needs "saving", the Australian CotN must be now beyond redemption.... its been a basket case for years.

[Rich Schmidt]

This is a point we disagree on. You have rightly said, leaders lead. If they are looking of permission they are not the right leader. I'm for collaborating and working with the district but no DS, GS or regional leader can either give me permission to do what I need to do or stop me. So long as I have the support of my board and church I am good to go.

I agree with this, for the most part... but feel like I should add that many DS's (and at least some GS's, maybe all) are actively giving pastors that "permission and encouragement to make the necessary changes to be relevant in local communities." I've heard stories from GS's at district assemblies that are intended to stretch pastors to think differently about their local mission field and try new things. I've heard our DS for years encourage pastors to try new things and do whatever it takes to reach new groups and new generations of lost people in our communities. So permission is being given.... even though, as you said, it may not be needed.

The reason I said I agree "for the most part" is that I think leaders can do a lot to create either a culture of permission-giving and experimentation and mission OR a culture of fear and inadequacy and leave-the-hard-work-of-the-mission-to-the-professionals. This is true at the local church level... and I think it's also true at the district and, perhaps, at the general level. Just like local pastors can encourage their people to lead and lead boldly, DS's can encourage the pastors and lay leaders on their districts to do the same. Or they can try to intimidate them into resisting change and holding back and maintaining the status quo.

Anyway, maybe I've just been fortunate to serve on a district where the DS actively encourages us to experiment and try new things to make more and better disciples of Jesus Christ...

[Jim Chabot]

The questions were not rhetorical. Let's hear the answers.

First let me tell you that I am having some difficulty believing in your honesty at this point. You are saying that you honestly don't know the answers to the questions that you have asked me concerning maturity? When it is actually spelled out in the manual? I'll take you at your word, but I must say that I am surprised to hear this.

I did actually answer your question right here in a response to David:


I'm sorry I haven't made it clear where I have been coming from. Then again I wasn't coming from there at all until Craig decided to push me there.

I'm coming from our statements in the manual that determine whether a District is Phase 1, 2 or 3. Growth isn't the prime consideration contemplated there, and I think that you might agree that growth is not maturity. I don't know all of the details of how these decisions are made, but the methodology that comes through in the manual text appears to be scriptural sound. So I'm placing my trust in those who envisioned and administer this system rather than the naysayers.

I'm not rabidly defending the status quo. But I haven't seen an expression of substance leveled against it here.

The manual uses the term "fully functioning" as the criteria for a districts evaluation, this appears to be reasonable and proper. We have a message to share with the nations, and as Nazarenes we carry the message of holiness. We are also focused on missions otherwise the Phase 1 districts would not exist at all. It is entirely sensible to require that districts share in our commitment to missions before they are considered fully functioning.

So far all we have heard about in this thread is growth in overseas districts and griping about the six white men from Olathe. While growth is a really good thing, it is not an indicator of solidarity with our denomination. If it were to be true, then we would gladly welcome our growing fundamentalist and calvinist members to the table as well. Do they not have something to add? Can we not learn from them? Whether you are willing to see it or not, the same principle is in effect here as we ascertain maturity.

To add to that I think that I need to restate that this question is a question of trust for me. I don't trust your ability to make moral judgements in this area, nor do I trust Hans ability here either. It isn't that I don't both like and respect you guys, but this isn't an area where I'm going to trust you. I don't believe that you are on high moral ground here, rather I believe that you are blinded by your own prejudices.

Should the Commission on the Nazarene future come forward with recommendations I would be most inclined to hear them. I'm recalling past conversations regarding clergy compensation and retirement funding, I was most impressed with Dave's clear understanding of these issues and his pragmatic approach to solutions.




The implication that there is no one better than the American Mid westerners despite the fact that they are a minuscule minority in the church implies that everyone else is less qualified. Is it your contention that people in Africa, South America, Europe, Asia are less qualified than Americans? (to avoid confusion let me be clear, this is not a rhetorical question and I would appreciate a direct answer not an avoidance like blaming the elections on the Holy Spirit)

I will give you a very direct answer. I believe that our six GS's are most likely the folks that the Holy Spirit of God would have lead us!

I would appreciate it if you would quit in your efforts to call this an avoidance. What you appear to be saying is that Craig Laughlin knows better than the Spirit. Or that Craig Laughlin is able to discern that the Spirit is not involved because Craig knows that the Spirit would observe racial quotas and urge us to elect folks who represent the full demographic spectrum of our outreach. Again this is a question of trust, I will trust the good folks who put forth the current system. Nothing has been put forth here that would indicate that I should place my trust elsewhere.

I am also not trying to be cantankerous, although I would hope that you would graciously allow me to disagree with you. I am also more interested in the foundation than I am with numbers.

[Jim Chabot]

But money raised is currently one of our measures of maturity - not percentage or participating in giving, but straight dollars and cents. That's what most people object to.

I would be interested in hearing more about this. Can you expand on this or point me to where more complete information may be found.


Ultimately it's scary to those of us with a long history of one way of "doing Christianity" to think that our future may be shaped by people who see and do Christianity differently. It's incredibly scary to me. Terrifying. To think that people may be in leadership who don't have the western mindset in which I've been formed. I understand the fear people have of losing control. I just don't agree that we have the right to decide - which also terrifies me. I just hope that those people will have more grace and trust for us than we do for them.

Again, I'm not accusing anyone of thinking this way consciously, but it certainly underlies a lot of our decisions.

I'm not following you here. It may be that I just can't get my mind around it. I am not afraid of doing Christianity differently, not at all. I am afraid that I might be doing it wrong, always have been and probably always will be. I do believe firmly that I have the right to decide as I am seeking to know God rather than man's idea of God.

I would think that the same would apply to a denomination. We shouldn't be afraid to change due to revelation. But yes the decision to change remains in our hands.

Maybe I've missed your point, as I can't quite get my mind around your thoughts here.

[Wes Smith]

I agree that corporate culture is the way to go but that it no at all the same as organizational structure. The reason I think the position of DS has potential is that he/she may in fact have the power necessary to change the corporate culture of a groups of churches. The DS would do this by hiring strong leaders and mentoring young ones with potential.

Keeping the structure the same is certainly a strong indicator of corporate culture! A bankrupt district is going to take considerable time to turnaround to be able to be in a place to high "strong leaders." This statement is an example of what I refer to as thinking that we can experience denominational prosperity if we just do better at what we've always done.


I think only the pastor has the power to change the culture of any given local church.

This is true. If there was an organizational culture and organizational system that encouraged change, it would surely be a huge help. The, a pastor could point to what is going on at the district and general level and say to the entrenched, "Get onboard, this train is moving out. Change is happening throughout the denomination. We now have a culture of change!" On the other hand, I think no church can experience the transition to relevancy where the local pastor is not leading the charge!



This is a point we disagree on. You have rightly said, leaders lead. If they are looking of permission they are not the right leader. I'm for collaborating and working with the district but no DS, GS or regional leader can either give me permission to do what I need to do or stop me. So long as I have the support of my board and church I am good to go.

Fine. I, of course, do not see it that way. While I've made it clear that I would love to see our denomination move beyond the concept of District Superintendency, it makes zero sense to me that we have such people if they cannot help us (that is what leadership does) and it strikes me as being organizationally blind if we say they cannot prevent us. I may be the only person in the denomination to have a GS come to my church with what he said was a letter from the Board of GS's disallowing the changes we were making in our church at that time. A DS can, along with the Advisory Board prevent and/or change building plans, borrowing money, hiring staff, etc.

I just don't think the DS or GS saying my church needs to change is very helpful at all. They have far less influence than I do as pastor. I agree it is a matter of leadership, but it is the leadership of the parish pastor.

This has to do with organizational culture. A culture where change is encouraged is much different and better than a culture where change is tolerated. The kind of leadership that I'm speaking about gets out in front and rally's the troops with a refreshing message of hope, future and encouragement. They do have less influence in most situations. There are lots of churches that have been so long immersed in a "This is the way we've always done it" and they refer to past pastors and DS's and GS's and long time/term culture. LOTS of pastors want to change, but they fight an ongoing local church culture that is committed to the olden days and ways. A refreshing message from all angles and all levels would do much to assist us all in making the change to relevance that is absolutely vital!


Thank you Wes, we are seeing some really exciting things. Marysville has seen a huge turn around and after several years I am having a blast as a pastor again. When it goes well it is the greatest job in the world, can't believe they pay me to do this.

Only thing I can think of that would be better than this would be living in Costa Rica!

Again, God Bless You Brother. So admire you and what you are doing! And I'm going to learn how you all do that multi-quoting...if it kills me!
Friend,

Wes

[Craig Laughlin]

I agree with this, for the most part... but feel like I should add that many DS's (and at least some GS's, maybe all) are actively giving pastors that "permission and encouragement to make the necessary changes to be relevant in local communities." I've heard stories from GS's at district assemblies that are intended to stretch pastors to think differently about their local mission field and try new things. I've heard our DS for years encourage pastors to try new things and do whatever it takes to reach new groups and new generations of lost people in our communities. So permission is being given.... even though, as you said, it may not be needed.

The reason I said I agree "for the most part" is that I think leaders can do a lot to create either a culture of permission-giving and experimentation and mission OR a culture of fear and inadequacy and leave-the-hard-work-of-the-mission-to-the-professionals. This is true at the local church level... and I think it's also true at the district and, perhaps, at the general level. Just like local pastors can encourage their people to lead and lead boldly, DS's can encourage the pastors and lay leaders on their districts to do the same. Or they can try to intimidate them into resisting change and holding back and maintaining the status quo.

Anyway, maybe I've just been fortunate to serve on a district where the DS actively encourages us to experiment and try new things to make more and better disciples of Jesus Christ...

Just had to say this is spot on.

Much of my thinking is formed by a very positive experience with a DS who did change the corporate culture of the district. I've hung out a little with our new DS and I think he is the type of guy to do the same thing on WAPAC. Really looking forward to following that kind of leader. Good leaders are fun to follow.

[Craig Laughlin]

Again, God Bless You Brother. So admire you and what you are doing! And I'm going to learn how you all do that multi-quoting...if it kills me!
Friend,

Wes

I think we are not far apart. We both recognize that the culture of the church needs to change and it appears that neither of us oppose the others approach but simply believe a our approach would be the best way to get at it. If I were a delegate to GA (isn't going to happen) and regionalization were a legitimate possibility it is not hard at all for me to see myself voting for it for all the reason you have laid out.

[Ryan Scott]

I'm not following you here. It may be that I just can't get my mind around it. I am not afraid of doing Christianity differently, not at all. I am afraid that I might be doing it wrong, always have been and probably always will be. I do believe firmly that I have the right to decide as I am seeking to know God rather than man's idea of God.

I would think that the same would apply to a denomination. We shouldn't be afraid to change due to revelation. But yes the decision to change remains in our hands.

Maybe I've missed your point, as I can't quite get my mind around your thoughts here.

A lot of this came as a wake up call to me reading Philip Jenkins' incredible book The Next Christendom. It's a great read. I'd recommend it for anyone. But it's scary as all get out. He talks about the "lost" streams of Christianity. Christianity is not an exclusively European religion. We sometimes think that our European development of orthodoxy is the "true" Christianity, but Jenkins shows how Christianity has been ever present and independently developing around the world.

What is most scary is that my understanding of orthodoxy is culturally conditioned; not something I had ever contemplated before. He also brings up the real future that western Christianity is becoming increasingly marginalized. It won't be too much longer before we're just a strange minority segment of the Christian world.

What I see through our process, is the desire to keep our world view intact, our understanding of what it means for be Christian and Nazarene, when, because of our faithful missionary efforts, we (the white, western segment of the denomination) may no longer have the right to decide those definitions. There is a chance that things we hold sacred in terms of our identity as Nazarenes may not be so essential to the denomination as it expands internationally.

It's scary to me and I think it should be scary. It's an unknown. I see some of it in my local context. Southern NJ is a very insular place; the development of culture and society here has been scarcely influenced by the outside. The definition of Nazarene here is intimately tied to the campmeeting culture in a way that is completely foreign to me and nearly unrecognizable (even as someone who grew up attending an old fashioned holiness campmeeting every summer). The idea that the denomination is defined by a different set of practices and history (as it clearly is) scares people. Our people are choosing to embrace this broader definition of what it means to be a Nazarene, but many are doing so warily.

This seems to be playing out on a larger scale. We argue about whether the "churches" popping up in eastern Africa in such mass quantities are really "churches" because they look and function so differently from ours in terms of size, stability, and leadership. It's going to be a necessity very soon for us to change some of the fundamental ways in which we records, measure, and define things as basic as the local congregation, membership, credentialing, etc. These changes are going to be more informed by Ethiopian, Brazilian, and Indian realities than they are US realities.

That's scary as all get out. I have seen scared (albeit usually well meaning) people intentionally trying to manipulate who is elected to leadership specifically to have more control over these changes - to enforce a traditional midwestern mindset on them. I absolutely understand these people, but I also think its wrong.

I have to be willing to give up my understanding of what it means to be Nazarene - we all do - if we're really going to live out our principles around the world. I'd hate to see us end up with regionalization - I think it's a fragmentary Church when we're supposed to be united. I think it's an inevitable future, though, if we fail to address these issues of power and influence within our own country and the leadership of the GA.

[Craig Laughlin]

First let me tell you that I am having some difficulty believing in your honesty at this point.

Jim, I ask you to offer some direct evidence of my dishonesty. If not then this post is, in my opinion, over the line as a personal attack. This appears to be a personal attack based solely on your feelings, for which I could offer alternate explanations.

I have been completely honest with you and I'm sorry you feel differently.

Hosts -

I am not angry but for the health of Naznet and in the interest of creating healthy community allowing someone to public question anthers honesty and therefore integrity with out offering specific and concrete evidence is probably not good for us.

[Billy Cox]

Of course, the flip side of that is: Do we really want to pull our most effective missional leaders out of the local churches where they're having such a huge impact to put them into administrative roles? Maybe we do, and their leadership at those levels is exactly what is needed. Or maybe we'd just be removing them from the area of ministry in which they are most gifted and effective.

Those people can always play the Holy Spirit card if they don't want to be pulled out of the trenches. ;)

[Jim Chabot]

Jim, I ask you to offer some direct evidence of my dishonesty. If not then this post is, in my opinion, over the line as a personal attack. This appears to be a personal attack based solely on your feelings, for which I could offer alternate explanations.

Then lets keep this factual shall we?

First I did not offer this statement as a personal attack, that thought hadn't crossed my mind.

Next let me be clear, I did not accuse you of dishonesty. What I did say was that I have concerns, it was/is my hope that you would choose to engage in a more charitable way than you have thus far. I will gladly explain my reasoning.

I made this statement;


Yes, but as the church grows and matures overseas, this problem will correct itself.

You responded by asking why I would think that along with a statement of your own indicating that you didn't believe this to be true, followed with a snarky statement about the final resistance of the minority in power. I answered your question and I asked you a question in return.


What is happening? At the last GA, we elected Eugenio Duarte, and we did so very quickly! Gustavo Crocker also placed high in much of the voting as well. If the perceived problem is diversity in representation, then it is getting better.

I would also argue that we shouldn't be looking to set quotas, we should be looking to elect the best leaders. Was there someone who would have served us better that the three we elected last?

I asked Shea a similar question;


Can we be so certain that the US church has not recognized this? Was there someone specific who was overlooked?

You then responded here;


Frankly I'm flabbergasted by your response. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it is ignorance of the facts rather than some sort of ... well I'll avoid speculating, what would cause you to argue that the overseas church is not mature enough to have GS's from their country.

So would you like to reconsider your premise that the rest of the church of the Nazarene is not mature enough? If not, then in what way is it that you think they need to mature?

What I took away from this is that you disagree, you know why you disagree and you are well aware of the facts that would cause you to disagree.

Once again I responded;


Benefit of the doubt? Well how nice of you.

My concern is with those who would look to set quotas, honestly all of this talk of how the system is broken seems to be predicated on the makeup of the board. I don't believe that the system is broken, rather I believe that God has provided us with the best folks for the job. Quite frankly, I don't care one bit what color the GS's are or what country they hail from.

We had a little back and forth and then you said this;


Actually I was asking questions. Which I noticed you managed to ignore.

You may note that I had actually answered your questions, you did not answer mine. At this point I will admit that you have me quite confused as to where you are coming from and I indicated such here;


I'm sorry, my mistake. I honestly thought that you knew the answers to these questions, I though that they were rhetorical. If you honestly don't know the answers just say so and I will try to answer if I can.

Please note that I was clear. I will try to answer, if you indicate that you honestly don't know the answers.

Your response while not entirely responsive indicated that you don't know the answers.


The questions were not rhetorical. Let's hear the answers.

To which I stated that I was having a difficult time believing this. Are you actually telling me that you are unaware of the provisions in the manual by which the district phase distinctions are addressed? Are you also telling me that you do not understand how these decisions are made?

I will state it again, I am having some difficulty that you would not know this.



I have been completely honest with you and I'm sorry you feel differently.

Again, I didn't accuse you of dishonesty, rather I am trying to convey a frustration with your chosen style of communication in this thread.


Hosts -

I am not angry but for the health of Naznet and in the interest of creating healthy community allowing someone to public question anthers honesty and therefore integrity with out offering specific and concrete evidence is probably not good for us.

Lets not turn this into something that it is not Craig. You could easily turn this around by offering substantive explanation as to why the system is actually broken. As I indicated to Hans, I am willing to listen, but we have to get past the six white guys from Olathe argument. In my estimation that argument is put to rest by the functioning of the Spirit.

Your participation thus far seems to be an attempt to keep me on defense, it isn't appreciated.

[Craig Laughlin]

First I did not offer this statement as a personal attack, You insinuate that I am not being honest and you don't think that is a personal attack?


that thought hadn't crossed my mind. That it would not even cross your mind that publicly questioning someone's honesty would be perceived as a personal attack is very hard for me to understand.


Next let me be clear, I did not accuse you of dishonesty. Yes you did. You did it in a particularly unsavory way in that you did not do it directly with facts which would have given me an opportunity refute your evidence but instead insinuated my dishonesty which leaves me with no defense and you with the illusion of deniability, which you have now exercised.


What I did say was that I have concerns, it was/is my hope that you would choose to engage in a more charitable way than you have thus far. No you didn't. This sentence is about how we engage and I would be happy to talk about that. You flat out insinuated that there was reason to question my honesty. Further, insinuating someone is dishonest is by no means charitable.

[Jim Chabot]

Yes you did. You did it in a particularly unsavory way in that you did not do it directly with facts which would have given me an opportunity refute your evidence but instead insinuated my dishonesty which leaves me with no defense and you with the illusion of deniability, which you have now exercised.

I most certainly have left you with a defense at every occasion. You have wither missed it or you have chosen to ignore it. In fact it is your unresponsiveness that has piqued my curiosity.

I am not looking for a fight, and I'm sorry if you think otherwise. But I am going to have to leave you to your own imaginations at this point, I have tried my best.

If you could respond to this, then maybe we could move on? This is the direct evidence that you have asked for. This is the substance behind my statement.


To which I stated that I was having a difficult time believing this. Are you actually telling me that you are unaware of the provisions in the manual by which the district phase distinctions are addressed? Are you also telling me that you do not understand how these decisions are made?

I will state it again, I am having some difficulty that you would not know this.

[Craig Laughlin]

I am absolutely aware of that passage. I just disagree that it relates. This means we disagree, not that either of us are being dishonest. Even if I were to fail to respond to a post that was relevant I can not think of how that would justify insinuating that someone was being dishonest.

You think that failure to have enough money makes a district to immature to vote and therefore justifies the reality that the majority of Nazarenes are not represented on the board of Generals superintendents. - I get that, we disagree. How does that make me dishonest?

[Mike Schutz]

There is a chance that things we hold sacred in terms of our identity as Nazarenes may not be so essential to the denomination as it expands internationally.

One illustration of this is NMI.

Please understand, I am not talking about our desire to be missional, or our desire to help people become world Christians. Those are both absolutely essential. I am talking about the large and unwieldy institutional structure we have created - with guilt and shame as motivators - in order that the local church can serve as the local fund-raising stations for a model of missions that is no longer effective. But, to paraphrase one local NMI leader, "How are we Nazarenes if we are not reading missionary books?"

Back to the topic:
I do not believe term limits answer the key questions for general leadership. It may actually have some benefit for the district superintendency, however.

[John Kennedy]

One illustration of this is NMI.

Please understand, I am not talking about our desire to be missional, or our desire to help people become world Christians. Those are both absolutely essential. I am talking about the large and unwieldy institutional structure we have created - with guilt and shame as motivators - in order that the local church can serve as the local fund-raising stations for a model of missions that is no longer effective. But, to paraphrase one local NMI leader, "How are we Nazarenes if we are not reading missionary books?"

Back to the topic:
I do not believe term limits answer the key questions for general leadership. It may actually have some benefit for the district superintendency, however.

Does anyone know whether the United Methodist Church still has a term limit for their DS's. I believe it used to be 6 years.

[Jim Chabot]

I am absolutely aware of that passage. I just disagree that it relates. This means we disagree, not that either of us are being dishonest. Even if I were to fail to respond to a post that was relevant I can not think of how that would justify insinuating that someone was being dishonest.

You think that failure to have enough money makes a district to immature to vote and therefore justifies the reality that the majority of Nazarenes are not represented on the board of Generals superintendents. - I get that, we disagree. How does that make me dishonest?


I'm sorry, my mistake. I honestly thought that you knew the answers to these questions, I though that they were rhetorical. If you honestly don't know the answers just say so and I will try to answer if I can.


The questions were not rhetorical. Let's hear the answers.


First let me tell you that I am having some difficulty believing in your honesty at this point. You are saying that you honestly don't know the answers to the questions that you have asked me concerning maturity? When it is actually spelled out in the manual? I'll take you at your word, but I must say that I am surprised to hear this.


Jim, I ask you to offer some direct evidence of my dishonesty. If not then this post is, in my opinion, over the line as a personal attack.


First I did not offer this statement as a personal attack, that thought hadn't crossed my mind.

Next let me be clear, I did not accuse you of dishonesty. What I did say was that I have concerns, it was/is my hope that you would choose to engage in a more charitable way than you have thus far. I will gladly explain my reasoning.


Please note that I was clear. I will try to answer, if you indicate that you honestly don't know the answers.


To which I stated that I was having a difficult time believing this. Are you actually telling me that you are unaware of the provisions in the manual by which the district phase distinctions are addressed? Are you also telling me that you do not understand how these decisions are made?

I will state it again, I am having some difficulty that you would not know this.


I am absolutely aware of that passage.

That connects all of the dots for me. If you like I will gladly chalk it up as a reading comprehension issue. Other than that I'm done, I can see no benefit in going around and around on this.

[Billy Cox]

One illustration of this is NMI.

Please understand, I am not talking about our desire to be missional, or our desire to help people become world Christians. Those are both absolutely essential. I am talking about the large and unwieldy institutional structure we have created - with guilt and shame as motivators - in order that the local church can serve as the local fund-raising stations for a model of missions that is no longer effective. But, to paraphrase one local NMI leader, "How are we Nazarenes if we are not reading missionary books?"


NMI is an especially good example of the inertia that you get from having leadership positions that are effectively terminal in nature. NMI's effectiveness has been in decline for a long time, but you wouldn't know it based on the longevity of its senior leadership.

[Gene Tatsch]

... "How are we Nazarenes if we are not ....IF we are committed to a mission (not just the wall-hanging phrase), then ALL criteria for being Nazarenes should be involved in a dynamic discussion examining how effective individual and grouped criteria demonstrably help us advance our mission. In other words, there can be no sacred cows.
On the other hand, as has been said, the current organization is perfectly designed to produce the current results. If we don't like the results, then our only option is to change the system. Let us be praying that members of the Commission on the Nazarene Future, meeting tomorrow & Wednesday, are able to hear and follow the Spirit's whispers http://nazarene.org/ministries/superintendents/commission/meetings/display.html

[Wes Smith]

IF we are committed to a mission (not just the wall-hanging phrase), then ALL criteria for being Nazarenes should be involved in a dynamic discussion examining how effective individual and grouped criteria demonstrably help us advance our mission. In other words, there can be no sacred cows.
On the other hand, as has been said, the current organization is perfectly designed to produce the current results. If we don't like the results, then our only option is to change the system. Let us be praying that members of the Commission on the Nazarene Future, meeting tomorrow & Wednesday, are able to hear and follow the Spirit's whispers http://nazarene.org/ministries/superintendents/commission/meetings/display.html

Well said!

Friend,

Wes

[Craig Laughlin]

That connects all of the dots for me. If you like I will gladly chalk it up as a reading comprehension issue. Other than that I'm done, I can see no benefit in going around and around on this.

We disagree as to the nature of the problem but I am glad to let it drop.

Peace,

[Rich Schmidt]

Fine. I, of course, do not see it that way. While I've made it clear that I would love to see our denomination move beyond the concept of District Superintendency, it makes zero sense to me that we have such people if they cannot help us (that is what leadership does) and it strikes me as being organizationally blind if we say they cannot prevent us. I may be the only person in the denomination to have a GS come to my church with what he said was a letter from the Board of GS's disallowing the changes we were making in our church at that time. A DS can, along with the Advisory Board prevent and/or change building plans, borrowing money, hiring staff, etc.

I don't know if you're the only person to have that kind of experience with a GS... but you're certainly the only one I've ever heard of. I'm sorry to hear about it... and I'm curious about what it was you were doing! :)

It sounds to me like Craig and I have both served on districts with superintendents who did help us, who encouraged pastors and churches to change in order to better accomplish the mission. While you, clearly, have had very different experiences. It's no wonder, then, that we have different opinions about the organizational structure of our denomination and whether they're helpful or harmful.

BTW, I agree that the position of DS can be a powerful one in our current structure. If they want to, they can make life very difficult for a pastor or church board. Fortunately, I haven't had that experience.


This has to do with organizational culture. A culture where change is encouraged is much different and better than a culture where change is tolerated. The kind of leadership that I'm speaking about gets out in front and rally's the troops with a refreshing message of hope, future and encouragement.

That's the kind of leadership I've experienced for the dozen years I've been here on our district.

[Rich Schmidt]

I'd hate to see us end up with regionalization - I think it's a fragmentary Church when we're supposed to be united. I think it's an inevitable future, though, if we fail to address these issues of power and influence within our own country and the leadership of the GA.

So you wouldn't want us to have a structure something like the Anglican Communion? That's one approach to regionalization.

[Billy Cox]

That's the kind of leadership I've experienced for the dozen years I've been here on our district.

I hope that your DS lurks on NazNet so that this blatant suck-up moment isn't wasted. :)

[Rich Schmidt]

I hope that your DS lurks on NazNet so that this blatant suck-up moment isn't wasted. :)

He's retiring, so it doesn't matter. We only have him for a few more months, until our 2012 district assembly at the end of April.

[David Graham]

He's retiring, so it doesn't matter. We only have him for a few more months, until our 2012 district assembly at the end of April.

And this is the real problem of giving power to our leaders..... it can be abused!
Before Union out here (i.e. before the UCA came into being) I once met a Methodist minister who had upset his Bishop and so spent the rest of his ministry in far flung country churches. (I met this guy in far north Queensland).
That's why I like our system where our leaders have little power but lots of influence;...... they really find it difficult to get back at you! That's why I post what I think here on Naznet without worrying about who may read it..... because in the end unless I have seriously slandered someone( or broken the civil law in some way), what can anyone do to me?

[Ryan Scott]

So you wouldn't want us to have a structure something like the Anglican Communion? That's one approach to regionalization.

No. I mean its admirable that they're committed to staying together in name, but in practice they're all separate denominations. We are absolutely unique in that we have a large international membership under one entity. I'm not aware of any denomination that's attempted to do what we're doing. There's going to be a lot of mess in the process, but I think it's worth it to figure out how we live together.

Trust is our big issue. To me, an Anglican-like communion is the result of people refusing to trust. It's saying, "I'll work with you, but I won't trust you to be part of my church." Human frailty may leave us in that position, but I think it's a regrettable plan B.

[Rich Schmidt]

No. I mean its admirable that they're committed to staying together in name, but in practice they're all separate denominations. We are absolutely unique in that we have a large international membership under one entity. I'm not aware of any denomination that's attempted to do what we're doing. There's going to be a lot of mess in the process, but I think it's worth it to figure out how we live together.

Trust is our big issue. To me, an Anglican-like communion is the result of people refusing to trust. It's saying, "I'll work with you, but I won't trust you to be part of my church." Human frailty may leave us in that position, but I think it's a regrettable plan B.

I always figured the structure of the Anglican communion was due to accidents of history. I mean, it makes sense for "the Church of England" to be just that... and then for other national churches to join in communion with them. But I don't really know their history beyond England.

As for our being unique... isn't the Roman Catholic Church one international entity? I thought the Assemblies of God were one global entity, too. They certainly have a large & growing international ministry.

[Ryan Scott]

I always figured the structure of the Anglican communion was due to accidents of history. I mean, it makes sense for "the Church of England" to be just that... and then for other national churches to join in communion with them. But I don't really know their history beyond England.

As for our being unique... isn't the Roman Catholic Church one international entity? I thought the Assemblies of God were one global entity, too. They certainly have a large & growing international ministry.

The Roman Catholic Church is one example, although they don't really have to worry about getting along with each other since they have an absolute authoritarian structure.

As per the World Assemblies of God website - "The World Assemblies of God Fellowship is structured as a loose alliance of independent national and regional Pentecostal denominations."

[Jim Chabot]

The Roman Catholic Church is one example, although they don't really have to worry about getting along with each other since they have an absolute authoritarian structure.

Very true, the decisions are made by Rome and resistance is futile. Every once in a while, I will run one of our theological discussions past my Catholic friend. His usual initial response if "we don't waste time on that stuff, it is all laid out for us." I think that their system adds stability and peace of mind.


As per the World Assemblies of God website - "The World Assemblies of God Fellowship is structured as a loose alliance of independent national and regional Pentecostal denominations."

The AG has a unique structure that seems to work well for them.

About twenty five years back, a friend of mine was involved in a start up work under the AG. At the time he said that they had three different charters to choose from as they organized, they were free to pick the one that suited them best.

I can also recall Gene Scott explaining why Jimmy Swaggart could not be punished or sanctioned by the AG muckety mucks. He explained that they are organized with a bottom up structure which would prevent Springfield from exerting authority downward. I think that they went ahead with it anyways, even though they lacked the authority.

[Shea Zellweger]

Very true, the decisions are made by Rome and resistance is futile. Every once in a while, I will run one of our theological discussions past my Catholic friend. His usual initial response if "we don't waste time on that stuff, it is all laid out for us." I think that their system adds stability and peace of mind.


I can't speak for the average layperson, but that's not even close to true among Catholic clergy and academics. One of the beauties of the Catholic Church (and the Eastern Church, for that matter) is that for centuries they have allowed competing orders with conflicting theology to exist within their church without suppressing any of them. That's where you get "orders" like Franciscan, Dominican, or Jesuit.

[Ryan Scott]

I can also recall Gene Scott explaining why Jimmy Swaggart could not be punished or sanctioned by the AG muckety mucks. He explained that they are organized with a bottom up structure which would prevent Springfield from exerting authority downward. I think that they went ahead with it anyways, even though they lacked the authority.

It's not that way anymore, probably because of Jimmy. The closet relationship our congregation has is to the local AG congregation. There's a lot of top down control when necessary; there's also a lot of top down support available as well. The AG district over NJ pays for an accountant to do all the pastors' taxes every year. Nice perk.

[Mike Schutz]

I can't speak for the average layperson, but that's not even close to true among Catholic clergy and academics. One of the beauties of the Catholic Church (and the Eastern Church, for that matter) is that for centuries they have allowed competing orders with conflicting theology to exist within their church without suppressing any of them. That's where you get "orders" like Franciscan, Dominican, or Jesuit.

And a source of constant frustration for Rome - as they have tried, and sometimes failed, to rein in various groups, historically most notably the Jesuits, and interestingly enough in more recent years even Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity.

[Shea Zellweger]

And a source of constant frustration for Rome - as they have tried, and sometimes failed, to rein in various groups, historically most notably the Jesuits, and interestingly enough in more recent years even Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity.

Yes, beauty can often be frustrating... :)

[David Stevens]

Should there be term limits? No.
Should we continue to have General Superintendents at all? May not. Many problems would be solved if we really adopted a Regional Structure and eventually had a top elected official from each region, or more than one when the population of members grows very large.
Is the NMI a failure? No. I think that Pastors would be wise to use a completely volunteer missionary fund-raising organization as much as possible. The incredible results of our missionary efforts around the world can be exciting. The people of the more developed countries are looking for something positive, exciting, encouraging, and uplifting. NMI works hard to deliver those stories back to the 'Mother Church". Can NMI be 'done' better? Probably! If you have any good ideas on how to improve it, please let me know, or someone higher up the chain than me.
Blessings on you all. - David

[David Stevens]

"The vital issue we face is...REGIONALIZATION!"

I agree. I must admit that when I was first asked what I thought about Regionalization (over 20 years ago) my reaction was negative. After watching the Church for all these years and thinking about things I am familiar with, I have begun to promote the idea of strong regional structure. Keep the History, statement of faith, and the Code of Christian Character (Whatever!) in a form that translates well. Continue to require a General Assembly vote to change the Global section. Make the top Superintendents regional, requiring that they be elected from the region they will oversee. Allow this Global Board of Superintendents to conduct their business in any way they can, leaning heavily on electronic modes of communication for as long as they are still available. I will even give a nod to David McClung's idea of having a single vision casting leader, something that they practice now with the rotation of the chair position.
I hope they can mantain the democratic process and avoid too much "liturgical control."
IMHO

[Wes Smith]

While I agree that the "system is broken," I do so for different reasons.

First, I disagree that there is a post break, after lunch discussions, or rumor mill that influences voting. That is nearly impossible. However, I have seen the voting at GA reflect people changing their votes to join in with the front runner. To say that individuals at GA are influenced by some unseen mandate or even suggestion is fantasy. The primary "force" is simply what elders rise to the top of the voting. I never once had someone come to me and say anything like, "Hey, the new man/woman is...and this is an order or request from headquarters." That is sheer nonsense.

Second, I sense a bit of liberal progress vs. conservative thinking in this conversation. The liberal/progressives might say something like this, "I think the poor people should have a voice in GA and that the well-to-do folks should pay for such." The conservatives might say something like, "The poor should have a voice when they indicate responsibility by making a satifactory stewardship investment in the organization." This one is very hard to resolve since most of our growth is among the poor folks. However, it might be worth pointing out that, as has been stated in other threads, our denomination came from very poor roots. Poor people were in charge during some of our most growing years. They sacrificed like crazy to develop the mission aspect of the church and sacrificed like crazy to attend General Assemblies.

Third, when I say that the system is broken and I am very tempted to agree with Hans's "hopelessly," I am saying that we are broken because we don't even know what to be radically concerned about. The heat on this thread proves it in my way of thinking. Everything that has been said (and, I know that is an overstatement) assumes that something good would come from keeping things the same or tweaking the organization in order to bring more people to the GA table. My opinion...keeping it the same or bringing more people to the GA table will net nothing. NOTHING.

Drum roll, please! The vital issue we face is...REGIONALIZATION! Our denomination should be expending its strongest attention these days in removing barriers to grow all around the world. We currently have an organization that is Olathe and North American (wealth) centered. Have done with it. Quit this nonsense of implying or flat out saying that the historic or North American model of Nazarenism has any value, save the ability to financially underwrite productive efforts around the world. The cloud and the pillar of fire has moved. Let's bail everything and run to catch up! The alternative is to sit in our lonely gatherings and watch the last campfires dwindle and go out.

North America should be one region represented on the world scene with one Regional Superintendent. North America should abandon the current district system and organize into "zones" that reflect approximately the current educational zones.

If we have the courage to make such moves, this entire discussion would take on vast new meaning. General Assembly would be a flat table that would reach (technologically) to the ends of the earth. North American representation would become a group of people seeking to support evangelistic and discipleship efforts where the action is happening and exactly where the needs are

We currently have no capacity to really care about the harvest because we are too inclined to argue about keeping the organization the way it is and what the make-up of a mind-boggling, impossibly expensive quadrennial gathering is going to be. All I can say is, "Please God, forgive us! Help us see your "immeasurably more" instead of our "little bit more!"

Tinkering may have had some value at some point in the past. Not now. What we need is a major overhaul.

Friend,

Wes

PS. I'd predict that some/most will want to discuss point number two above. My opinion is that such an approach will hasten things remaining as they are. The grand possibility of global regionalization is that telecommuting as a denomination will bring us to a fellowship table that reaches wherever we exist. Think global. Think regional.

If a blog can be "shamelessly promoted" on NazNet, so can a post. New leadership shackled by an old, out-dated organization is bound to produce precisely same results.

Friend,

Wes

[Billy Cox]

"The vital issue we face is...REGIONALIZATION!"

I agree. I must admit that when I was first asked what I thought about Regionalization (over 20 years ago) my reaction was negative. After watching the Church for all these years and thinking about things I am familiar with, I have begun to promote the idea of strong regional structure. Keep the History, statement of faith, and the Code of Christian Character (Whatever!) in a form that translates well. Continue to require a General Assembly vote to change the Global section. Make the top Superintendents regional, requiring that they be elected from the region they will oversee. Allow this Global Board of Superintendents to conduct their business in any way they can, leaning heavily on electronic modes of communication for as long as they are still available. I will even give a nod to David McClung's idea of having a single vision casting leader, something that they practice now with the rotation of the chair position.
I hope they can mantain the democratic process and avoid too much "liturgical control."
IMHO

Oh, the fond memories of one of my favoritest threads on NazNet... :)

Since you mention the democratic process, I feel compelled to point out that a BGS populated by regional GSes would be far more democratic than our current method of selecting GSes. Case in point, there are reportedly almost a million Nazarenes in Africa. What percentage of those Nazarenes got even an indirect vote for the newest crop of GSes? If you're guessing a number a hair's breadth from ZERO, then you're right.

Maybe we could give non-USA delegates from non-self-sufficient districts at least three-fifths of a vote. :rolleyes:

Based on the outcome of recent GS elections, we seem to be trying to maintain denominational unity by homogenizing the BGS. I think that effort will ultimately fail for the same reason that the white minority government of South Africa eventually lost its hold on power.

[David Pettigrew]

The general board meets this month. I'm assuming the Future Commission will be presenting their findings or some sort of update - I forget the timeline. So, we may not have long to wait to find out if any of the changes discussed here are being suggested.

[Billy Cox]

The general board meets this month. I'm assuming the Future Commission will be presenting their findings or some sort of update - I forget the timeline. So, we may not have long to wait to find out if any of the changes discussed here are being suggested.

I'm curious as to what (if any) actionable items will come out of the commission. I suspect that the report will basically follow the template used by the BGS for their annual report: Celebrate the past, Acknowledge present challenges and opportunities, Trust God and pray for his wisdom in future decision making. Cue the standing ovation and loud praises.

If you didn't see any action items in that (aside from the obligatory 'pray harder'), maybe it was just a failure of (your) imagination. :)

[David Stevens]

Oh, the fond memories of one of my favoritest threads on NazNet... :)

...Based on the outcome of recent GS elections, we seem to be trying to maintain denominational unity by homogenizing the BGS. I think that effort will ultimately fail for the same reason that the white minority government of South Africa eventually lost its hold on power.

You know, Billy, (may I call you by your first name?), I have seen and heard that word used so much and I decided to make sure I understand the use of it. Homogenize: 'A. to blend (diverse elements) into a uniform mixture'. The other definitions involve making the elements microscopic and blending them completely into the mixture. I think I agree with you, at least partly. The system is set up so that only certain persons can have enough name recognition to get elected. Those persons have a tendency to be very similar to each other. It will take a change in the rules to force us to elect persons from other regions.

There was a time when I thought there were actually attempts to control the mix, almost to the point of conspiracy. I think the one time I ever saw that being attempted the Church blocked the effort and elected a man who had literally been released from his assignment in Kansas City. After that I cannot say I have witnessed an attempt to push candidates (for G.S.) before the Church. Today I think that is almost impossible, for the reasons you mentioned and other reasons as well. So why do we keep electing persons from the USA with one exception? (doffs his hat to Dr. Duarte) Poor communication to the electorate of potential candidates. And since we are now over 2 million members that task becomes even more difficult.

What should we do? I do not like the idea of having a 'candidating process', but it might be possible to come up with a system by which each Region could nominate those who are considered worthy. If that is not possible, at least we need a readily available online database with information about every single potential candidate. (Tall Order!) Reduce the data entry load by making the individual potential candidates fill in their own vital information. Those not interested in the job could just stay out. Those individuals in other regions who qualify would need to be informed of the fact.

Term limits would almost force us to have some kind of nominating system in place, (again IMHO.)
David

[Jon Twitchell]

If that is not possible, at least we need a readily available online database with information about every single potential candidate. (Tall Order!) Reduce the data entry load by making the individual potential candidates fill in their own vital information. Those not interested in the job could just stay out. Those individuals in other regions who qualify would need to be informed of the fact.


There was at least some discussion of a grass roots version of this after GA2009. I may have actually started some sort of a spreadsheet or listing--simply based on the nomination list.

If nothing else, we could make readily available the list of those who were nominated in 2009, so that delegates would have a chance to do some research.

[Billy Cox]

You know, Billy, (may I call you by your first name?), I have seen and heard that word used so much and I decided to make sure I understand the use of it. Homogenize: 'A. to blend (diverse elements) into a uniform mixture'. The other definitions involve making the elements microscopic and blending them completely into the mixture. I think I agree with you, at least partly. The system is set up so that only certain persons can have enough name recognition to get elected. Those persons have a tendency to be very similar to each other. It will take a change in the rules to force us to elect persons from other regions.

I use the term 'homogenize' in the sense that the denomination seems to be packing the BGS with midwestern traditionalists. Case in point, nearly all of the GSes have clocked significant chunks of their careers in the central time zone.

This leads me to believe that there is a large voting 'bloc' at General Assembly (about 35-40%?) that merely has to dig in its heels and a surge of votes for Crocker, Sunberg, Owens, etc. will hit a brick wall and then fall back to also-ran status. This doesn't mean that this bloc is organized in any conspiratorial way, just that midwestern traditionalists have the numbers to block anyone that they deem to not be a fit for their homogenization agenda.


There was a time when I thought there were actually attempts to control the mix, almost to the point of conspiracy. I think the one time I ever saw that being attempted the Church blocked the effort and elected a man who had literally been released from his assignment in Kansas City. After that I cannot say I have witnessed an attempt to push candidates (for G.S.) before the Church. Today I think that is almost impossible, for the reasons you mentioned and other reasons as well. So why do we keep electing persons from the USA with one exception? (doffs his hat to Dr. Duarte) Poor communication to the electorate of potential candidates. And since we are now over 2 million members that task becomes even more difficult.

Based on what I have said already, the homogenization is not even USA-specific, but a relatively small slice of the USA.


What should we do? I do not like the idea of having a 'candidating process', but it might be possible to come up with a system by which each Region could nominate those who are considered worthy. If that is not possible, at least we need a readily available online database with information about every single potential candidate. (Tall Order!) Reduce the data entry load by making the individual potential candidates fill in their own vital information. Those not interested in the job could just stay out. Those individuals in other regions who qualify would need to be informed of the fact.


I have previously been skeptical of the efficacy of regionalization, but I think it is the least divisive way forward. The bloc I mentioned above is working against demographic trends. Duarte's election was just a sneak peek at what the grassroots can accomplish with a groundswell of popular opinion. Past efforts to dilute the international vote have only delayed the inevitable and sowed seeds of ethnic distrust in the denomination.