Years ago, when I was Nazarene, it seemed that most ministers exiting the denomination ended up in the Methodist church. What seems to be the most commonly favored destination today?
Years ago, when I was Nazarene, it seemed that most ministers exiting the denomination ended up in the Methodist church. What seems to be the most commonly favored destination today?
I'd bet it's the "civilian" world.
Clergy exiting the denomination who intend to remain clergy head in a couple of directions- those who find the CotN too "conservative" will move to the UMC or Free Methodist. Those who find the CotN too "liberal" head for Wesleyan or independent churches. If they're not wanting to remain clergy, I'd imagine they'd go to whichever church makes them feel most comfortable.
I understand your generalization here, Shea. But in my case, it wasn't anything like that. You might say "the devil is in the details..."Originally Posted by Shea Zellweger
Several years ago I heard that Nazarene NTS graduates who left the denomination went Episcopalian more than any other denomination. That was some time ago and even then I don't know where the information came from.
Like Scott, I think I know more ex-Nazarene ministers who went Episcopalian than any other denomination. But that's simply based on anecdotal evidence and personal acquaintances.
Tom
This was my impression while living in KC but it was only an impression.
Today, the most favored clergy destination especially around 2:30 in the afternoon is, ... I think ... Dunkin Donuts and sugar jelly. America Runs On Dunkin.
Hey, grease, sugar, caffeine - good for what ails ya - helped me through 36 years in the classroom.
John -
I said FAVORED, NOT FLAVORED!
All the pastors I knew started selling Life Insurance. Would that be considered Irony? :-)
Not really, since most of 'em had been in the fire insurance business for years.
Out here most who have left the CoTN have gone to the Wesleyan Methodists. I know a couple who went pentecostal, one who went to the Presbyterians (of all places????), and one who went to the Church of Christ. To my knowledge, I am the only one who went to the Australian equivelent of the UMC.
Very interesting, maybe those who left the Nazarenes out here were much more conservative than in the States? But knowing the CoTN in Australia as I do, those who left were often regarded by many leaders of the CoTN (in Australia) as "radicals", "liberals" or even "backsliders"..... so maybe there are other factors at play here like feelings of acceptance and being allowed to be an agent of change within the church? Maybe we don't make enough provision for "dissent" or in treating those who do so with love and respect?
Blessings,
Dave
Are 'Wesleyan Methodists' in Australia more similar to the Wesleyans (who used to be called Wesleyan Methodists) in the states or the ones in Great Britain?
Should have used 'Reply with Quote' - This was addressed to David Graham.
Last edited by John Kennedy; June 28th, 2010 at 06:50 PM. Reason: clarification
As far as I know the Wesleyan Methodists in Australia are the same as the Wesleyans in the US. They petitioned the US church for the right to call themselves Wesleyan Methodists primarily to catch ex methodists who might be leaving the Uniting church and wanting a methodist church to go to. I think they are loosely affiliated with the Wesleyan church in the US even still.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesleya...h_of_Australia This seems to confirm my understanding.
Based strictly on my experience, most I have known have left either for the UMC or for indepndent churches. The reasoning for many of these who went to the UMC was much less ideological and much more based on the UMC policy of guaranteeing every ordained minister an assignment, health insurance, and a pension. These guys aren't getting rich by any means, but they do enjoy a measure of security we Nazarenes don't share. And this is only an option, as I understand it, for ministers with an M.Div from a UMC approved institution.
Personally, I would find the transition difficult if not impossible.
I'll fourth the Episcopalians. Almost landed there myself at one point.
Can you explain that? I'm struggling to figure it out. (Not wanting to be too nosey or cause you problems...just curious.)
What would you like me to explain? Why many former Nazarene clergy or seminarians end up there, or why I almost did? What's the nature of your struggle?
"Struggling" is probably too strong a word. I'm assuming your historical worship, theological, and ministry experiences (during seminary) were Nazarene...or at least closely related. That assumption may not be correct. I'm curious to know how you could be "close" to making such a dramatic change...at least that's how I would see the switch.
If we picture the Church as a family tree, then the Episcopal/Anglican church is like our parent or grandparent. John Wesley was an Anglican priest. So to move from Nazarene to Anglican is to move closer to the trunk of the tree. Yes, the change would be dramatic, but not nearly as dramatic as moving to, say, Lutheran or Baptist or Roman Catholic.
Just my two cents.
For me it was the discovery that I'm very prayer book centered. I use the Daily Office of the Book of Common Prayer nearly every day. Also, Eucharistic worship is indescribably meaningful to me. It's just how I'm shaped.
A few years back I began to see some of our denominational blemishes, and was confronted with a decision. Do I stay or do I go? My wife and I had many serious conversations, realizing to go would mean a lot of heartache, and to stay would mean a lot of frustration. We set a deadline for Easter and prayed through Lent. In the end, God put a great love and desire for the Church of the Nazarene in our hearts, and I haven't given it a second thought since then. I still greatly appreciate anglo-catholicism, but my call is to the Nazarene people, blemishes and all!
Well if I were speaking for my self I would go the Episcopal/Anglican route. For those going the UMC route I do not think it is only for liberal reasons, but job security. The minimum pay for full time UMC in the conference in central PA was 37k +housing + insurance. That is a better package than the majority of Nazarene pastors in that same area. Granted you may have 3 churches to deal with.
Thanks!
Staying with the UMC for a moment, from what I understand, any church not paying their assigned budgets are refused a "single-church pastor" and are placed in a circuit. Hmmm....
I think it's a mixed bag: many just aren't in full-time pastoral ministry any more, some go to the UMC (especially women and those dealing with the academy), others to the Episcopal Church (especially pastors and liturgists). I myself don't know anyone who's gone to the Wesleyan or Free Methodist Churches, but that's likely because of my limited circles.
On days when I'm feeling weak, I may have envisioned myself in either of those first two: the UMC because of its breadth (and I also think because I greatly value one of their leaders: Adam Hamilton); or the Episcopal Church because I value the liturgy (some of us worshiped at Boston Trinity Church just this past Sunday evening). But the denomination that I think actually matches my values the most is the Brethren in Christ Church, particularly for their emphasis on simplicity and the peace of Christ, but through a Wesleyan tradition. But with each of these...I find differences from my own theological or practical understandings that are no lesser than the CotN. I don't see myself leaving the CotN unless asked.
Though I sometimes have frustrations with red tape and/or systematic structure, I love our tribe nonetheless.
No doubt, I actually have no significant issues what the church actually believes or does but with what people in the church think it believes or should do. I was on staff at a UMC about 10 years ago, and learned that I want no parts of that polity as a pastor. That experience has really helped see past any of the minor annoyances I may have with the CotN.
This reminded me that while at NTS I served at a "Reformed Church In America." The experience did a great deal to dampen my criticism of my own tribe. I'm guessing every denomination has issues that would irritate us. At least in the COTN I know what the issues are and I know where the bodies are buried. Besides, I've been in the COTN for four generations, kicking me out would not be all that easy so I can agitate for change.
Just curious: What was it you didn't like about their polity?
First and foremost the itinerant system would not be something I would want to be a part of.
The pastor does not have nearly as much influence in that UMC setting, they can not hire or fire staff, they are really just an other employee.
The way a typical UMC is set up is it has 3 major leadership boards 1. Administrative (closest to our church board) 2. Trusties (money and property) 3. Staff parish relations (the pastors boss) Each group is pretty autonomous, and often decisions require approval from all three.
For instance hiring a staff position would require approval from the administrative board to create a position, then the trusties would have to approve the financial end, then the SPR would have to choose the candidate. Once the candidate was selected the Ad board would have to approve them, and then the trusties would make the compensation package offer. By the end of the process you will have had about a dozen different meetings with 3 different boards, and note the conspicuous absence of the pastors official role in the process, granted he or she chairs some of those boards, but the pastors official role in a staff hire is very limited. That is just one example.
The entire system values inclusion over efficiency, and makes it (IMO) a very difficult context to lead in.
I have been chairperson of the Staff Parish Relations Committee in my local UMC. My service covered a change of pastors, hiring a youth director, secretary, etc. The position also involves an annual performance evaluation of the pastor which is forwarded to the Bishop via the District Superintendent. Though Nazarene pastors may not be comfortable with this system, I believe it provides a level of stability, continuity and layman responsibility that forms the foundation of a healthy congregation.
I do not feel the committee is "the pastor's boss." The pastor doesn't work for us, he works with us and us with him to facilitate the ministry of the local church. This is not a job that church members take lightly. It is a real load that involves many hour praying for God's guidance.
BTW, there are a couple important committees that you have left out. The Worship Committee and the Congregational Care Committee.
Respectfully,
Wayne
What you are describing is a best case scenario, but I am simply not convinced this is better leadership model in than ours.
I do not feel the committee is "the pastor's boss." The pastor doesn't work for us, he works with us and us with him to facilitate the ministry of the local church.
How one feels about the arrangement is secondary to the reality of the arrangement, and for all intents and purposes the SPRC is the pastors oversight (on a month to month, rather than a review every 4).
IMO it is not a job members should have in the first place, and is easily abused.This is not a job that church members take lightly. It is a real load that involves many hour praying for God's guidance.
Again why should this be the job of a lay person? It would be like a board of directors of a company being in charge of hiring the CEO support staff. The whole idea of bringing a pastor in is that they assemble a teem that 1. they are responsible for, and 2. that they choose to work with.My service covered a change of pastors, hiring a youth director, secretary, etc.
I understand there are pros and cons to each model, but for my leadership style and personality I would not enjoy the UMC model. I am not sure if there is an other denomination that gives the pastor so little power from the polity point of view.
With all the disfunction I've experienced in the Nazarene Church, most of it seems to center around that one word. Everybody wants it.
Much disfunction does center around power (oh do I know), although I am not sure the CotN has the corner of the market on powered centered disfunction.
Everytime I see anything re power & the abuse thereof, I recall Chuck Colson speaking about it long, long ago ... admitting that's what got him in trouble ... even into prison. Power can be a dangerous thing, not shared ... or not carefully handled. [guess he impressed me with his take on it, b/c I still remember it after a lot of years]
Life beats down and crushes the soul and art reminds you that you have one.
~ Stella Adler ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
It takes a great deal of maturity to accept that trying to eliminate all risk eliminates life.
~ Susan Lapin ~
Having spent my entire professional life in the Army, I don't understand this aversion I see among Nazarene pastors regarding the inability to hire and fire staff. For the most part there is very little, if any, authority for military officers to hire or fire their staff, they get whomever is already there, or whomever "big Army" sends them. To a certain extent they can decide what responsibilities to give to people in the unit, but they are stuck, or blessed, with whomever is there.
Pastor's can't hire and fire the laity of the church, if they can provide leadership with them and make it work with that rogues gallery of humanity, why can't they make it work with staff members?
I think it is fair to say that the church and the military are apples and oranges, however it helps me understand your level of comfort with the UMC arrangement in regards to staff. Beyond hiring and firing, the staff answer to SPRC, not the pastor (unless SPRC specifies it), it is a very awkward polity in that regard.
Dad's the Methodist. I'm still a Nazarene.
I think there are fair comparisons when it comes to leadership. Good leadership involves consensus building more than exercising power from an authoritarian model. What you seem to be presenting is more an authoritarian model with the authority vested predominantly in the pastor. As far as hiring and firing staff, I attended one church where when the senior pastor left we, the congregation and church board, had as one of our conditions for calling the new pastor that the staff would be retained. We called a new pastor who agreed to do so, and when the next transition happened, the church did the same thing again. So in the past 10 year, it's had three senior pastors and the staff has remained relatively unchanged. BTW, that church has grown in numbers, added staff, completed a building project and had several members ordained into ministry during that time.
Also, if you insist on being able to hire and fire the staff, what does a pastor do with a church where much of the staff has been developed organically? I've attended two churches where lay members began serving in a specific ministry, then felt called to a higher level of service, began pursuing studies for ordination and now are full time and bivocational staff members at the same church. I guess you could fire them if you didn't get along, but they would still be there, and you would have to figure out what to do with them as unassigned clergy in your congregation.
I'm not sure if I'm expressing myself very well on this, but what I am uncomfortable with is pastors for whom a church's polity appeals to them on the basis of the power that a pastor has within that polity. Any time that happens, there will be power struggles because the pastor will eventually exercise that power without developing consensus, then express shock and dismay that the people aren't following. Really, no matter what the polity is, the pastor has no more power than what the congregation and board give him/her.
Yes, a benevolent dictatorship can sure get things done in a jiffy.
You almost sounded sarcastic for a moment!
Nazarene polity give a fair balance between pastor and people sharing the power. In many ethnic churches that pastor is like a pope. I just think the pendulum swings too far the other direction in the UMC.
I am content with Nazarene polity in this regard, and for me is a good place to be.
What is interesting in the UMC is although the SPRC can have their thumb in the back of the pastor all the time, they have less ability to remove him or her than a Nazarene church board.
Maybe I'm just ahead of the curve, but I see a big disconnect between polity and practice. The only power that our elected church board has is the power to say 'no' to the most egregious 'faith' spending plans.
Nazarene polity is very much tilted toward the clergy, and if there is a pendulum, it's far from swining in the other direction.
Show me a church having mostly first-generation Nazarenes or those who have never even heard of the Manual, and I'll show you a church in which the board has no idea that removal is an option, or how to even do it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
