Regionalization...

[Wes Smith]

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

My thoughts as posted on the WaPac thread...

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

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

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

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

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

Friend,

Wes

[Dennis M. Scott]

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

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

[Rich Schmidt]

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

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

[Wes Smith]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friend,

Wes

[Dennis M. Scott]

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

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

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

Now I'm curious!

[Hal Paul]

Now I'm curious!

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

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

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

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

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

[David Pettigrew]

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

[David Morris]

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

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

[Eric Frey]

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

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

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

[Wes Smith]

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

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

Friend,

Wes

[Craig Laughlin]

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

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

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

[Wes Smith]

Now I'm curious!

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

Friend,

Wes

[Rich Schmidt]

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

...

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

Friend,

Wes

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

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

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

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

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

OK, now for my response...

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

But I don't live in that world.

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

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

[Dennis M. Scott]

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

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

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

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

[David Pettigrew]

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

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

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

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

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

[Ryan Scott]

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

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

Regionalization seems like a step in that direction.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

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

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

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

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

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

This is the kind of message that we need.

[Eric Frey]

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

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

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

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

This is the kind of message that we need.

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

[Rich Schmidt]

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

The hope of the Christ is our hope?

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

[Billy Cox]

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

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

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

[Billy Cox]

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

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

[Billy Cox]

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

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

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

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

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

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

[Rich Schmidt]

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

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

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

[Wes Smith]

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

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

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

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

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

Friend,

Wes

[Ryan Scott]

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

[Wes Smith]

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

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

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

Friend,

Wes

[Billy Cox]

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

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

[Rich Schmidt]

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

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

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

[Rich Schmidt]

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

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

Friend,

Wes

I'm on the Northwest Indiana district. According to the Nazarene Research Center, we have a decadal worship attendance growth rate of 8.39%. I have no idea how that compares to other districts. (It looks like WAPAC's at 3.2%.)

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

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

[Eric Frey]

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

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

Friend,

Wes

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

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

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

Peace!

[Eric Frey]

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

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

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

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

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

[Dennis M. Scott]

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

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

[Jon Twitchell]

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

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

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

[Eric Frey]

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

[Eric Frey]

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

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

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

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

[David Pettigrew]

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

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

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

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

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

[Jon Twitchell]

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

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