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/show...446#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/2011/08/2...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 ) 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")

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
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")

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

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...