Titles

[Kevin Rector]

How about a resolution to change the title of "District Superintendent" to "Bishop" and "General Superintendent" to "Presiding Bishop".

---discuss---

[David Pettigrew]

I'd say nevah evah gonna happen, but you did neuter the Manual during the last go round, so who knows?

[Hans Deventer]

I don't expect it to fly, Kevin. I'd actually have no problem with it myself though, the word bishop has a long tradition in the Church.

[Susan Unger]

I'd say nevah evah gonna happen, but you did neuter the Manual during the last go round, so who knows?

Neuter the Manual? What on earth does that mean?

[Ryan Scott]

Neuter the Manual? What on earth does that mean?

Kevin successfully submitted a resolution to use gender neutral language where appropriate in the Manual.

[Craig Laughlin]

1. Great idea, it will give the concerned folk something to get worked up about while the rest of the assembly business goes on.
2. West coast won't go for it. - To low church and proud of it.
3. Latin America won't go for it. - To many bad experiences with Catholicisms dark side.

[Jim Franklin]

Should not presiding bishop be Archbishop. Over arching all dem bishops.

[Hans Deventer]

Should not presiding bishop be Archbishop. Over arching all dem bishops.

Reminds me of Desmond Tutu, wearing a t-shirt with the text: "Just call me 'Arch'".

[Michael Gentry]

And then we could elect one of the archbishops to be pope! Woohoo! We will just have to build a smokestack at the new headquarters to let us know when the board of archbishops have elected a new pope

And if necessary we can even get holy water, freeze it, and sell it as "Pope-cycles" to pay for the new smokestack.

[Gina Stevenson]

And then we could elect one of the archbishops to be pope! Woohoo! We will just have to build a smokestack at the new headquarters to let us know when the board of archbishops have elected a new pope

And if necessary we can even get holy water, freeze it, and sell it as "Pope-cycles" to pay for the new smokestack.

For whatever reason it occurred with this particular mention of "holy water," it came back to me again about how I got in "trouble" for getting into the "holy water" at the funeral of a great grandfather when a young kid. Didn't know what it was all about, other people were doing it, so .......

[Kevin Rector]

And then we could elect one of the archbishops to be pope!

So if our church were to switch and start using the ancient word for overseer "bishop" rather than the relatively modern middle management sounding term of "Superintendent" why would we then have to make one of them a "Pope" which of course is a word that basically means "father" and would be rather awkward if that one were a woman.

Why do people assume that if you have bishops you need to have a pope? The UMC has bishops but no pope. The Anglican Communion has bishops but no pope, etc. etc. etc.

[David Pettigrew]

I looked up the biblical use of the term and found this.

The greek "episkopos" occurs five times in our NT, and can be translated as bishop, guardian, or overseer.

PS - It can also be translated as "superintendent", but the bible never uses that term. It goes with bishop once, guardian once, and overseer three times.

[Gina Stevenson]

So if our church were to switch and start using the ancient word for overseer "bishop" rather than the relatively modern middle management sounding term of "Superintendent" why would we then have to make one of them a "Pope" which of course is a word that basically means "father" and would be rather awkward if that one were a woman.

Why do people assume that if you have bishops you need to have a pope? The UMC has bishops but no pope. The Anglican Communion has bishops but no pope, etc. etc. etc.

Actually, didn't take his post seriously re a pope.

[Billy Cox]

Neuter the Manual? What on earth does that mean?

There won't be any offspring?

[Susan Unger]

There won't be any offspring?

Funny!

[Rich Schmidt]

PS - It can also be translated as "superintendent", but the bible never uses that term. It goes with bishop once, guardian once, and overseer three times.

Which translation does that (bishop x1, guardian x1, overseer x3)? Just curious.

[David Pettigrew]

Which translation does that (bishop x1, guardian x1, overseer x3)? Just curious.

Nazarene International Version

[Michael Gentry]

You are very wise Gina, my post was not intended to be serious, but to be humorous

[Dennis M. Scott]

So if our church were to switch and start using the ancient word for overseer "bishop" rather than the relatively modern middle management sounding term of "Superintendent" why would we then have to make one of them a "Pope" which of course is a word that basically means "father" and would be rather awkward if that one were a woman.

Oh good. We could merge this motion into the issues of gender and homosexuality, to ensure likelihood of adoption.

[Gina Stevenson]

You are very wise Gina, my post was not intended to be serious, but to be humorous

Oooh! Should print, frame and hang this one!

Oh good. We could merge this motion into the issues of gender and homosexuality, to ensure likelihood of adoption.

Yeah, just like Congress does, huh!?

[Benjamin Burch]

Should not presiding bishop be Archbishop. Over arching all dem bishops.

Yup!

[David Pettigrew]

WARNING: an opinion piece. Treat it as you would Paul's instructions to the Corinthians who wanted to get busy in chapter 7.

I wonder why we love changing the names of things so much in the Church of the Nazarene? Is it inherent in our DNA, or symptomatic of other problems?

Anyway, if we were to make a change, I prefer the terms Overseer and General Overseer, which seem more descriptive of what the positions should be. Nobody really wants to be superintended, but I like the idea of somebody overseeing me, sort of like having my back. Perhaps it would emphasize the elder nature of the position, rather than the administrative. Not only is the term biblical, but other denominations use it as well. It means the same thing as "bishop", without all the baggage.

It's not an issue of importance to me, though, to be honest.

[Billy Cox]

I wonder why we love changing the names of things so much in the Church of the Nazarene? Is it inherent in our DNA, or symptomatic of other problems?

I don't read too much into it. There are people in the denomination who directly interact with issues that matter, and everyone else has to settle for renaming GMC entities, various mission areas and 'prayerfully considering' a bunch of yes/no ballots. Democracy lives!!!

[Hans Deventer]

I wonder why we love changing the names of things so much in the Church of the Nazarene? Is it inherent in our DNA, or symptomatic of other problems?

Not here. We still talk about the Board of Christian Life, no matter what the Manual says.

[Lucas Finch]

I wonder why we love changing the names of things so much in the Church of the Nazarene? Is it inherent in our DNA, or symptomatic of other problems?

Funny story about this. On my district (Rocky Mountain), there has been some conversation for several years to change the title of our annual youth conference. On the district NYI Council, I have advised against the change. However, those pushing it have been pretty persistent, so I decided to step back and let them go for it without any further objection from me. So late last summer or early fall, the new title was announced. Via Facebook, I began to see a number of people, mostly teens, object to the change. At least that was my perspective. The perspective of my colleagues on the council who were pushing for the change is that it was mostly adults who identified with the old name who were complaining about the change. Well, this brings us to mid-March when the conference, under the new name, actually took place. Within two weeks following the conference, the council voted to return to the previous name due to all of the feedback we received. This motion was made by the biggest advocate for changing the name in the first place.

I personally tend to think people get too concerned over names and titles. I would prefer us not adopting a title like "bishop" simply because I think that it sets up too much of a hierarchy. At the same time, though, I really wouldn't care too much of this were to happen. My time is better spent serving and building up relationships rather than debating names and titles.

[Kevin Rector]

It's not an issue of importance to me, though, to be honest.

Nor me. I was feeling ornery when I started this thread.

[Eric Frey]

WARNING: an opinion piece. Treat it as you would Paul's instructions to the Corinthians who wanted to get busy in chapter 7.

I wonder why we love changing the names of things so much in the Church of the Nazarene? Is it inherent in our DNA, or symptomatic of other problems?

Anyway, if we were to make a change, I prefer the terms Overseer and General Overseer, which seem more descriptive of what the positions should be. Nobody really wants to be superintended, but I like the idea of somebody overseeing me, sort of like having my back. Perhaps it would emphasize the elder nature of the position, rather than the administrative. Not only is the term biblical, but other denominations use it as well. It means the same thing as "bishop", without all the baggage.

It's not an issue of importance to me, though, to be honest.

The biblical term episkopos can be translated bishop, overseer, or superintendent. I am less concerned about which of those we use than that we clearly identify it as our episcopal office - and allow all so designated the authority to ordain which is the historic work of the episkopos. If it were purely up to me, bishop would be my first choice as that is the more historic and ecumenical name for the office. Superintendent would be my second choice as it is more in line with our Wesleyan tradition (it was the prefered term of Wesley and is also used by most in the Wesleyan-holiness circles). Overseer would be my last choice because I can't find any precident anywhere in Christianity for using that particular translation for the name of the episcopal office....

[David Pettigrew]

Overseer would be my last choice because I can't find any precident anywhere in Christianity for using that particular translation for the name of the episcopal office....

Do the three times in the NT not count?

As mentioned, other denominations use it. They are generally of the Pentecostal branch of Christianity, and therefore our theological children. Still, there's a lot more of them than us.

[David Pettigrew]

Hey! Thanks to google, I found out another group that uses the term "overseer" to refer to their higher-ups - Jehovah's Witness. Winner winner chicken dinner.

[Eric Frey]

Do the three times in the NT not count?

As mentioned, other denominations use it. They are generally of the Pentecostal branch of Christianity, and therefore our theological children. Still, there's a lot more of them than us.

Without looking it up, my hunch is that the uses in the NT are the translators personal preference for episkopos, so no, I don't put much stock in that vs bishop or vs superintendent...

[David Pettigrew]

Without looking it up, my hunch is that the uses in the NT are the translators personal preference for episkopos, so no, I don't put much stock in that vs bishop or vs superintendent...

I have looked it up and they definitely are the translators' preference for episkopos, as I noted earlier in the thread. I guess I'm not clear why that doesn't count. Anyway, it's a matter of personal preference as we've both stated.

[Bud Pugh]

There may be a larger issue here than what we title we give to our district leaders, and that is, what it is that we say they do. I remember sitting at GA 2005 when the delegation was wrestling with how to characterize the duties of the DS. The context, of course, was legal. The lawyers had found that they could climb right up the ladder if there was any kind of malfeasance at the local level based on the wording of the duties of the DS. Where the Manual said that a duty of the DS was to "supervise" was where the problems were arising. That a pastor was being supervised by a DS brought the DS/District onto the money tree.

The delegation wrestled with the wording for a while, suggesting oversees and other words, but came up empty on something that kept just the right level of oversight; too much and it opened the district and perhaps the denomination up to costly litigation.

After a period of not coming up with anything, the GS in the chair asked for a recess in order to consult with legal counsel. You could see them all huddled on the stage with the lawyers and General Secretary Jack Stone. Upon the end of the recess the chair suggested a motion along the lines of this, "The duty of the District Superintendent is to superintend." That's what the lawyers came up with and what is now in the Manual at 208.1.

So, you can see that in at least the litigious North American society it may not be so easy as a change in titles to deal with the aspect of district leadership.

[Eric Frey]

Just for a bit of perspective, traditional Anglican theology (since that is our historic root) as expressed by Richard Hooker (who is to Anglicanism roughly what Calvin and Luther were on the continent) understands that the defining functions of the episcopacy are threefold.

(1) Ordination
(2) Pastoring the pastors
(3) Overseeing (or superintending if you prefer) the organization/management of the church

Additionally, it was the bishop that provided continuity to the church in that each local church was accountable to the bishop and therefore connected to one another.

Basically we see the same thing at work in the District Superintendent. The DS oversees the organization/management of the church, serves as pastors to the pastors, and is the one through whom the local congregations are connected to one another (and to the general church). The only significant way we have altered the historic episcopal office is tat we have not permitted the DS to ordain. This one small change would go along way, not only in bringing us in continuity with the historic church, but also, if the DS could ordain, there would be no reason to have a GS at district assemblies. Without having to be at DA's GS travel (and additional expenses) would be greatly reduced!

[Rich Schmidt]

Just for a bit of perspective, traditional Anglican theology (since that is our historic root) as expressed by Richard Hooker (who is to Anglicanism roughly what Calvin and Luther were on the continent) understands that the defining functions of the episcopacy are threefold.

(1) Ordination
(2) Pastoring the pastors
(3) Overseeing (or superintending if you prefer) the organization/management of the church

Additionally, it was the bishop that provided continuity to the church in that each local church was accountable to the bishop and therefore connected to one another.

Basically we see the same thing at work in the District Superintendent. The DS oversees the organization/management of the church, serves as pastors to the pastors, and is the one through whom the local congregations are connected to one another (and to the general church). The only significant way we have altered the historic episcopal office is tat we have not permitted the DS to ordain. This one small change would go along way, not only in bringing us in continuity with the historic church, but also, if the DS could ordain, there would be no reason to have a GS at district assemblies. Without having to be at DA's GS travel (and additional expenses) would be greatly reduced!

That all sounds good to me! So are you going to propose it, or Kevin?

[Eric Frey]

That all sounds good to me! So are you going to propose it, or Kevin?

working on it

[Benjamin Burch]

I have looked it up and they definitely are the translators' preference for episkopos, as I noted earlier in the thread. I guess I'm not clear why that doesn't count. Anyway, it's a matter of personal preference as we've both stated.

My guess is that Eric doesn't put much stock in Pentecostal histories as being ecumenically important.

[David Pettigrew]

My guess is that Eric doesn't put much stock in Pentecostal histories as being ecumenically important.

I was referring to the Bible references.

I'm sure most Anglicans don't consider Nazarene histories as ecumenically important, either, if they are aware of us at all. But seeing as how Pentecostalism has its roots in the Holiness movement and was the fastest growing group of the last 100 years, I do tend to not simply dismiss them.

[Billy Cox]

I personally tend to think people get too concerned over names and titles. I would prefer us not adopting a title like "bishop" simply because I think that it sets up too much of a hierarchy. At the same time, though, I really wouldn't care too much of this were to happen. My time is better spent serving and building up relationships rather than debating names and titles.

So changing the title from district superintendent to 'bishop' make the church more hierarchical. Really?

[Lucas Finch]

So changing the title from district superintendent to 'bishop' make the church more hierarchical. Really?

Perceptionwise, yes.

[Billy Cox]

Perceptionwise, yes.

Fair enough. I think that there is enough anti-Catholic bias in the CotN to keep this from happening...never mind that RCC isn't the only church that uses bishop terminology.