Where could the next GA be, after 2013?

[Hans Deventer]

For the sake of the argument, I'd like to propose the following situation:

The BoGS has appointed you as member of a committee that needs to select a site for the next General Assembly and Conventions. They say they have a preference for a place outside the USA, if possible.

Of course, several issues need to be addressed.

1. The visa situation must be such that the greatest possible number of delegates can attend.

2. Political stability and security are a top priority (Kabul, Afghanistan, might not be the best option, for instance).

3. We understand less US Nazarenes will be able to attend due to travel expenses. Do seek to allow for as many "international" Nazarenes to attend as possible.

4. Normally, we're talking about a place that needs to be able to seat 1100 delegates and their desks, and because of the simultaneous Conventions, we need two of these halls.

5. Then we also need a place where some 25000 people can attend a church service.

6. The location needs to be relatively close to an airport with sufficient capacity to fly in at least some 20000 people within a few days.

7. We also need accommodations sufficient to house all visitors in a decent way.

8. Considering the many folks in the USA who will want to follow at least some of the services and meetings, a solid infrastructure is necessary to be able to broadcast these through the internet.

9. Many districts provide funds for international delegates to attend. If they had to spend those on their own travel expenses, we'd have a problem. Propose a solution.

10. Provide 3 places where we can select from.

What would your suggestions be?

[David Morris]

3. We understand less US Nazarenes will be able to attend due to travel expenses. Do seek to allow for as many "international" Nazarenes to attend as possible.

Hans,
In your opinion, are USA Nazarenes the only ones that look at everyone else as "international?" Do you see another Nazarene from your region, or someone from Africa/S. America/Asia, as an "international?"

The way we use the word often frustrates me. It always seems to come across as "us" vs. "them."

One of the things I enjoyed the most while participating in the NYI Third Wave event was that we had 200+ brothers and sisters from 50+ countries, all in Thailand together. No one there was considered an international participant. For me, it made the world smaller and the Church bigger.

[Jon Twitchell]

Another qualification might be to consider a place where we could make a significant, positive impact, simply by our presence.

[Hans Deventer]

Hans,
In your opinion, are USA Nazarenes the only ones that look at everyone else as "international?" Do you see another Nazarene from your region, or someone from Africa/S. America/Asia, as an "international?"

1. I think so
2. No

I only used the word because it appears to be standard among US Nazarenes, so you'd all know what I am talking about.

[Ryan Scott]

Logistically, I think Toronto makes the most sense right now.

Perhaps in another four years a place like Rio or Sao Paulo or Buenos Aires will make sense (right now there's not really enough direct flights from Africa and Asia for it to be feasible). Otherwise a European city where many international flights will have to layover anyway could work.

I still Toronto makes the most sense. A lot of GA staffing is done by people from the US - without radically redesigning how things are done (exhibit halls, etc) it would have to be cost effective to get staffing there from Kansas City.

There are few, if any, visa issues with delegates getting into Canada.

[David Morris]

1. I think so
2. No

I only used the word because it appears to be standard among US Nazarenes, so you'd all know what I am talking about.

Thanks for the feedback...it's helpful. Unfortunately, I do know what you are talking about...I wish it wasn't viewed as "us" and "them."

Not trying to take the thread a different direction, was just curious of your opinion.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

I'd be okay with it being elsewhere, but I think it'll stay in the states, likely back in Indy. Ultimately, it will be a financial decision.

I'll long remember a conversation I had with a pastor from Papua New Guinea at the NazNet booth in Orlando. He told me that he had dreamed of visiting the United States all his life and that it seemed to be an impossible dream. Then, he gave his heart to Jesus and not only was his whole life changed, but now he was blessed by realizing his lifelong dream - he thanked the Lord for the opportunity to come to GA in the USA.

Just a reminder that not all outside-of-America church leaders want the GA moved outside the States.

[Ryan Scott]

I'd be okay with it being elsewhere, but I think it'll stay in the states, likely back in Indy. Ultimately, it will be a financial decision.

I'll long remember a conversation I had with a pastor from Papua New Guinea at the NazNet booth in Orlando. He told me that he had dreamed of visiting the United States all his life and that it seemed to be an impossible dream. Then, he gave his heart to Jesus and not only was his whole life changed, but now he was blessed by realizing his lifelong dream - he thanked the Lord for the opportunity to come to GA in the USA.

Just a reminder that not all outside-of-America church leaders want the GA moved outside the States.

But the question is, does fulfilling some dreams to visit the US trump 20+% of the delegates not getting visas?

Are we in it for the "family reunion" atmosphere or are we trying to do a representative business meeting?

I think Toronto can balance the two.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

But the question is, does fulfilling some dreams to visit the US trump 20+% of the delegates not getting visas?

Are we in it for the "family reunion" atmosphere or are we trying to do a representative business meeting?

I think Toronto can balance the two.

I think you are setting up a false choice. If I accepted your logic I'd assume that if the GA was moved out side the country that 100% of the delegates would be able to obtain visas. I think there would be visa problems for some folks in most any country.

Just remember, I'm just giving a practical response, and not necessarily a preference.

(Plus that, you guys would have no conversation if everyone just agreed)

[Hans Deventer]

I think there would be visa problems for some folks in most any country.

Sure. But some countries are easier than others.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Sure. But some countries are easier than others.

I'm not the world traveler that some are (including you!) - but I was just responding to a statement that's intended to leave the impression that if the GA was moved out of the USA that those supposed 20% would be able to get in just fine.

Also, I'll add that dismissing my story about the PNG delegate is short sighted. I didn't claim that everyone dreams of coming to the USA, just that that aspect of the location of the GA hadn't been brought up. My guess, though, is that a lot of people would pick the USA if they were only going to visit another country once in their lifetimes.

[Craig Laughlin]

Logistically, I think Toronto makes the most sense right now.

Perhaps in another four years a place like Rio or Sao Paulo or Buenos Aires will make sense (right now there's not really enough direct flights from Africa and Asia for it to be feasible). Otherwise a European city where many international flights will have to layover anyway could work.

I still Toronto makes the most sense. A lot of GA staffing is done by people from the US - without radically redesigning how things are done (exhibit halls, etc) it would have to be cost effective to get staffing there from Kansas City.

There are few, if any, visa issues with delegates getting into Canada.

I think you are spot on. I think there will have to be baby steps and Toronto would be a good beginning toward a larger goal.

[Ryan Scott]

I think you are setting up a false choice. If I accepted your logic I'd assume that if the GA was moved out side the country that 100% of the delegates would be able to obtain visas. I think there would be visa problems for some folks in most any country.

When Indy had to back out of the 2009 assembly (probably 2005 or earlier) I was working at HQ and was polled, among others, about possible replacements by the persons coordinating GA at the time. We talked a bit about options - he strongly suggested Toronto because 99% of the delegates could get visas. I'm thinking he's a good source.

I will admit that often some delegates don't start the process early enough to get visas in time, so we might be lower, but at each GA there are delegates who are prepared to come who can't because it's in the US.

[Dave McClung]

For the sake of the argument, I'd like to propose the following situation:

The BoGS has appointed you as member of a committee that needs to select a site for the next General Assembly and Conventions. They say they have a preference for a place outside the USA, if possible.

Of course, several issues need to be addressed.

1. The visa situation must be such that the greatest possible number of delegates can attend.

2. Political stability and security are a top priority (Kabul, Afghanistan, might not be the best option, for instance).

3. We understand less US Nazarenes will be able to attend due to travel expenses. Do seek to allow for as many "international" Nazarenes to attend as possible.

4. Normally, we're talking about a place that needs to be able to seat 1100 delegates and their desks, and because of the simultaneous Conventions, we need two of these halls.

5. Then we also need a place where some 25000 people can attend a church service.

6. The location needs to be relatively close to an airport with sufficient capacity to fly in at least some 20000 people within a few days.

7. We also need accommodations sufficient to house all visitors in a decent way.

8. Considering the many folks in the USA who will want to follow at least some of the services and meetings, a solid infrastructure is necessary to be able to broadcast these through the internet.

9. Many districts provide funds for international delegates to attend. If they had to spend those on their own travel expenses, we'd have a problem. Propose a solution.

10. Provide 3 places where we can select from.

What would your suggestions be?

I predict that we will never have a general assembly outside the U.S. I am not sure the logistics are even possible. It is much more likely that future "General Assemblies" will be virtual. Just think of the savings if delegates from each region met on the region and were connected by video.

I love the General Assembly and would attend where ever it was, but I am also very senstive to the cost. I am not sure it will be possible to fund a General Assembly as we have done in the past. Even if it is possible, more and more people are raising the issue of "Stewardship." Is the Nazarene General Assembly the best use of the millions and millions of dollars we spend?


I was on the General Assembly site committee the year that we considered having it in Toronto. One of the barriers was the cost of union labor. Most General Assemblies rely heavily on Nazarene volunteers from the local area. At that time, it was believed that there weren't enough Nazarenes in Toronto to do the necessary volunteer labor so it would be necessary to hire union labor to replace the volunteers. It didn't economically make sense.

That same year, we considered St. Louis. There were a number of issues with St. Louis that couldn't be resolved.

[Hans Deventer]

[...]It didn't economically make sense.

Dave, I've said it before but I am very willing to repeat it, I don't believe any GA makes sense in terms of economics or stewardship, where ever it may be held. Have that combined with what I've seen as to decisions made, items referred, issues discussed, and the indecent linking of money and power in the way delegates are elected, and I am totally convinced there are better and cheaper ways to deal with its business.

As to the fellowship element, it seems to me the M-conferences in the USA and the Regional Conferences abroad are sufficient. I like the idea of a world wide church, but I don't think a world wide gathering is needed. I'd be happy to assign quite some duties to the General Board.

[Ryan Scott]

I predict that we will never have a general assembly outside the U.S. I am not sure the logistics are even possible. It is much more likely that future "General Assemblies" will be virtual. Just think of the savings if delegates from each region met on the region and were connected by video.

I love the General Assembly and would attend where ever it was, but I am also very senstive to the cost. I am not sure it will be possible to fund a General Assembly as we have done in the past. Even if it is possible, more and more people are raising the issue of "Stewardship." Is the Nazarene General Assembly the best use of the millions and millions of dollars we spend?


I was on the General Assembly site committee the year that we considered having it in Toronto. One of the barriers was the cost of union labor. Most General Assemblies rely heavily on Nazarene volunteers from the local area. At that time, it was believed that there weren't enough Nazarenes in Toronto to do the necessary volunteer labor so it would be necessary to hire union labor to replace the volunteers. It didn't economically make sense.

That same year, we considered St. Louis. There were a number of issues with St. Louis that couldn't be resolved.

Of course, at the last GA in Indy, in 2005, I was working for HQ and we ran into union problems anyway. A lot of us who were paid employees were not allowed to do any work on the exhibit hall - only people who weren't being paid. There weren't a lot of them around (since normally HQ staff set most of it up) so we had to negotiate with the stewards there and eventually pay for some work to be done anyway.

I assume they've figured this out for 2013.

[Scott Moseley]

Having a GA every 4 years is IMO a bit overdone, but as long as you are looking for NON US destinations. How about CUBA? If the Pope can go ...? Havana is holding international conventions. Perhaps in 4 years Direct flights from the US will be available. If CUBA must wait and the GA must be held outside of the US, then Mexico City seems the clear cut front runner. Toronto is a cool destination and a great choice for a conference , but isn't that still considered North America ?

[Ryan Scott]

Can we admit the elephant in the room? Lots of people, many of them elected delegates, are afraid to travel to a country like Mexico or Brazil and wouldn't go if GA was held there.

[Jon Twitchell]

Why don't we just charter a cruise ship?

We could schedule a couple of ports for picking people up... and then just have our meeting in the middle of the Atlantic.

[Ryan Scott]

Why don't we just charter a cruise ship?

We could schedule a couple of ports for picking people up... and then just have our meeting in the middle of the Atlantic.

International waters! Truly appropriate for an international church.

[Wes Smith]

Writing this from San Jose, Costa Rica, and suggesting this would be a beautiful Country for GA and a fantastic setting for pre- and post GA vacations and W&W projects! CR is highly accessable and neutral in regards to world conflicts. We have a wonderful seminary here and a host of locals who would do a super job of rolling out the red carpet!

Friend,

Wes

[Ryan Scott]

Writing this from San Jose, Costa Rica, and suggesting this would be a beautiful Country for GA and a fantastic setting for pre- and post GA vacations and W&W projects! CR is highly accessable and neutral in regards to world conflicts. We have a wonderful seminary here and a host of locals who would do a super job of rolling out the red carpet!

Friend,

Wes

There's also frequent and affordable airline travel from the US on a variety of carriers.

[David Pettigrew]

Why don't we just charter a cruise ship?

We could schedule a couple of ports for picking people up... and then just have our meeting in the middle of the Atlantic.

1) cost
2) size - no ship would be big enough to accomodate all delegates and families
3) cruise ships rely too heavily on overpriced alcohol sales to charter an entire ship to a non- drinking group during the busiest travel season.

[Jon Twitchell]

1) cost
2) size - no ship would be big enough to accomodate all delegates and families
3) cruise ships rely too heavily on overpriced alcohol sales to charter an entire ship to a non- drinking group during the busiest travel season.

I know. Sorry... I forgot the smiley.

[Gina Stevenson]

1) cost
2) size - no ship would be big enough to accomodate all delegates and families
3) cruise ships rely too heavily on overpriced alcohol sales to charter an entire ship to a non- drinking group during the busiest travel season.

Someone always has to come along and insist on seeing the pragmatic side of things!

[Ryan Scott]

I saw on one site a quoted from for the Caribbean Liberty of the Seas cruise ship (a 4,500 passenger vessel) rents for $9m per week, plus $3m bar tab. That's a $12m cost for week, with more than enough room for delegates and quite a few guests. That's still $2667 per person, plus the cost of flights to the port of call. Not cheap.

I know we spend a lot on GA, but even that might be an increase in price.

[David Pettigrew]

Does that take into account the crew? On a ship that size it would be at least 900-1000.

I saw on one site a quoted from for the Caribbean Liberty of the Seas cruise ship (a 4,500 passenger vessel) rents for $9m per week, plus $3m bar tab. That's a $12m cost for week, with more than enough room for delegates and quite a few guests. That's still $2667 per person, plus the cost of flights to the port of call. Not cheap.

I know we spend a lot on GA, but even that might be an increase in price.

[Ryan Scott]

Does that take into account the crew? On a ship that size it would be at least 900-1000.

It said passenger capacity, so yes, I assume it comes with a crew in addition to the 4,500 capacity.

[Jim Franklin]

Montreal or Toronto, Canada, Joburg, South Africa or Seoul, Korea. Montreal probably meets all of the needed infrastructure and is close enough for many North Americans can travel, Johannesburg would give recognition to where the denomination is growing the most and Seoul, Korea recognizes where our denomination is having a major impact on the nation. I think the last two places could meet the requirements as well.

[John Reilly]

I suggest Holland! With excursions led by Hans. Met vriendelijke groet.

[Jim Franklin]

We've already had GAs in Dallas, San Antonio and Anaheim, don't those places rate as international locations. I am sure Oklahomans would think so.

[David Snodgrass]

Nashville, TN is building a brand new convention center. Not sure the capacity, but Nashville would be a good location. Plus, it would be nice to have GA in the same city as a Nazarene university.

[Roy Richardson]

Logistically, I think Toronto makes the most sense right now.

Perhaps in another four years a place like Rio or Sao Paulo or Buenos Aires will make sense (right now there's not really enough direct flights from Africa and Asia for it to be feasible). Otherwise a European city where many international flights will have to layover anyway could work.

I still Toronto makes the most sense. A lot of GA staffing is done by people from the US - without radically redesigning how things are done (exhibit halls, etc) it would have to be cost effective to get staffing there from Kansas City.

There are few, if any, visa issues with delegates getting into Canada.

Toronto, maybe Vancouver, which successfully hosted an Olympics

[Roy Richardson]

Nashville, TN is building a brand new convention center. Not sure the capacity, but Nashville would be a good location. Plus, it would be nice to have GA in the same city as a Nazarene university.

Seoul has a really nice airport I hear. And a Nazarene University nearby

[Billy Cox]

Toronto, maybe Vancouver, which successfully hosted an Olympics

The denomination prefers cities where they will be treated as a 'big fish' conference. Compared to the Olympics, our general assembly is small fish, maybe even microbial.

[Kevin Rector]

The denomination prefers cities where they will be treated as a 'big fish' conference. Compared to the Olympics, our general assembly is small fish, maybe even microbial.

I doubt it. I think cities like any conference that generates economic activity.

[David Pettigrew]

The problem with any city hosting us is we don't generate alcohol revenue. It's why we got bumped in Houston after we had booked their for '93 (?) and ended up in Indianapolis in the first place.

[David Pettigrew]

Correction: '93 was our second trip to the Hoosier Dome

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ne_conventions

[Ryan Scott]

Our conference is actually a pretty big one, in comparison - both in attendance and length. There aren't a lot of cities with facilities big enough to house everything we bring.

That being said, we do tend to work cheap and not spend money on alcohol - so we don't generate as much as the average conference our size, but it's still big.

Louisville has been trying to bribe us to come with super cheap deals on a number of smaller Nazarene conferences that have been held there over the last four years.

[Lucas Finch]

Louisville has been trying to bribe us to come with super cheap deals on a number of smaller Nazarene conferences that have been held there over the last four years.

I think that Louisville worked pretty good for NYC2011. A few hiccups here and there, but overall a nice location. Not sure how it would be for something as big as GA, though.