The address attempted to express that the General Superintendents had heard concerns from local pastors about use of the finances of the church for its centralized structures for a more congregational emphasis, but sought to limit this movement toward congregationalism through common mission and resources. The financial concerns of the church were an underlying theme that kept emerging. A key point came when the report stated that the General Superintendents had “thought it time to update the language of the mission of the church in light of biggest [structural] changes in 60 years.” I don’t think that the structural changes are quite as significant as the decision to move to the internationalization of the Church of the Nazarene, but they are extremely significant. Whether or not the General Superintendents have the authority to state a mission statement from that provided in the Preface to the Manual (I do not think that they do), they obviously had consulted with business leaders and practices in coordinating mission and structure. As General Superintendents, they understand their role to be an executive board of a business to articulate the mission of the business and then develop the appropriate structures in order to unite the business personnel in commitment to this vision from the “top” to the “bottom” of the organization. This, of course, represents a major secularization of the church at its top level – without its awareness. More on this later in the post.

The stated mission statement by the GS’s is “To make Christlike disciples in the nations.” It was argued that this language preserved the essence of language of holiness, and shows the commitment to “the doctrine and experience of experience of entire sanctification” as a surrender of will to the will of God, Moreover it looks to move people through the process of building and sustaining Christian franchises (and here the influence of Rick Warren, The Purpose Driven Church was apparent). The mission means that one must incorporate believers into membership, equip them for ministry, and then deploy them as “Christlike disciples” to recruit others into the organization. It was expressly articulated that the local congregation was the church, in line with Warren’s Congregationalist ecclesiology. No von Balthasarian sophistication in talking about the Marian and Petrine poles of the church. The issue instead is framed as “local bureaucratic” versus “centralized bureaucratic.” The address tries valiantly to keep a “balance” between these two poles. A series of changes were announced – my understanding is that these are done and do not need the approval of the Assembly. General Superintendents are moving toward “single jurisdictions” for two years over specific organization structures in the church before moving on to new assignments. The move from “International Headquarters” to the new “Global Ministry Center” was announced – while it was intimated that some of the financial struggles have arisen from this move, it was not explicitly stated. Instead what was emphasized was the cutting of personnel and staff to make sure that the “Center” did not have to dip into general operating funds to pay on this $25 property. Likewise, they announced the change in the budget formulae for support of the central bureaucracy from its franchises. The report emphasized that this reduces budgets from local congregations again, as has consistently happened from 1980 on. According to the report, at budget levels of 1980, the general budget would have been $68 million this year, rather than the $48 it was, and will shrink more in the future. Scattered applause accompanied this announcement -- most likely from the United States mega-church pastors who have pushed for this reduction.

The announcement of the structural changes led to a discussion of the coming transition in the church tied to changing demographics. It was plainly stated that “this is Africa’s moment” and that the movements of Christianization had run its course in the United States and the UK in 1965. What was happening in Africa resulted from the missionary zeal and practice of these days. The report addressed nine countries where the 50% of the increase in world population will occur before 2050. The structural changes were clearly meant to address these new situations. The GS’s tried to refocus the church on Africa without alienating the significance of its Euro-American base. Again, balance of good management.

At this point the Report moved to the Articles of Faith. From what I understand, several proposals to change several of the Articles of Faith are on the agenda – some even recommended by the General Superintendents. This is interesting for how it relativizes the Articles of Faith, and shows, to my mind, that these are not confessional statements for cognitive assent for membership, but presuppose the evangelical, orthodox, and catholic faith given to the saints. Of particular interest, as might be expected, is article 10 on Entire Sanctification. It was emphasized that the Articles of Faith should not be changed hastily, and that it is difficult to change them, as it should be. I thought that the report had a good and valid understanding of the nature of doctrine. The report quoted J. B. Chapman, long time GS in the mid-century, on doctrine: “Doctrine is not a goal within itself. The goal is God and right relations to him and stand before him. But doctrine is like a highway that leads to the goal.” The report immediately followed with a similar statement from Samuel Young, of the same generation as Chapman: “The goal is not to promote a doctrine but what the doctrine means. Correct doctrine itself does not constitute the life of God in the souls of individuals. But if we would direct a great multitude to God we must have sound and pure doctrine.”

This seems to me very astute. For those who argue that the Church of the Nazarene is “non-creedal,” it affords a clarification. To be “non-creedal” is not to confess the Creeds; but it is not to make creeds/doctrines ends in themselves, but forms individuals linguistically to God in God’s revelation in Christ by the Spirit. Doctrine is not expressive of an experience, but formative of experience. This is a position very similar to George Lindbeck and Hans Urs Van Balthasar – and Augustine and Newman, etc.

Changes are coming to Article 10, supposedly only clarification of language, not substance, it was argued (which, of course, cannot be wholly true). There is a valid distinction between form and content, but they are also deeply related so that a change in form will represent a change in content. The Board of General Superintendents called “to retain passion for doctrine and experience of entire sanctification,” (to semi-strong applause), and to reaffirm it as the distinguishing tenet of the Church of the Nazarene.

Here is a profound problem. A doctrine of holiness cannot be that which makes us “distinguishing”’; it must be that which makes us Christian – our doctrine of holiness must speak from the core of the Christian tradition, lest it make us idiosyncratic, schismatic, and heretical. Once holiness becomes what “distinguishes” us, it has shifted categories from “truth” to “identity” – exactly what the report did -- doctrine becomes “a distillation of our theological identity, not a negotiable commodity” – the church’s identity is the negotiable commodity in this understanding. Doctrine is that which gives us our own “branding” or “experience” as franchises in connection with each other.

The report did not recognize the tremendous shift from the understanding of doctrine by Chapman and Young to what the present Board of General Superintendents articulated. No longer about truthful speech to form us to God in response to God’s self-revelation in Christ, doctrine is now a sociological category to provide group cohesion and identity to compete in the world with other groups, Christian and otherwise, that have other “identities” – theology as identity politics, managed by the administrative, executive core of the church.

Even here deep anchorage in the Christian tradition came out. Amid the institutional cynicism toward the church, the report said rightly that “only adequate response to cynicism of the age to the church is the purification of the heart,” the distinct holiness of the church’s witness in the world. This tension between the life of the church as a doctrine-identity shaped business and as a holy witness in the world who has learned to speak about and life truthfully from, through, and to God is not resolved in the address.

The address ended with a final discussion of finances and mission – the major concern of the Board of General Superintendents. A contrast again was drawn between mission and structure (content and form). The changes were to bring about more mission and less structure. Yet the GS’s emphasized that this should not be interpreted as no structure. Rather structures become ways of continually assessing efficiency of mission within all layers of the “denomination”. Structure serves mission with six characteristics. Structure should be missional, connectional, relational, affordable, accountable, and flexible. In light of this the Board of GS’s spoke wisely against, it seems to me, a resolution from the General Board to reduce the number of GS’s, before study of the full range of implications. It is interesting that the church's structures are now pragmatically named according to sociological/organizational function rather than considering them as "one, holy, and catholic;"

The address returned to the vision: “What is the vision? A disciple-making church, an international community of faith in the Wesleyan-holiness tradition.” We must intend that the vision be actualized, externally focused (market aware), driven by theological tradition (our branding), flexible in methodology (appropriately local), and baptized in prayer and fasting (some applause). We therefore can hand off to a new generation by identifying and empowering them to take the lead for the future.

Two closing interpretive comments. (1) The work was impressive and showed the Board of General Superintendents genuinely responsive to local congregations to help empower the type of “missional” and “connectional” renewal movement within the church catholic (as Wesley said) that we are; and (2) the ecclesiology is strongly deficient, a deficiency grounded in a weak Christology and a sense that ignores apostolicity in considering the structure of the church. The address stated that we are “not just another organization; we are an international holiness communion.” This language is promising in direction, but the leaders do not have adequate language to make this more than a pragmatic administrative procedure to guide the identity of a “religious need-meeting” business through the struggles between right-wing and left-wing Hegelian forces fighting to shape this “identity.” Only if we can regain a sense of catholicity and partcipation in the communion of the saints can we escape the pragmaticism embedded in "structure" versus "mission" where we continually have to redo structure in the endless repetition of the new and improved. We desperately need the language of the apostolicity and catholicity of the church; we are an international holiness communion only in so far as we participate in the “communion of saints,” those who have time-fully participated through Christ in the Eternal Triune God.