When I think about Nazarene superintendency, I find myself returning to a question that matters far beyond the names attached to the office: how much authority does a General Superintendent actually possess, and where do the responsibilities of other church bodies begin? The Church of the Nazarene reported 2,764,205 members and 29,424 churches in its 2025 statistics, published in January 2026, with a presence in 165 world areas. A church of this scale needs spiritual leadership, but it also needs a clear understanding of how its decisions are governed. That is why I believe the 2023 Church of the Nazarene Manual is the proper starting point for understanding the boundaries of superintendency.
The current Board of General Superintendents comprises David A. Busic, Gustavo A. Crocker, Filimão M. Chambo, Carla D. Sunberg, T. Scott Daniels, and Christian D. Sarmiento. Their office carries responsibilities that extend across the worldwide denomination. Yet the significance of these six leaders cannot be understood simply by describing them as the church’s highest-ranking spiritual leaders. We must also ask how their authority is constituted and what the governing document assigns to other bodies.
The Manual gives us an important starting distinction. Paragraph 300 identifies the General Assembly as the supreme doctrine-formulating, lawmaking, and elective authority of the Church of the Nazarene, subject to the Church Constitution. Paragraph 300.1 addresses the presiding responsibilities of general superintendents. These provisions should be read together. The leaders who preside over the Assembly do not thereby become the Assembly itself. Presiding over a legislative body and possessing its collective constitutional authority are different responsibilities.
The distinction becomes even clearer when we consider paragraphs 306 and 307. Paragraph 306 describes the spiritual leadership expected of general superintendents, including articulating mission, casting vision, ordaining clergy, maintaining theological coherence, and providing general administrative oversight. Paragraph 307 then specifies duties and powers. Its opening provision, paragraph 307.1, assigns general supervision of the Church to general superintendents, subject to the law and order adopted by the General Assembly. I find that qualification particularly important. General supervision is a substantial responsibility, but it is not presented as authority detached from the denomination’s established governing order.
The Board of General Superintendents also has collective responsibilities that should not be confused with every duty assigned to individual superintendents. Paragraph 315 addresses the Board’s organization and the assignment of special jurisdictions. Paragraph 317 identifies the Board’s duties, including primary authority concerning ecclesiastical policies and plans in paragraph 317.3. The distinction matters because a responsibility assigned to the Board collectively should not automatically be attributed to an individual member acting alone.
But where does the wider administrative government fit? The General Board provides an important part of the answer. The denomination’s official General Board history identifies paragraph 335 of the Manual as assigning primary authority concerning non-ecclesiastical policies and plans to the General Board, alongside responsibilities for the business and administrative affairs of legally related entities. This is not a minor organizational detail. It means that Nazarene government cannot accurately be reduced to the General Superintendency. Ecclesiastical leadership and broader administrative government have distinguishable responsibilities, even though real situations may involve both.
The distinction has a historical dimension. According to the denomination’s official history, the General Board was established by the sixth General Assembly in Kansas City in 1923. A resolution presented by Nazarene evangelist L. Milton Williams sought to consolidate administrative boards into one General Board. This development helps explain why the administrative structure must be considered separately from the office of general superintendent. However, I would not use the 1923 history to claim that every modern boundary of authority was already settled at that time. Historical development provides context; the current Manual establishes the present constitutional framework.
There are also circumstances in which responsibilities are deliberately shared. Paragraphs 307.5–307.6 address district assemblies and a defined situation involving the appointment of a pastor to a church that has not called one. The provision brings together the presiding general superintendent, district superintendent, District Advisory Board, and local church delegates. The significance is not that local congregations possess unlimited independence. Rather, the prescribed arrangement demonstrates that certain decisions involve several participants whose responsibilities cannot simply be collapsed into one office.
Someone might reasonably object that the Board’s authority to address matters not otherwise provided for gives it considerable room to act. Paragraph 324 does provide residual authority for the Board of General Superintendents. Yet that provision is qualified by the Church Constitution and the general church order. It should not be read as permission to disregard an authority already assigned elsewhere. The Manual also identifies mechanisms for reviewing or nullifying certain official acts in paragraphs 307.13–307.14, although the precise procedures and scope of these provisions must be read in their complete context.
I therefore understand Nazarene superintendency neither as ceremonial leadership nor as unrestricted control. It is a substantial office operating within a wider constitutional arrangement. The General Assembly, the Board of General Superintendents, the General Board, district leadership, and local congregations should not be treated as interchangeable authorities. Nor should the distinction between them be made so rigidly that we ignore the places where their responsibilities intersect.
For me, the most useful way to understand this structure is to ask two questions whenever authority is exercised: who has been entrusted with this responsibility, and under what constitutional conditions may it be exercised? The first question recognizes leadership. The second protects us from confusing leadership with unlimited power. Both are necessary if we want to understand how a worldwide church can remain connected while distributing responsibility among different levels of government.