Colin Vander Ploeg

I resonate with the comments below.  As the nature of our congregations in Canada shifts from homogeneous immigrant roots to a wonderful mix of peoples, a once a year visit with a stranger is really not that helpful.  One could ask what is the role of the elder concerning the spiritual health of a congregation and who is first of all repsonsible for congregational care.   Is it not the congregation, fellow beleivers caring for one another?  Hence small groups is one avenue.  Unless an elder has somewhat of a long standing relationship with someone in their "district," trust and openness is simply not given on the basis of a title anymore.  It has to be earned in most cases.  If everone knows everyone, there can be some good traction to a visitation ministry by elders.  If not, it is largley a fruitless endeavor. 

Since the calling of elders is, in my opinion, "to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up ..." (Eph. 4:12) their primary role should be equipping people to grow into accountable, loving, relationships with others in the Body.  Then pehaps rather than spending inordinate amounts of time trying to obey a church order stipulation from a past era, the elders can work on listening to where the Lord is calling that particular congregation to grow and learn and change.  Then perhaps a home visit would be about "Where do you see the Lord at work in this congregation of which you are an integral part?" and "Where do you see the Lord leading us as a congregation?"  That conversation doesn't need a lot of longstanding relationship to take place.  And it may offer a segway into encouraging the member to step more fully into the Lord's calling.  Just an idea, sort of ... reframe the calling of an elder from the Scripture up?  Let's not get locked into any one understanding of an elder's work by a Church Order's wording.  Good topic Al!  Thanks!

Colin.

I have finally got our treasurer/bookeeper to understand what the real situation is in Canada as well.  According to Revenue Canada, there is no category called "housing allowance" that is set by the church.  There is a tax break called "clergy residence deduction" which is entirely dependant on what sort of housing you live in and the limits of 1/3 of your income.  So my church pays me a salary not a salary + housing allowance.  From that salary I secure a place to live, in my case, owning my own home.   I think the use of the term "housing allowance" is misleading for a congregation and still has people thinking that the church gives the pastor "free housing" alongside a full salary, which is never the case. 

Our full time Youth Pastor also claims the clergy residence deduction but the congregation never used the term housing allowance for him.  That just highlights the need to remove that term from our parlance.  If you live in a parsonage, and you are not charged rent for it, your salary has been reduced by that factor, so in fact you do pay rent by having salary withheld.  I believe it is healthier for a congregation with their pastor in a parsonage to pay a full salary and then have the pastor pay rent to them.  That clarifies the status of that housing (and the responsibilities of both the landlord and tennant). 

So what my pay stub has is a salary and then a designated portion that is "tax exempt" so that the bookeeper does not take off that tax and then I wait until tax return time to get it all back.  Technically, to do this the employer has to ask Revenue Canada permission to do so, but given its longevitiy in our society, it is passively premitted so long as the amount is reasonable.  Worse case scenario for the church is that they receive a penaltly from Revenue Canada for improper bookeeping practices or something like that (I discussed this with Revenue Canada and that is what they told me). 

So I say, pay your pastor a full salary, and let them pay for their housing like every other employed homeowner in the congregation.  If they choose to rent the parsonage, fine.  What is claimed as clergy residence deduction is not relevant to the church, but to the clergy.  It is based on the actual living situation, not on what the church says that situation is. 

Realtors, property managers, rental ads should be used to find the market rental value of any home you own to determine what you can claim no matter what the church says about housing allowance.  I would like our form letters of call also changed to correct for this misleading terminology. 

Feel free to correct me here if I am out to lunch :)

Colin

Many think that Classis is something out there that is ruling over churches or something,  The reality is, Classis is a body that gathers twice or three times a year, that's it.  Classis is us churches getting together to discuss matters of mutual interest and to hold each other accountable (somehow) to carrying out are various callings as congregations.  It echoes what people often say about Synod, speaking about synodical decisions as if there is this standing organization that is separate from the rest of the church telling the churches what to do.  Synod is us as the CRC.  Classis is us as churches in a particular region. 

What I have observed that has been changing, is the cohesiveness of CRC congregations in between Classis meetings.  Since we as sister congregations in a particular denominations are no longer so homogeneous nor are we as interested in banding together to do things, Classis becomes a stranger and stranger animal.  We meet more and more as aquaintences rather than as family.  I am not making a judgment on this, simply observing a growing reality.  It also seems to be, the farther you are away from Grand Rapids, the more this is the case.  More often today congregations partner with other congregations in their neighborhoods to reach people in ministry, regardless of the other congregations' denomination.  This changes what Classis meetings are about. 

Out west here, Classis meetings aren't controlled by anyone, rather they are struggling to be meaningful to everyone.  It is a good time of gathering and fellowship (more for pastors since they already know each other), but whatever agenda someone might have for Classis, it is a hard sell if it does not arise from the grass roots of the churches themselves.  Anything imported from one context simply gets polite nods and looks of "what does this have to do with our church?" 

And congregant interest in decisions of Classis (even Council's interests) are fast waning out here.  I am not sure if our local congregations would even notice if Classis ceased to meet.  A few of the ministries we support together could still be supported directly by the congregations and things would proceed as before.  Again, just an observation of the state of things.  I am at present serving as chair of the Classis Ministry Committee (our interim committee). 

Maybe we have to ask some tough questions like, "why keep meeting as Classis?  what difference does it make, really?"  and proceed from there to revitalize and refocus what we are doing. 

Here's a thought,

what if this kind of education was done in the home by the parents rather than at Sunday School?  That way each child could be trained in keeping with who they are as their parents know that better than any one else. 

And if anyone thinks that parents aren't qualified ... most Sunday School teachers are volunteers who are not teachers by trade either.  

Google "D6" or faith@home and such sites. 

We have great intentions to teach these children, but I wonder why we think this is the job of the church and not the home (I think it stems from secular educational philosophy which has the state as the one to teach the children ... not a biblical view at all). 

So what if instead of Sunday School, we resourced and supported parents in their discipling and training up of their own children?  Just an idea ... one that is impacting denominations all over the continent ... just not ours that much yet.

I wonder if our "long prayer" is too short.  Perhaps we need a different view of what is being done.  What if instead of a pastor leading a "prayers of God's people", the pastor shares the highlights of what we will be praying for and then invites the congregation to gather with those near them and pray.  I remember attending a church of another denomination many years ago and being struck by the fact that when they go to the "congregational prayer" the congregation prayed.  Once in my present context, being nudged quite persistently by the Holy Spirit as far as I could tell, instead of me leading a congregational prayer, I invited the congregation to stand up and gather here and there in the sanctuary and share a few prayer requests with each other and pray for each other.  If anyone did not wish to participate, they were invited to remain seated and pray silently for the needs of the congregation and the world we live in. 

Now this Sunday happened to follow a funeral of a young adult child of members of our congregation the day before.  The reactions after Sunday were both strongly positive and strongly negative.  A few were very upset that we "did not pray for the grieving parents!" Many more found the practice to be moving and meaningful ... including the grieving parents who had a group come around them and intercede on behalf of their suffering!  Also a single mother, her first time in our church and in any church for a while, told the people near her what she was struggling with and they prayed for her.  She continues to come here with her son now.  Those reactions confirmed for me that it was the Spirit leading me to do this that morning.  The negative reactions also indicate to me that the "long prayer" is safer than praying for each other.  A few members told me that it was a stretch for them to do that praying and they are uncomfortable with it because they end up crying as they try to pray for each other. 

Having the pastor only speak the prayers of the congregation in worship, tacitly communicates, I think, that it is the pastor's job to pray and the people's job to listen.  Not much in keeping with the priestly office of all believers.  And by the way, most of my congregational prayers tend to be lists of people either ill, injured or dying or grieving.  In a mid to large congregation, that takes up the bulk of the time.  It is meaningful and supportive to many, but I wonder if what encourages them is that the "church" is praying for them out loud.  Is that any different than the congregation taking time to actually pray for specific people in person, out loud, in worship?  We have also, at times where there seem to be numerous crises going on have had people come forward and we gather around them to pray for them including people who can come forward on behalf of someone.

I think the church praying in the service of worship is an essential part of what we are called to do.  However, let's not let the medium (pastor does all the praying) communicate the opposite message of what the Body is called to do.  Thanks Joyce!

Great summary list of effectivenes, Walt! 

It was when our Council began to be honest about what was actually being accomplished in the home visiting work that we began to discuss more foundational questions. 

One thing we have been doing is trying to leverage the natural connections between those who oversee the faith and life of the believers (that is, their growth in faith and walk) and the membership.  There was somewhere a company that built a new facility but purposely did not pour sidewalks from their parking lot to the new building.  They waited to see where people walked, and then after those paths of foot trafic became clearer, then they poured their sidewalks there.  We have been working at the similar idea that we need to not re-invent connection between elder and the congregation via those random elder visits but by listening in on those who are discipling others already (small groups and more) and hearing from them how people are doing.  This has made keeping up with membership more effective and our elders know far better now what is going on in the lives of their districts than they did when it was all through a visit that such assessment had to happen. 

We gathered teams of 4 pastoral visitors, 2 care givers and 2 deacons under the leadership of each of our 4 district elder and it is amazing how such a group finds that someone in that team is already connected with a person in question.  Those relationships we leverage (encourage) for purpose of oversight and discipleship.  We have been using this approach for about 2 years and are still learning and adjusting. 

We have a membership of about 590 and our 4 District Elders are able to report by the end of a church year  that they have had useful contact with nearly every household in their district.  Under the traditional system, in even our best year, we could only say that for about %75 of the congregation.  It has also been well received for the most part from the membership and serving on a team is far more enjoyable than reporting to an elder meeting.  (If someone really wants a traditional elder visit, the elders are always willing to do so.) 

Always great to hear what others are trying so I thought I would share what we are doing right now.  Thanks!

Colin

I was a first time delegate in 2009.  Though amazed at the efficiency of Dee Recker and her team in Synodical services(?), it certainly was a rushed meeting.  There is something fundamentally wrong with "we are out of time folks ... it is time vote" in a deliberative body that attempts to prayerfully discern what the Spirit's leading is.  One barely gets to hear insightful perspectives and then you vote.  More time is desperately needed for people to be able to digest what is discussed on the floor of Synod and in the committees and then to prayerfully seek some concensus of understanding, let alone which way you are going to vote.  Otherwise what you really have is a democratic body that is simply voting what they decided beforehand to vote.  If that is the case then it would make more sense to me for the local church to mull over the main decisions to be discussed and to mail in their vote. You might get more grass roots connections to the issues.  The time pressure makes deliberations on particular comments really impossible. 

Could not still more Synodical work be done ahead of time over the internet or something?  That way, when delegates arrive, they can spend the time on the main things.  I think the agenda planning powers that be, need to be more ruthless in what actually needs to be done on the floor of Synod.  Could not financial and ministries reports be handled outside of Synod or ahead of Synod?  Cannot we empower the Board of Trustees to approve the work of ministries and institutions, hire new persons, examine new candidates?  It is nice of course for ministry students to be presented to Synod, but honestly, they still are not approved until a Classis examines them anyway, so why not download that to the Classis where the person is going to be serving, let that be the climax of their ordination journey, not the afterword that it seems to be.  Just some thoughts. 

"under the authority of consistory"  I wonder if sometimes that limits our celebration opportunities, e.g. small groups or other congregational events (potluck dinner, barbeque?).  "Under the authority" can sound like simply "only with their permission" rather than something like "with consistory's encouragement and guidance".  I do find the tradition of "fencing the table" to be about individuals rather than about the community.  Is the community not the emphasis in 1Cor 11:17+, the traditional proof text for protecting the table of the Lord? 

I wonder if we (I) need to focus more on the very nature of a sacrament to get more toward the experience of divine nourishment and divine love. 

When years ago I suggested we celebrate Communion at least once a month, the first objections were that it would become too routine and lose its significance if we partake too often.  We celebrate at least once a month now and I never hear anyone comment that they would rather not as it is not meaningul to them. 

Personally, I look forward to welcoming all members of the Body to communion.  We have some children who have made a children's profession of faith and some families where the parents are carrying out their spiritual overseer role with their children and serving them from what they themselves are served.  Wonder if the 'God's kitchen' is getting more company of late ...

Thanks Neil.

We are at present using the term "congregational care" more than "pastoral care" the latter being what the pastors do, the former what the ministry of the congregation toward its own internal community is.  (We perhaps will add "community care" to this at some point.)  Our reason for the distinction is that being a larger church (500+ active members) using "pastoral care" continued to communicate that the job of caring for the congregation is the pastors' jobs.  Given all the "one another" passages in the Bible, it made more sense to us to emphasize the ministry of the congregation to each other.  We restructured, going from 18 elders to 7, with 4 district elders each working with 4 congregational visitors, 2 care givers, and 2 deacons.  Our focus for our year and a half start up/transition time was "connecting": how are people connected or not connected with the Body of Christ?  With that in view, the teams work to prioritize the ministry work.  The pastors are then focused on specific situations (crisis, marriage preparations, death and dying, membership issues, newcomers welcome, elder leadership development, etc).  Though this change has been very much welcomed by most, some are grieving the loss of the pastors being immediately available for every family event (birthdays, anniversaries, just having tea), and that it is not the pastor who is representing Christ and His Church to them as much as it is brothers and sisters in Christ.  Yes some who bemoan the good old days, claim that "pastoral care" does not take place anymore (until they enter a crisis and then they experience it).  By that they mean that the pastor doesn't come by on a regular basis just to chat as they once did (whether that ever happened or not).  As senior pastor I get to hear the comments that the pastor doesn't care about the church or that the elders aren't doing their jobs.  But that is just the reality of change, people grieve what they feel they have lost in the change.  However, this shift in our context was vitally necessary as the truth about the old model (every household gets a visit from an elder each year) was that it was not only never completed, but its actual effectiveness as a tool for oversight and discipleship was nothing near what people liked to believe it was.  We just decided as leadership to be more open and honest with each other about it.  And this new structure we are hoping will help more in the congregation recognize their calling to care for one another, not only in the congregation but also with anyone that the Lord puts them in connection with.  Our elders and deacons really like our new structure.  Our district team meetings spend more time on prayerfully planning for the next month or two of ministry rather than simply reporting on visit being done.  Reports of work done is relayed to the district elder as it happens so that by the time a meeting is held for a team, they already have the progress reports of what has been done and do not need to spend time reporting on visits or support given except as it bears on what they are to do next.  It has also allowed us to have a small Council (only the chair of deacons is on Council) that gets to know and trust each other well and our level of openness and depth of discussion has greatly increased. I really enjoy our Council meetings and feel part of a team in the ministry work we do of oversight and care of the congregation.  If anyone is interested in more detail on what we are doing (at the moment) feel free to contact me directly.

Colin Vander Ploeg [email protected]