Skip to main content

Rod, I think your idea is a good one.   You could volunteer to be the first guide for such a network forum.  There are a variety of issues relating to planting churches, as well as to the significance of the role of commissioned pastors, which would be useful to discuss and come to an understanding or illumination upon. 

In future, it would be avisable to give all or part of such a gift in a later year, if the person is retiring, in order to reduce the impact on income taxes payable. 

I wonder if the biggest issue sometimes is whether parents can find respite sometimes for their children when they need a break from constant daily care.  Also what will happen to the child when the parents are too old or incapable of caring for them.   I would suggest that churches or classis consider finding a way to provide an assisted living residence or facility that can provide a place for these situations.   It might be particularly nice if such a facility is near or adjacent to the church, so that visiting and attending church is made much easier.   Just a thought. 

Covenant CRC church in west Edmonton has had a community garden for several years.   I have seen it a couple of times, and it looks nice.   But I have no idea how they run it.

Overtime Meals and Allowances Provided to

Employees

The CRA’s current administrative policy allows for a

non-taxable status of certain overtime meals or

reasonable allowances for overtime meals. This is the

case if the employee worked three or more hours of

overtime right after his or her scheduled hours of work;

and the overtime was infrequent and occasional in nature

(less than three times a week).

Concerns have been raised to indicate the economic

benefit received by the employee are often minor, the

meaning of a “reasonable allowance” is not always clear,

employer policies often allow for meal allowances after

two hours of overtime and the strict application of the

limitation of “less than three times in a week” sometimes

leads to certain inequitable results.

In order to address these issues, effective for the 2009

year, the CRA will consider no taxable benefit to arise

if:

• the value of the meal or meal allowance is

reasonable; a value of up to $17 will generally be

considered reasonable,

• the employee works two or more hours of overtime

right before or right after his or her scheduled hours

of work, and

• the overtime is infrequent and occasional in nature.

Less than three times a week will generally be

considered infrequent or occasional. This condition

may also be met where the meal or allowance is

provided three or more times per week on an

occasional basis to meet workload demands such as

major repairs or periodic financial reporting.

If overtime occurs on a frequent basis or becomes the

norm, the CRA considers the overtime meal allowances

to be a taxable benefit since they start taking on the

characteristics of additional remuneration.  (CRA website).   (CRA website( 

The irony and stupidity of such a 25% "visible" minority requirement becomes obvious, when you are working with minorities who are not obviously visible.   I work with and have meetings with a variety of people who display a variety of appearance.   Some are aboriginal or part aboriginal or metis who do not look significantly different than some old german or ukranian farmers, while others are more obvious.   One individual seemed to be certainly aboriginal, but I discovered he was only about 1/8th aboriginal, 7/8 european ancestry.   The child of a Japanese preacher and a Norwegian pianist;  will this child satisfy the visible minority requirement based solely on appearance, or will he only half satisfy the 25% requirement?   To really mess with the english language, I assume that we are not looking solely for those who are 1/4 blood visible minorities?  

No matter how you slice it, this particular target makes ridicule of the notion that in Christ there is neither Greek nor Jew.    If the best preachers, and the most spiritual and most biblical are all from India or Nigeria or Korea, then let the staff be 100% visible minority.   But don't pick them for their color or lack of it. 

To be more specific, should the elders permit them to make this profession while they continue their lifestyle?   Is it okay for them to make this profession when they disagree with the confessions of the church or disagree with scripture?   Is a sinful lifestyle different than disagreeing with scripture?   Scripture says, "Repent, and believe...."   Should they make a public profession of faith first, and then maybe repent sometime later?   Or should they repent first, and then make a statement of faith? 

Gary, thanks for your response.   Your last two sentences seem to make sense to me.  But since you are putting things in generalities, I am not entirely sure about the implications of your perspective.   Would you permit two young people in their twenties who are living together without marriage, to make formal profession of faith in the church?   Or would you ask them to wait?  

Profession of faith is not a sacrament, but it has sacramental overtones, particularly if it leads to participating in Lord's supper.   The reason I asked if it would be different for a baptized member vs a non-baptized member, is the assumption of a knowledge about engaging in a lifestyle which the baptized member should know better, while the other might be still learning.  On the other hand, what better time to learn than before making profession of faith? 

My question is not rhetorical;  I am really interested in biblical perspectives on this question.   And I am interested in how seriously we take the profession of faith, especially the parts about scripture being the basis for life and action, and being willing to submit to the wisdom and authority of the elders.  

John Zylstra on September 24, 2012

In reply to by anonymous_stub (not verified)

The idea of ordination...  I am reminded of King David, who was annointed as a young man by the prophet Samuel, long before he became king.   For years he was annointed, (selected, ordained), yet not serving in the complete function of king.  Perhaps we can see this as being somewhat analogous to elders who were called, selected, and ordained, but no longer specifically serving in certain aspects. 

While different management styles and different ways of looking at things is a statement that "sounds" good, it is so open-ended that it does not mean very much.  Would that mean that having a pope as manager would be okay?  Would that mean that every local church formulating its own confessions and hymnbook would be okay?   Would it be okay if elders were appointed for life?  Would it be okay if preachers were not approved by seminary or by classis?  How far does it go?  Of course there are many personality styles and also many peculiar council working arrangements in different churches, including approaches to preaching, singing, discipline, weekly activities, but don't they all need to fit within the direction and control of scripture?   Diversity is great, yes, in many things.   But in some basic and essential things diversity is not so great.   Therefore it cannot be a general philosophy.   Each case needs to be considered in its own context and on its own merits.   Yes? 

John Zylstra on September 24, 2012

In reply to by anonymous_stub (not verified)

Again with respect, everyone knows it is a great oversimplification to say that we know what "retirement" means.  

Many retired occupations do not result in a complete cessation of activities.   A "retired" carpenter may still occassionally build something.   A retired farmer may still often drive a combine or a tractor.  A retired mechanic may still repair his own or neighbor's vehicles.  A retired preacher may still ocassionally preach when called on.  Many "retired" persons often take on part-time contract work.   So no, we do not know what it means clearly. 

While we do indeed know that retired officebearers are no longer on the board of trustees, and should no longer exercise a vote in council, we do not have an explicit understanding of how their other "elderly" tasks should be terminated.   Should they stop making visits to the sick?  Should they stop teaching catechism?  Should they be prevented from leading a service, reading a sermon, or critiquing the preaching?   Should they stop providing pastoral advice to council?  Are they not permitted to attend council meetings, just as any member?   Should they stop providing spiritual guidance and leadership?   Should they be denied the respect of their calling?   Should we then disregard the prerogative of council to respect their general calling and ocassionally ask them to assist in certain "elder" tasks due to their previous ordination (as you yourself seem to have done in your previous example)?     

We want to hear from you.

Connect to The Network and add your own question, blog, resource, or job.

Add Your Post