Harry Boessenkool

Appreciate this story and the positive outcome. I do wonder though, with the issue of  World missionaries having to fund themselves for 90%  of their expenses and salary, what your thoughts were about that requirement. You did not mention you are now a foreign (or should we say "World") missionary.  Funding themselves is what missionaries outside North America have to do, so I assume in the new  Resonate World Missions organization that rule would apply to all who call themselves "missionaries".

We should not use foreign words for God in the English Language.  In  writing in Arabic  and the word for God is Allah no problem.  Most ethnics in Canada changed from their mother tongue to English in their religious observances. We don't use "Deo" for God in the English language either.

So what was the point of using Allah in this article?

The church as organization has no business getting involved or supporting or not supporting this type of action. Members can make up their own minds whether or not to participate. 

I see nothing in the mandate of the CRCNA to get involved in this either way. Surely those who work in the CRCNA office have other things to do.

BTGMI spent a lot of time getting to the name REFRAME. By using the word Global in the new name it will soon morf into "Global" or better yet "World" anyway. The latter would prevent major redesign of yet another name in the CRCNA lingo. CRCNA already has World Renew and that name was thought about long and hard.  My suggestion would have been to keep it simple.

It's like modern art. If it takes 100 words to explain a painting, the vast majority of people (those the Mission is trying to reach) will never get it. Name branding is all about recognition not words.

The article does not state how the word translates into the other major languages supported by the CRCNA via BTGMI. And it is only a matter of time before BTGMI gets swallowed up into this new  agency.

The article does not state how the

Always interesting to see how folks in the HO culture of the CRC "presume" synod will approve something it has not yet seen. If that is true for other routine stuff why is it even on the Synod agenda?  This is not a complaint but a complement.. I wish the folks who operate these ministries just get on with it and report like above. Synod would simply ratify the decisions of the Executive Director.  It would help focus synod on the the strategic issues facing the CRCNA. 

"Whatever conclusions we come to with respect to particular policy approaches (and we should be humble here), we should be agreed that health care for the poor is not merely a matter of charity. It is a matter of justice. Our representatives should know that this is where the Christian tradition stands." A direct quote from Tuininga's article.

Governments all over the world have taken over the responsibility for the healthy, the ill and the poor. In the case of conflicts, procreation and euthanasia with startling and unexpected consequences. 

How we deal with these issues at an educational institution or a think tank is one thing. 

Here is where VandeGriend's last comment makes sense to me.  The CRCNA has just joined two of its "ministry" organizations together that might have been better privatized. Then they could much easier speak on behalf of their supporters and make a positive position known to governments. In Canada we have an organization called Cardus (and there are probably others) that do a very good job speaking to governments with considerable expertise supported by research.

Very interesting an important work. Recently, in dealing with some old historical records, an archivist told me that there may some doubt about whether digital records could be kept 500 years. No one seemed to know. The Dead Sea scrolls lasted some 2500 years (I think) and are still kept in a "safe place". 

Is this something we need to be concerned about?   Just wondering!

Thanks Doug for your expanded explanation regarding Pension Plans.

I was a sole bread winner for many years and have a defined benefit plan. I have had one small (1%) permanent raise in the last 14 years and three independent payments of about 1,000 dollars. My plan gives 60% of my pension to my spouse should I pass away. I am not complaining these are just the facts on my DB plan.

All this to say I do have some biases in favor of defined plans. Several years ago I was involved in a merger of two Christian schools and a big discussion arose around this topic. DC or DB? We hired Hewitt and Associates to help us thru the discussion. They had full access to the CSI pension plan (the Canada version). The committee of teachers and community reps decided in favor of the CSI plan after a full review and presentation by Hewitt.

As far as costs go I believe John B is not quite correct. If the CRC Canada Pension plan were to properly value income paid to Pastors the DB plan would probably need a lot more money to be fully funded.

This is why I would still like some feedback on the method in arriving at the average salary for Pensions for CRC Pastors in Canada. The fact that it leaves out the housing allowance is  major flaw. In Canada Clergy have a special deduction from income involving the value of their housing. In my view this has nothing to to with their income and is simply a CRA/Clergy issue. Given the hunt for cash by the (all) governments, this deduction may disappear in the nex few years. Best to fix this issue now. The cost of that fix to the DB pension fund would be enormous. I hope this one of the things that the Lily Foundation money will be used to research. And of course I recommend professionals like Hewitt or Mercer be consulted.

While they are at it they could probably also solve the salary scale issues that we so badly need across Canada to take the guess work out of Pastor's salaries.

I heard a piece on the radio recently that members of Defined Benefit plans should consider options of opting out of these plans. I wonder if Pastors in our churches could do that and the church would stop paying the ministry shares for that Pastor. Those funds would then be provided to the Pastor to create his own plan. The church could even double that. That process would lead to elimination of the DB plan in the CRC and weaken it significantly. Jerry Hoytema's comment should be a warning sign that our Minister's Pension Plan needs a serious review.