Skip to main content

The question I had is the salary that this DB plan is based on. In Canada they subtract the housing allowance which can be up to 1/3 of a Pastor's income. To not include that allowance in the salary calculation will greatly reduce the pension. ON the other side it would greatly increase the cost of the DB plan.

 

In the US, DB plans in Detroit and in some places in California have had to severely reduce benefits. This risk in DB plan is not always properly understood.

Unless you see the real statements of the Defined Contribution plan you can never know if its better than what you have in teh CRCNA plan. The variations in a DC plan are enormous and folks can contribute more or less tha what the CRCNA put into your DB plan. It is almost impossible to compare.  DBs are based on the assumption that the employer will always pay the "Defined Benefit".  As you know from the city of Detroit and some other places this is not always the case.

My favorite logo used in the CRCNA was the one used by Faith Alive. Now that this agency is no longer formally in play maybe their logo should go to this new agency.

I am still confused how the Back to God Ministries fits into this Global Missions mandate that was really initiated by the two Directors of the two missions agencies that are now supposedly one.

In general the "branding" of the CRCNA is a bit of a mixed bag with still some five to six logos in use. If you are going to spend money every time an agency folds or amalgamates to "rebrand" the outfit you should really come up with a CRCNA brand. But then we should first divest Calvin College and World Renew. 

 

I agree that "Christian Reformed Missions" is simple direct. But let's translate that name into the 20 or more languages that it will be communicated in. I have been in countries like China, Iran, Japan etc. where the translations would not work well in print, on buildings or any public places. 

If memory serves me right World Renew did a lot of research into that and maybe we could learn from what they did.  BTGMi also has a lot of experience with non English language use in their media outreach. 

Consensus may not be as important as ensuring a name that "will work" in all the languages the church uses. So maybe full circle and call it World Missions!

Here is a quote from an article called Stories of Growth and Renewal:

"Because Gritter is the president of South Pointe’s board, though, he can choose the staff. “Who am I going to choose? I’m going to choose people that understand the vision of influence. We won’t run the after-school program as a Christian program, but we’ll staff it with Christians,” he said."

If you transfer that attitude to a church community you become a social club. The parable of the Sower in Luke provide four (or   five) definitions. There is an argument to be made from that parable that church attendance might decline.  

Great article Keith. The "rainbow" is also creeping into our CRC churches. Small flags on church signs and pins worn by members who support the Gay Pride parades. I think it is too late to reclaim the rainbow for Christian purposes. The church simple can not compete with the gay community regarding publicity. We are going to have to stay with the "cross" as the Christian symbol.

Governments can (and do) ban crosses but would never dare to ban a rainbow flag. Do we need an other symbol? I think not but there could be other thoughts about that.

I just posted a reply to an article in the same communication that I am reading this.  A church, under the auspices of OSJ, is sending some  young people to Nicaragua. I wonder how long it will take for the government (in Canada anyway) to eliminate the church's tax status if we continue down this road.

The last sentence in Doug Vande Griend's comments say it all.

Regarding announcement  (Oct 16, 2016) of combining OSJ with Race Relations.  With retirements and leaders leaving these Departments the church simply posts another job for a combined department leader, but leaving the functions in place.  This is a missed opportunity to privatize these two functions. For those willing to support lobbying governments they should be willing to put organizations in place to do that and fund them. The church can no longer afford this cost that should never have been in the church in the first place.

 

The sheer size of the overhead of the CRCNA is cause of these lengthy reports. In 2012 the CRCNA had .4 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) for every congregation. With a 1,000 congregations it has at least 400 FTE people producing material to keep busy. It has departments that should not be involved in church work. OSJ, Dialogue with Government, Safe Church, Calvin College and probably others.

Because it has such a large O.H it is easy to refer issues to study committees. With the (new) 30 something super board this issue is only going to get worse. We are no longer a homogeneous church. Congregationalism is creeping in which makes every decision a difficult one.

The church absolutely needs shorter reports. The people involved in these Study Committees and Task Forces are often employees of a Church, Classes, Denominational Ministry, Calvin College, or CRCNA HQ level.

We want to hear from you.

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

Add Your Post