Harry Boessenkool

The SPACT report in the Agenda for Synod was comprehensive but a few things jumped out at me, as someone who has been involved in a few major organizational changes.

1) a revision of job descriptions before an organization chart has been considered seems a bit premature.
2) a more concrete approach to the bi-nationality issue appears missing.
3) telling managers to change the culture is not a solution. The CRCNA has been at this for 30 years.
4) disfunction between the key ministries and the BOT is an organization problem not a people problem. 

There have been major changes in church attendance and the number of churches. In the CRCNA the number of churches has been growing while the members on a per church basis is declining (some 21% over the last 15 years). This puts pressure on Ministry Share income. The corporate organization in place today is not sustainable.

The SPACT committee gave an interesting option which had some traction with me. I have changed it slightly but it appears to go in the right direction. It entails reconstituting the BOT. The members should be the ED, the directors of the 4 key ministries and 2 members from the Boards of each of these ministries. This would be step one.

In two years, the four ministries could be reduced from four to three. Home Missions, World Missions and World Renew. (A North American ministry and two world missions one of which would be World Renew.) These three ministries would continue to be supported by an Administrative/Financial department.

All the smaller ministries, focused on North America, could be rolled into Home Missions. Probably at least three of those might be eliminated because their useful live time has been reached.

Over the next 3 years the three ministries plus Administrative/Finance could have some 30% of their staff in Canada to equal approximately the Canadian share of the CRCNA membership.

It might be safe to assume an amalgamation with the RCA over this time frame.

In Canada the CRCNA  would end up with an ED and three ministry leaders along with a senior manager for Administration and Finance. At that time the reconstituted BOT could include the ED of both countries and 1 or 2 members of each board (6 or 12 people).

Respectfully submitted for discussion purposes.

Harry Boessenkool

Sent from my iPad

In my career spanning 40 years I moved 12 times. Some pretty senior jobs too. The longest overlap was 5 days. That is a simple answer to Norms first question.

I will certainly do what you suggest.

In making the suggestion of this candidate to synod I wish the mandate of the committee had also included a proper take over of duties time line.  What was announced seems a very unusual. A new person should have a very short overlap (5 days will do) with the outgoing (in this case 2 persons). It is extremely important that a new person start with a clean slate. Each direct report can make up his or her own "state of the union" in their area of responsibility. This should have nothing to do with the "retiring" folks. We appreciate their work and their contributions...but the golf course should be their new challenge.

Michael, I would be interested to learn how Calvin College would respond to the Community Covenant Document  that Trinity Western Students and Faculty (in Langley BC Canada) sign and that has caused a firestorm in the media in Canada. Please look up the document on their website. In summary, many Canadian lawyers and teachers believe the graduates from TWU are unfit to practice law and teach in Canada. The Supreme Court overruled the teachers in 2010 but now the lawyers are starting the same process.

I will add here what I wrote about the budget changes at Faith Alive:

At synod 2013 some significant changes were announced regarding Faith Alive.  A week or so ago we received in the mail an 88 page catalog for products offered by Faith Alive. I thought this ministry was eliminated but obviously not. I went back to the acts of synod to find the financial info on this ministry. In 2011/2012 the actual loss of this ministry was about 1.5 million on an income of five million. Low and behold the budget for 2012/2013 was  balanced on a budget income of about 6.5 million. And the budget for 2013/2014 was about 6.6 million. The only major change was was that the FTE budget was down by 4 people!

The implicit message here is spend more with less people. Somehow this ministry (including Faith formation - not sure what that all entails) received an extra 1.5 million in 2012/2013 and 2013/2014. I wonder how many World Missions missionaries this could have funded?

The Faith Alive catalog has an introduction "dear faith alive customer". But has no ending with "yours truly" and a name. Who is responsible for this ministry? Where does it report? Who is in charge of "faith formation" if that is in fact a ministry and does it have any employees?

Synod should have an interesting discussion on this in June.

Excellent points. The quick answer to the last question is no. If the Five Stream are implemented in the local congregation starting with stream 5 followed by 3, 4,2 ( in that order) it would probably result in 1. I think in many churches this is a fact what is happening. The issue that the CRCNA is struggling with is how the corporate part of the church can cost effectively facilitate the Five Streams. The SPACT folks are tackling this issue but care will have to taken to not grow the corporate part to take on too much authority and control.

"This document, Confessional Commitments and Academic Freedom (CCAF) is presented at synod this year for information". (Bold is mine HB)

I made a comment re Calvin College in the context of Finances (Ministry Shares). The above quote is interesting because it raises a question in my mind of why Calvin College can not become totally independent just like e.g. Dordt College in USA and Redeemer and The King's in Canada.

Don't get me wrong, as mentioned by Dr. Le Roy, Calvin and the CRCNA have been a blessing to each other. Should we open this discussion or put it on a Synod agenda at some point?

This is an interesting discussion. Let's assume the renter is a new emerging CRC or church plant (the initial article did not specify a CRC just a "Christian church" and that can be a pretty loose definition!) The rent could be put in a special fund to pay for a new facility at a new location once the emerging or church plant grows. If the church is not affiliated with the CRC a formal rental agreement would still be needed to cover off all the legal issues (and there are many nowadays). The rent fee can often be only a minor part of a lease agreement.

Many churches offer other services in their facilities. How do we define when rent should be charged? Are all funeral services to be free no matter who asks, or marriages if the couple is simply looking for a place with a nice organ or other unique feature? The legal issues regarding the latter are already pretty involved.

Maybe we need a discussion on how a church can protect itself from the use of their building by (unacceptable - however defined) third parties.

Great update. I like the 5 minute time frame for corrections

Has the web cam on Synod disappeared?  I thought it was such a good idea. If that was not not part of the improvement I am disappointed.