Keith Knight

Just thinking out loud.

Most security systems are tied in to a central security office. When the alarm goes off, police are notified and they investigate.  Security systems can also be regularly checked to ensure that they are in operating order.

How does one determine if your dog will bark, cause a fuss, attack anyone who enters your house unannounced?

If your dog is a family pet that, at best, would lick someone to death, it wouldn't qualify.

On the other hand, if you have a Doberman, keep it caged, feed it only occasionally, it may very well qualify as an Extreme Security System.

Perhaps the easiest way to determine if your dog is a legitimate 'housing expense' is to ask your home insurer: ie Does a dog quality as a security system?  I doubt it.

Our policy with respect to an active shooter is quite simple: we pray for his/her soul as we await eternity with Christ..

Okay, we don't have that policy but it would be appropriate.

A growing number of churches have metal detectors. Everyone passes through them upon entering the church building. . . before one gains access to the  sanctuary, church school, or church offices. When the alarm goes off, its connected to 911.

"Automatic tithing" seems like an oxymoron.

Tithing implies that we give as we are blessed. It's an ongoing process. My experience is that financial 'blessings' fluctuate throughout the year so we could/should be giving more as we are blessed.

There is probably something to be said to automate your basic giving; a regular monthly (weekly, biweekly or quarterly) deduction from your bank account that provides the foundation of your annual giving. But that should not absolve us of giving over and above that amount on Sundays.

There is another downside to automated giving, especially if you have younger children. How do you instill giving in your children (tithing their allowance?) if you simply pass the plate Sunday after Sunday, reasoning that you 'gave at the bank'.?

If a pastor's wife served on the Board of Deacons and if that board was also part of that church's council, the pastor's wife would part of the body overseeing, among other things, the church's budget. The pastor is accountable to council; the pastor's wife would have oversight over the pastor. Probably not a good thing.

If there is a clear separation between the work of deacons and their role within a church council, to the point that there would be no conflict of interest -- perceived or otherwise -- then that might work.

Here's a 'corporate' digression on tithing.

I lead a national association of Christian business and professional leaders. In the monthly discussion among the 50 groups, we look at stewardship; the notion that ALL that we have belongs to God.

A business owner said that he felt humbly proud of the fact that he tithed his net profits at the end of the year. But when he realized that all that he has belongs to God -- including his business -- he said: "Who am I to give God only 10 per cent of my net profits (implying I have a good year) when He owns it all!" He said that he instructed his accountant to revise his corporate budget to include a line item that said: "Kingdom Causes ....  $75,000."

He said: "If anything, it's a daily reminder that God is part of my business's DNA."

So, if that apply corporately, how about personally? If your entire life and all your possessions belong to God, how much do you want to give back to Him (ie the Kingdom)??

Automatic tithing? Sure. But make sure that it hurts every week or every month when that withdrawal comes out of your account. Make sure that you aren't giving God a few left-over crumbs ... your 'basic' tithe that you don't even miss. If that's the case, you aren't really giving. God owns it all.

That situation seems unfathomable.  If a person has consistently not taken communion, that person is dealing with some serious spiritual/moral issues that requires a visit from the pastor or elder.  That person requires counselling. He/she should not be the one to provide spiritual direction to anyone else. How can one who doesn't participate in communion oversee communion?

An elder should live an exemplary, godly life. He/she should know the scriptures intimately and should be one who can provide godly, biblical, wise advice in all circumstances.

We too often look for "any warm body" to fill a slot on the elder nominee list, and that makes a mockery of the office and calls into question the integrity of the church's leadership.

I see incredible value in having virtual small groups specifically for men and specifically for women -- separate -- where they become accountability groups. The weakness of 'regular' small groups is that they tend to become either social gatherings or lead to superficial discussions on a book.

Our face-to-face small group meets weekly, discussing the past Sunday's sermon topic for the first hour and then splitting up into separate groups for men and women for the second hour. This is where accountability and spiritual formation truly takes place; talking about our personal struggles, our relationships (spouses, parents, children), our temptations and sins.  That discussion continues throughout the week in a Facebook group where we hold each other accountable.

It would be incredible to form a Facebook group that functions as an accountability group. Since you don't know each other, I can imagine spending the first several meetings just getting to know each other; getting deeper and deeper into personal issues and struggles.  There is something 'comfortable' about not knowing each other in this virtual setting. But it requires participants who dare to become vulnerable and who dare to hold each other accountable.  THAT is what the church and what faith is all about.

Needless to say, this kind of accountability and vulnerability can't work if it's a mixed group of men and women. The issues are simply too different.

Here's an interesting approach. An increasing number of Christian organizations are asking their staff to raise their own support. World Missions is almost there; it's at around 90 per cent, I believe. It's a way to determine whether one is indeed called to that ministry.

What if we used that same model at the congregational level. Want to serve on a church staff? Ask family and friends to support you financially and with prayer. Imagine establishing church budgets where almost all of the funds go to program or outreach ... apart from the physical operation of the church building!

Salaries take an incredible chunk out of a church's budget. Ministers in the Christian Reformed Church are envied by those in other denominations because they known for being among the top wage earners. The Presbyterian notion of a 'stipend' -- a living wage -- for pastors is something to be considered.

So, if you feel called to the ministry -- whether as an overseas missionary or as a local pastor -- have that sense of calling affirmed by asking members of the congregation -- face to face -- to support your salary through a regular donation ... apart from the church budget. It's bound to be a humbliny and revealing experience.

I agree with Steve.

I've moved around a fair bit over the years, from church to church and classis to classis. I always had to re-sign the Form of Subscription when I changed classis.

And when the new Covenant was adopted last year, all members -- ministers and elders -- were required to sign the new Covenant.

I apologize for that, James. Indeed, this is a dialogue. That was a tad harsh.

By way of background, I wear a couple of hats: stated clerk of a Canadian classis and also the executive director of the Canadian Christian Business Federation. I regularly connect with about 3,000 Christian business leaders across Canada. I know their minds and I know their areas of expertise. Among them is a group of 300 Christian multimillionaires and billionaires.

I hear two interesting messages: one is that the church just doesn't know how to use the gifts of those business leaders (other than appoint them to a property committee or to head up a capital campaign). As I regularly 'preach' to those 30 groups of Christian business leaders, "if you're involved in business,you're involved in ministry."

The second message that I regularly hear ... through my contacts with various church leaders ... is that we don't have many really good preachers. I just came across this ad for a senior pastor: "We are looking for someone who has a passion to lead the congregation in ministry, someone with excellent interpersonal skills, who can work collaboratively to further refine God's vision for our church and to bring it to life practically. Top priorities would include preaching and teaching, oversight of the small group ministry, strengthening discipleship opportunities, and providing leadership, support and direction to a small staff."  This is a church council (ie elders) that has abrogated its responsibility as office-bearers. They want a CEO with an MDiv.

The church needs pastors who preach well. Throw in some pastoral care. Period.

Back to the original question, this is one of those binational structure issues. I don't know of any church within Canada where the minister serves as chair of council. He/she might serve as chair of the elders since he has a pastoral role to play there. It's simply the law.

But even though the pastor doesn't chair council, he/she is still usually involved in leadership development and plays a role in casting the vision of the church. A 'non-chair' has a voice and much more weight in carrying discussions.

Most councils of which I have been a part over the years consists of at least some business types who know how to run a meeting and how to lead a group through strategic planning and vision-casting. And this process is always, always bathed in prayer ... whether that prayer is offered by a pastor or someone else.

I agree with you, James, that congregations and councils often look to a new pastor to add a spark to their vision-casting, and to inject enthusiasm and a new perspective in a council room that may have grown stale by decades of navel-gazing.

But a minister does not need to chair a meeting to accomplish that. In fact, by not chairing the meeting, the pastor can often accomplish a lot more.