Whenever the question "may we do this" is asked, it really needs to be accompanied by saying also, "as far as _____________ is concerned."
By my view, there are a number of possible problems with doing this, but none of those possibilities are actually a problem. For example, it could perhaps be a problem with the IRS (from several angles), but I think it clearly is not. And it could be a problem with the workers compensation insurer, but I think that unlikely as well. Etc.
Last but not least on the least is whether this would be OK with the congregation (a political question really), but I expect it would be. (They could be asked/informed).
So bottom line: I can't imagine how this would be other than permissible, and beyond that, appropriate.
To supplement the comment of Bill Via re possible legal rules, I know of no US state where non-profit laws would prohibit this. And If the church's bylaws do, they are easily changed, by simple action of the council, unless the bylaws themselves required additional (e.g., vote of congregation). If there is a prohibition in the articles of incorporation (which I frankly have never seen), then congregational action (and a filing with the state) would also likely be required, but again, I've never seen such in a CRC's articles and wouldn't expect to.
I'm going to suggest that whether or not the congregation votes on changes to articles or bylaws depends in great part on the existing articles and to a secondary extent existing bylaws.
Regardless of what CO says, the existing articles (and/or bylaws) really control on this question.
One could of course make the argument that a church's articles/bylaws should, given the CO, say this or that, but that doesn't mean they do. Bottom line is that existing articles/bylaws have much, much more to say about who votes to amend them than CO.
I should say this too. Articles for a church need not (legally) provide that church members vote on amendments. And if they don't, but rather allow the corporate BOD (aka BOT, depending on the state) to change the articles, then passing by the congregation is quite lawful. I wouldn't say such articles are wise, but some non-profits, even churches, do not provide for congregants to vote on major governance documents. And that is quite lawful.
I would add this. The church is likely incorporated and it's Articles of Incorporation likely indicate (or should if they don't) the definition of the corporation's board of directors. The Bylaws may further elaborate on that.
If the governing documents (Articles and Bylaws) provide that all council membets constitute the board of directors, and if the council (that is, board of directord) makes a decision that is a board of directors decision (eg. whether or not to repave the parking lot), then the elders would be quite out of line to second guess that decision in contradiction to what the board of directors (that is, the entire council) decided.
As to the "retirement gift" to the pastor, I'm quite certain (this from a lawyers perspective, not an accountant's perspective) that the IRS would regard the gift as taxable income. The IRS would analogize to tips to waiters (also taxable) or bonuses to employees (also taxable), insisting that the amount "given" to the pastor in this case was related to (and therefor because of) the pastor's service, as would be a waiter's tip or an employee's bonus. In a sense, the IRS would be saying this was not really a gift but money given in return for service, even if the compensation had not been negotiated as compensation (neither are tips or some bonuses).
I better case (that it was not taxable) could be made if members of the congregation aggregately contributed to a gift to the pastor's family, even if that gift was coordinated by the church.
It has been said in this thread about a greater than 50% vote requirement,
"It makes people, who live in a society where majority decisions are implemented, believe the council is pulling a fast one [by requiring a supermajority] to maintain the status quo or to resist change."
I don't think the premise is true at all -- that we "live in a society where majority decisions are implemented." If, for example, one wants to amend the US Constitution, one have have a two-thirds majority assent from the House, from the Senate, and from all states. Wow. That's a lot more than a simple majority from one body.
In sharp contrast, adding a fourth confession ("form of unity") to the CRCNA requires only the assent of only a simple majority of a body of representatives who sit in authority for only one week, during which it takes up dozens of of other matter as well. It we take the pattern of the "society we live in," we'd require a two-thirds assent by Synod, plus a two-thirds assent of all classes.
More examples in daily life. In most business agreements, many provisions are subject to 2/3's (or other supermajority) vote. Why? In large part, to maintain unity. (I write these sorts of agreements). Indeed, in society around us, we have lots and lots of examples of super-majority requirements. Most of them have "peace and unity" as a root motivation.
Within the church, it has been a very long time since I've seen a pastor called with less than a substantial supermajority vote requirement -- thankfully.
Finally, consider the tradition of the Friends (Quakers). I've had cause to provide legal counsel to some of their congregations (and greater bodies) in my area. Their tradition is to do things by full consensus. Thus, if a motion passes by a majority, they will further discuss and revote until there is consensus. Yes, that would be by 100%. Certainly, those who vote in the minority have a tradition based "obligation" to give serious thought about whether they should continue that vote in subsequent ballots, but I think that tradition could teach us a lot.
You ask if a simple majority would be sufficient to depose an elder or in the case of a single nominee.
Yes, the majority, not the minority, should determine these matters.
----------------------------------
Interesting answer, given that in almost all non-profit organizations that I've seen or helped create, their articles or bylaws almost always require a two-thirds votes to remove a director. I rarely see otherwise and would never advise my clients to use less than a supermajority rule for that.
Thanks Lloyd. I've now read the SALT report and as a result would have quite a number of questions (and comments), but for now I'll offer three comments and ask one question:
COMMENT: It seems to me that much of what Kathy suggests to be the case is actually the case.
COMMENT: If SALT is implemented, I'm not seeing how that would actually resolve the concern of those among the Canadian members who want more "independence" from the US side of the denomination. Adoption of SALT would change the lines of authority and "accountability" but ultimately that "accountability" (by CRCNA Canada) is still to the COD which is majority US.
COMMENT: If the SALT structure is implemented, it seems to me that the governance structure of the denomination level of the CRCNA will be of such complexity that not more than 1-5% of CRC members -- on whichever side of the border -- would understand it, or at least be able to explain it.
QUESTION: I found references in the SALT report to the word "ecclesiastical" of course, but never a definition, and it would seem to me that defining "ecclesiastical" is important (even fundamental). What would you offer as a definition for the word "ecclesiastical," whether in the context of the SALT report or CO Article 28?
Thanks for replying Lloyd, even if the reply isn't helpful toward understanding the distinctions intended by the SALT authors use of the word as the report proposes rather large changes in the "CRC Organization" (as SALT uses that phrase) governance/bureaucracy.
I and others have urged for over a decade now that (including by overtures) that the CRC exert deliberate effort (e.g., have a study committee) to discern the meaning of "ecclesiastical" and thus the CO rule, even if approximate, for the institutional church. Sadly -- for me at least -- those efforts have been successfully resisted. Intended or not, I think the CRC's creation of the "Board of Trustees" (successor to which is today's COD) resulted in an expansion of of the scope of the kinds of things the CRC, as institutional church, should take up, without regard to the constraint ("ecclesiastical only") of CO 28. Ultimately, the CRC's Church Order may not, inherently, lend itself to the ability to manage/administer or otherwise tend to matters beyond the "ecclesiastical," such as those various "ministries" that have evolved over the recent decades. And choosing to so extend beyond the "ecclesiastical" necessitated turning to a "corporate model" (with multiple corporations no less) which is quite different than an "ecclesiastical model" such as CRC Church Order. And so now we have both models, but can't figure out why there are problems with that. And in having both of those models, Synod (or Synods) are gradually taking a back seat to the various corporations and agencies in terms of being the defacto governance (decision making process) for the CRC.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to first decide what the present rule (CO 28) prescribes and proscribes as to that which the Christian Reformed Church (the "CRC Organization") should take on beyond implementing an expansion of the (corporate model) governance for it?
To add to my above, Lloyd, I would suggest that the CRA and Canadian lawyers, as you describe their view, are pretty close to if not spot on as to what "ecclesiastical" actually means, and did originally mean when the word was used in CO Article 28.
I am left wondering why a nation's federal revenue agency has the ability (or is it just the will?) to define a really important word used in the CRC church order while the institutional church itself is unable -- or unwilling.
And if the CRA and Canadian lawyers are correct, I would ask by what authority does an ecclesiastical organization (in this case the CRC) spawn "subsidiaries" (under its control) to do what it may not? Most lawyers would say it may not.
I would appreciate Mr. Vanderkwaak's reply to what Ms. Vandergrift has indicated in her posted comment. I confess to having not "kept up" with "matters CRCNA Canadian," but if what Ms. Vandergrift says is factually accurate, it would seem that the CRCNA is suffering from a bit of "decision making dysfunction" (to put it nicely).
I'm going to be a delegate to Synod 2022, and I suspect it may be good for me (perhaps necessary?) to gain something of an accurate understanding on what has been and what is now proposed (or being implemented) as to the "Canadian side" of the CRCNA. I'd welcome any help on that.
I simply don't believe it true that "all Christians experience radicalized contempt toward others." It's not helpful toward any constructive end to make such hyperbolic claims.
(Nor, BTW, do I think that statement is true as to all non-Christians).
Posted in: Permissible to Use Paid Church Employee to Provide Bookkeeping to Local Coalition?
Whenever the question "may we do this" is asked, it really needs to be accompanied by saying also, "as far as _____________ is concerned."
By my view, there are a number of possible problems with doing this, but none of those possibilities are actually a problem. For example, it could perhaps be a problem with the IRS (from several angles), but I think it clearly is not. And it could be a problem with the workers compensation insurer, but I think that unlikely as well. Etc.
Last but not least on the least is whether this would be OK with the congregation (a political question really), but I expect it would be. (They could be asked/informed).
So bottom line: I can't imagine how this would be other than permissible, and beyond that, appropriate.
Posted in: Does the Clerk of Council Have to Be an Elected Elder or Deacon?
To supplement the comment of Bill Via re possible legal rules, I know of no US state where non-profit laws would prohibit this. And If the church's bylaws do, they are easily changed, by simple action of the council, unless the bylaws themselves required additional (e.g., vote of congregation). If there is a prohibition in the articles of incorporation (which I frankly have never seen), then congregational action (and a filing with the state) would also likely be required, but again, I've never seen such in a CRC's articles and wouldn't expect to.
Posted in: Should the Congregation Vote on By-Laws and Articles of Incorporation?
I'm going to suggest that whether or not the congregation votes on changes to articles or bylaws depends in great part on the existing articles and to a secondary extent existing bylaws.
Regardless of what CO says, the existing articles (and/or bylaws) really control on this question.
One could of course make the argument that a church's articles/bylaws should, given the CO, say this or that, but that doesn't mean they do. Bottom line is that existing articles/bylaws have much, much more to say about who votes to amend them than CO.
I should say this too. Articles for a church need not (legally) provide that church members vote on amendments. And if they don't, but rather allow the corporate BOD (aka BOT, depending on the state) to change the articles, then passing by the congregation is quite lawful. I wouldn't say such articles are wise, but some non-profits, even churches, do not provide for congregants to vote on major governance documents. And that is quite lawful.
Posted in: Reversing Decisions of Council?
I would add this. The church is likely incorporated and it's Articles of Incorporation likely indicate (or should if they don't) the definition of the corporation's board of directors. The Bylaws may further elaborate on that.
If the governing documents (Articles and Bylaws) provide that all council membets constitute the board of directors, and if the council (that is, board of directord) makes a decision that is a board of directors decision (eg. whether or not to repave the parking lot), then the elders would be quite out of line to second guess that decision in contradiction to what the board of directors (that is, the entire council) decided.
Posted in: Is a Pastor's Retirement Gift Taxable?
As to the "retirement gift" to the pastor, I'm quite certain (this from a lawyers perspective, not an accountant's perspective) that the IRS would regard the gift as taxable income. The IRS would analogize to tips to waiters (also taxable) or bonuses to employees (also taxable), insisting that the amount "given" to the pastor in this case was related to (and therefor because of) the pastor's service, as would be a waiter's tip or an employee's bonus. In a sense, the IRS would be saying this was not really a gift but money given in return for service, even if the compensation had not been negotiated as compensation (neither are tips or some bonuses).
I better case (that it was not taxable) could be made if members of the congregation aggregately contributed to a gift to the pastor's family, even if that gift was coordinated by the church.
Posted in: What are the guidelines for establishing minimum pass vote percentages?
It has been said in this thread about a greater than 50% vote requirement,
"It makes people, who live in a society where majority decisions are implemented, believe the council is pulling a fast one [by requiring a supermajority] to maintain the status quo or to resist change."
I don't think the premise is true at all -- that we "live in a society where majority decisions are implemented." If, for example, one wants to amend the US Constitution, one have have a two-thirds majority assent from the House, from the Senate, and from all states. Wow. That's a lot more than a simple majority from one body.
In sharp contrast, adding a fourth confession ("form of unity") to the CRCNA requires only the assent of only a simple majority of a body of representatives who sit in authority for only one week, during which it takes up dozens of of other matter as well. It we take the pattern of the "society we live in," we'd require a two-thirds assent by Synod, plus a two-thirds assent of all classes.
More examples in daily life. In most business agreements, many provisions are subject to 2/3's (or other supermajority) vote. Why? In large part, to maintain unity. (I write these sorts of agreements). Indeed, in society around us, we have lots and lots of examples of super-majority requirements. Most of them have "peace and unity" as a root motivation.
Within the church, it has been a very long time since I've seen a pastor called with less than a substantial supermajority vote requirement -- thankfully.
Finally, consider the tradition of the Friends (Quakers). I've had cause to provide legal counsel to some of their congregations (and greater bodies) in my area. Their tradition is to do things by full consensus. Thus, if a motion passes by a majority, they will further discuss and revote until there is consensus. Yes, that would be by 100%. Certainly, those who vote in the minority have a tradition based "obligation" to give serious thought about whether they should continue that vote in subsequent ballots, but I think that tradition could teach us a lot.
Posted in: What are the guidelines for establishing minimum pass vote percentages?
@ George Vander Weit
John,
You ask if a simple majority would be sufficient to depose an elder or in the case of a single nominee.
Yes, the majority, not the minority, should determine these matters.
----------------------------------
Interesting answer, given that in almost all non-profit organizations that I've seen or helped create, their articles or bylaws almost always require a two-thirds votes to remove a director. I rarely see otherwise and would never advise my clients to use less than a supermajority rule for that.
Posted in: The SALT Report Explained: Question #2
Thanks Lloyd. I've now read the SALT report and as a result would have quite a number of questions (and comments), but for now I'll offer three comments and ask one question:
COMMENT: It seems to me that much of what Kathy suggests to be the case is actually the case.
COMMENT: If SALT is implemented, I'm not seeing how that would actually resolve the concern of those among the Canadian members who want more "independence" from the US side of the denomination. Adoption of SALT would change the lines of authority and "accountability" but ultimately that "accountability" (by CRCNA Canada) is still to the COD which is majority US.
COMMENT: If the SALT structure is implemented, it seems to me that the governance structure of the denomination level of the CRCNA will be of such complexity that not more than 1-5% of CRC members -- on whichever side of the border -- would understand it, or at least be able to explain it.
QUESTION: I found references in the SALT report to the word "ecclesiastical" of course, but never a definition, and it would seem to me that defining "ecclesiastical" is important (even fundamental). What would you offer as a definition for the word "ecclesiastical," whether in the context of the SALT report or CO Article 28?
Qua
Posted in: The SALT Report Explained: Question #2
Thanks for replying Lloyd, even if the reply isn't helpful toward understanding the distinctions intended by the SALT authors use of the word as the report proposes rather large changes in the "CRC Organization" (as SALT uses that phrase) governance/bureaucracy.
I and others have urged for over a decade now that (including by overtures) that the CRC exert deliberate effort (e.g., have a study committee) to discern the meaning of "ecclesiastical" and thus the CO rule, even if approximate, for the institutional church. Sadly -- for me at least -- those efforts have been successfully resisted. Intended or not, I think the CRC's creation of the "Board of Trustees" (successor to which is today's COD) resulted in an expansion of of the scope of the kinds of things the CRC, as institutional church, should take up, without regard to the constraint ("ecclesiastical only") of CO 28. Ultimately, the CRC's Church Order may not, inherently, lend itself to the ability to manage/administer or otherwise tend to matters beyond the "ecclesiastical," such as those various "ministries" that have evolved over the recent decades. And choosing to so extend beyond the "ecclesiastical" necessitated turning to a "corporate model" (with multiple corporations no less) which is quite different than an "ecclesiastical model" such as CRC Church Order. And so now we have both models, but can't figure out why there are problems with that. And in having both of those models, Synod (or Synods) are gradually taking a back seat to the various corporations and agencies in terms of being the defacto governance (decision making process) for the CRC.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to first decide what the present rule (CO 28) prescribes and proscribes as to that which the Christian Reformed Church (the "CRC Organization") should take on beyond implementing an expansion of the (corporate model) governance for it?
Posted in: The SALT Report Explained: Question #2
To add to my above, Lloyd, I would suggest that the CRA and Canadian lawyers, as you describe their view, are pretty close to if not spot on as to what "ecclesiastical" actually means, and did originally mean when the word was used in CO Article 28.
I am left wondering why a nation's federal revenue agency has the ability (or is it just the will?) to define a really important word used in the CRC church order while the institutional church itself is unable -- or unwilling.
And if the CRA and Canadian lawyers are correct, I would ask by what authority does an ecclesiastical organization (in this case the CRC) spawn "subsidiaries" (under its control) to do what it may not? Most lawyers would say it may not.
Posted in: The SALT Report Explained: Question #2
I would appreciate Mr. Vanderkwaak's reply to what Ms. Vandergrift has indicated in her posted comment. I confess to having not "kept up" with "matters CRCNA Canadian," but if what Ms. Vandergrift says is factually accurate, it would seem that the CRCNA is suffering from a bit of "decision making dysfunction" (to put it nicely).
I'm going to be a delegate to Synod 2022, and I suspect it may be good for me (perhaps necessary?) to gain something of an accurate understanding on what has been and what is now proposed (or being implemented) as to the "Canadian side" of the CRCNA. I'd welcome any help on that.
Posted in: Racism and the Sin of Contempt
I simply don't believe it true that "all Christians experience radicalized contempt toward others." It's not helpful toward any constructive end to make such hyperbolic claims.
(Nor, BTW, do I think that statement is true as to all non-Christians).