Though I can appreciate the matter of individuals being gifted in the area of administration and leadership, and that some pastors may possess these gifts.
Nonetheless, church polity is out of step with contemporary political governance being more in line with 15th / 16th century divine right of kings political theory.
Having an employee as an elected/voting member of the governing board/Council, and possibly as Board Chair, places the church as an institution at jeopardy legally, quite apart from issues of conflict of interest.
That doesn't preclude the pastor, as an elder, being an ex-officio non-voting officer.
Even the Canadian Council of Christian Charities requiries the following standards of charities, i.e. churches:
Standards of Acccountability: http://www.cccc.org/standards_2 "No member of the governing board shall be entitled to receive, either directly or indirectly, any salary, wages, fees, commissions or other amount for services rendered to the organization."
As a former senior administrator, who has been involved with municipal governance boards, I would tend to agree with what John Kralt has to say. In terms of Board Governance and conflict of interest matters, the matter is a bit more than amusing, notwithstanding the fact that the individuals are working for the welfare of the Body of Christ.
A question that begs to be answered is whether the current practice undermines the role of elders and deacons, and by extension the local church as set out in Church Order by creating a parallel universe. Inherently, is this not one of the key issues the the Structure and Culture Report is trying to grapple with, and indirectly the Diaconia Remixed Report?
My comment is not specifically directed at pastors, but the underlying theory of political governance imbedded in Church Order which comes from the 15th and 16th century. Throughout the 17th to 20th century this theory of governance was gradually abandoned. Also, over time, administrative and governance functions have become more clearly demarcated.
Though pastors are "called" to the ministry, they are nonetheless also "staff" who are employed by churches.
Over the last 20 - 25 years federal and provincial governments, and oversight agencies like the Canadian Council for Christian Charities have put legislation and guidelines in place to regulate NGO's and charities to ensure transparency and accountability to deal with matters like conflict of interest, due diligence, fiduicary obligations, etc.
You're probably right in that churches are looking to pastors to take a lead in shepherding their communities as quasi CEO/executive directors, but these are paid staff [administrative/management positions] and not governance positions.
Governance ought to rest with the elected elders and deacons who are called by the congregation to serve in their respective areas.
You are also right, in that the administrative and governance arms need to work in concert as shepherds of the flock.
Where this becomes problematic is at the classis and synodnical level where employees [pastors] are making decisions on behalf of local congregations that should rest with elected elders and deacons, especially in areas where there are obvoius conflicts of interest. This is not to say that the employees are not motivated by the best of intentions.
A discussion on coffee row between old administrators who have worked for and on boards works for me having lived in Saskatchewan in a previous life for 20 years. Like Keith, I am a stated clerk, chair of the personnel committee at church, etc. Won't bore you with the details: http://ca.linkedin.com/pub/lubbert-van-der-laan/19/53a/391
Dialogue is perferable. Thank you. Hope it's not to hot in Montana. Just got back from Saskatchewan, where for a change it was muggy because of all the rain.
One of the things one needs to grapple when hiring staff is - does the Classis have the Personnel infrastructure in place to ensure it is able to address HR, Payroll, Benefits, WCB, etc. issues. It is difficult to say the least in a body like a classis where committee members rollover every 3 years and the duties of treasurer are part-time and may not extend to areas identified above. Employment legislation, etc. is a more complex issue today.
It is easier to provide grant monies to an incorporated ministry entity.
Is the process identified in your last sentence referenced anywhere in the Acts of Synod?
The reason I ask is that I have reviewed Church Order and Its Supplements [2011] & the Manual of CRC Government [2008] and cannot find any reference to this process. The only reference pertinent to the question that I can find is located in the MoCRCG in Article 2 b. 2). a).
If "The classical treasurer informs the church of its [ministry share] allocation on the basis of the [membership] count as reported in the CRC Yearbook," then the 2012 assessment would have to be based on the active membership count as of 2010, as Yearbook 2012 with the 2011 count would not yet be published.
Though I can understand that local churches could use their 2011 membership count to develop their 2012 budget and/or the CRCNA has the 2011 membership count in hand for budget expectations [the CRCNA's budget would have been drafted on the basis of the 2010 membership count], it would be helpful for the purpose of clarity if there is a reference to the Acts of Synod for the process.
I understand the process and practice, but do not see where the warrant is coming from, i.e. a directive from the Acts of Synod. Moreover, the Manual of CRC Government in Article 2 b. 2). a) would appear to speak against the practice articulated above.
Based on MoCRCG in Article 2 b. 2). a) one might assume that Classical Treasurers throughout the CRCNA are utilizing the 2010 active membership counts from the published Yearbook 2011 to assign Ministry Share assessments for 2012 to local congregations, and local congregations are doing the same when establishing their 2012 budgets.
This variance in practice could do with some clarification, especially where warrant has been established in MoCRCG in Article 2 b. 2). a). as to what ought to happen.
It is difficult to ask churches to submit Ministry Shares based on their 2011 active professing member count when Yearbook 2012 does not exist, or there is not warrant established in the Acts of Synod.
I apologize, if I appear to be somewhat difficult on this matter.
I'm looking at the 2008 Revision edition of the Manual of CR Church Government on page 248 where 2) a. reads " The classical treasurer informs the church of its [ministry-share] allocation on the basis of the [membership] count as reported in the CRC Yearbook." As churches and classical treasurers only have the 2011 Yearbook in hand, and not the 2012 Yearbook, they would be using active membership data from the former.
This is not to say that a church couldn't possibly develop their 2012 budgets on the basis of the 2011 active membership count.
However, based on what is set out in the MoCRCG and what I have seen in practice - churches are more likely to base their budgets on the current printed Yearbook as per the directive set out in the MoCRG, as do classical treasurers when setting the ministry share allocations for each church.
The result in practice is that local church and classical 2012 Budgets are probably based on the 2010 active membership count.
Unfortunately, I am still missing a reference from the Acts of Synod 2008 - 2011 for the grounds on which the administrative change is based.
1. per member Ministry Share rate: understand Synod sets rates in June and Classis in fall for the coming calendar year.
2. active professing membership rate: can appreciate both the arguments for "adminstrative change" or "reasonableness."
3. MoCRCG on page page 9 indicates the manual incorporates decisions made by synods through to Synod 2007.
4. The question boils down to - when did Synod change the policy decision found in MoCRCG page 248, and what is the content of that decision on which the "administrative change" is based.
5. If Synod did not make a change in policy, then however "reasonable" the above proposal seems - the "administrative change" is invalid as the directive 2. b. 2). a) on page 248 in the MoCRCG is still in force.
6. The policy directive is of long standing origin, as it also exists in the MoCRCG of 1987.
7. If there is such a change to be found in the Acts of Synod, it would be helpful. From your response above I would suppose it does not.
An interesting point with some cogency, though not strictly relevant to the question.
Went back and read the Communal Covenantal Commitment Task Force Report in the Agenda for Synod 2009.
The recommendation in Acts of Synod 2009 Article 29 I. B 1.a. (page 579) would have benefited with some further clarification on what active professing membership count year is to be applied to the coming calendar year Ministry Share rate.
MoCRCG 2008 Revised would therefore still stand with respect to "active professing members", even if it is within the ability of a local congregation to give beyond the set "Ministry Share rate."
Pragmatically if I were doing the budget in a dreamy moment, I might consider that a possible option. The Boards which I reported to as a former administrator would probably think I was acting without due diligence and abrogating my fiduciary responsibilities to them.
Also, not certain local church budget committees would agree, if they were to consider the potential reaction of congregants.
~;-)
I'm doing a research project where information on this issue is a small but critical component of the larger picture - to help people grapple with the notion that there may be monies to do ministries both locally and globally.
Fudging the process is as problematic as getting bogged down in the technicalities. No disrespect intended.
Posted in: Should ministers (who are essentially "paid employees" of the church) chair council meetings or be members of the council?
If not a union, then perhaps a guild. :-)
Posted in: Should ministers (who are essentially "paid employees" of the church) chair council meetings or be members of the council?
Though I can appreciate the matter of individuals being gifted in the area of administration and leadership, and that some pastors may possess these gifts.
Nonetheless, church polity is out of step with contemporary political governance being more in line with 15th / 16th century divine right of kings political theory.
Having an employee as an elected/voting member of the governing board/Council, and possibly as Board Chair, places the church as an institution at jeopardy legally, quite apart from issues of conflict of interest.
That doesn't preclude the pastor, as an elder, being an ex-officio non-voting officer.
Even the Canadian Council of Christian Charities requiries the following standards of charities, i.e. churches:
Standards of Acccountability: http://www.cccc.org/standards_2 "No member of the governing board shall be entitled to receive, either directly or indirectly, any salary, wages, fees, commissions or other amount for services rendered to the organization."
Posted in: Should ministers (who are essentially "paid employees" of the church) chair council meetings or be members of the council?
As a former senior administrator, who has been involved with municipal governance boards, I would tend to agree with what John Kralt has to say. In terms of Board Governance and conflict of interest matters, the matter is a bit more than amusing, notwithstanding the fact that the individuals are working for the welfare of the Body of Christ.
A question that begs to be answered is whether the current practice undermines the role of elders and deacons, and by extension the local church as set out in Church Order by creating a parallel universe. Inherently, is this not one of the key issues the the Structure and Culture Report is trying to grapple with, and indirectly the Diaconia Remixed Report?
Posted in: Should ministers (who are essentially "paid employees" of the church) chair council meetings or be members of the council?
Hi James...
My comment is not specifically directed at pastors, but the underlying theory of political governance imbedded in Church Order which comes from the 15th and 16th century. Throughout the 17th to 20th century this theory of governance was gradually abandoned. Also, over time, administrative and governance functions have become more clearly demarcated.
Though pastors are "called" to the ministry, they are nonetheless also "staff" who are employed by churches.
Over the last 20 - 25 years federal and provincial governments, and oversight agencies like the Canadian Council for Christian Charities have put legislation and guidelines in place to regulate NGO's and charities to ensure transparency and accountability to deal with matters like conflict of interest, due diligence, fiduicary obligations, etc.
You're probably right in that churches are looking to pastors to take a lead in shepherding their communities as quasi CEO/executive directors, but these are paid staff [administrative/management positions] and not governance positions.
Governance ought to rest with the elected elders and deacons who are called by the congregation to serve in their respective areas.
You are also right, in that the administrative and governance arms need to work in concert as shepherds of the flock.
Where this becomes problematic is at the classis and synodnical level where employees [pastors] are making decisions on behalf of local congregations that should rest with elected elders and deacons, especially in areas where there are obvoius conflicts of interest. This is not to say that the employees are not motivated by the best of intentions.
Posted in: Should ministers (who are essentially "paid employees" of the church) chair council meetings or be members of the council?
A discussion on coffee row between old administrators who have worked for and on boards works for me having lived in Saskatchewan in a previous life for 20 years. Like Keith, I am a stated clerk, chair of the personnel committee at church, etc. Won't bore you with the details: http://ca.linkedin.com/pub/lubbert-van-der-laan/19/53a/391
Dialogue is perferable. Thank you. Hope it's not to hot in Montana. Just got back from Saskatchewan, where for a change it was muggy because of all the rain.
Posted in: Has the idea of classis staff come and gone?
One of the things one needs to grapple when hiring staff is - does the Classis have the Personnel infrastructure in place to ensure it is able to address HR, Payroll, Benefits, WCB, etc. issues. It is difficult to say the least in a body like a classis where committee members rollover every 3 years and the duties of treasurer are part-time and may not extend to areas identified above. Employment legislation, etc. is a more complex issue today.
It is easier to provide grant monies to an incorporated ministry entity.
Posted in: When do we count members for Ministry Shares?
Thank you.
Is the process identified in your last sentence referenced anywhere in the Acts of Synod?
The reason I ask is that I have reviewed Church Order and Its Supplements [2011] & the Manual of CRC Government [2008] and cannot find any reference to this process. The only reference pertinent to the question that I can find is located in the MoCRCG in Article 2 b. 2). a).
If "The classical treasurer informs the church of its [ministry share] allocation on the basis of the [membership] count as reported in the CRC Yearbook," then the 2012 assessment would have to be based on the active membership count as of 2010, as Yearbook 2012 with the 2011 count would not yet be published.
Though I can understand that local churches could use their 2011 membership count to develop their 2012 budget and/or the CRCNA has the 2011 membership count in hand for budget expectations [the CRCNA's budget would have been drafted on the basis of the 2010 membership count], it would be helpful for the purpose of clarity if there is a reference to the Acts of Synod for the process.
Posted in: When do we count members for Ministry Shares?
Thank you.
I understand the process and practice, but do not see where the warrant is coming from, i.e. a directive from the Acts of Synod. Moreover, the Manual of CRC Government in Article 2 b. 2). a) would appear to speak against the practice articulated above.
Based on MoCRCG in Article 2 b. 2). a) one might assume that Classical Treasurers throughout the CRCNA are utilizing the 2010 active membership counts from the published Yearbook 2011 to assign Ministry Share assessments for 2012 to local congregations, and local congregations are doing the same when establishing their 2012 budgets.
This variance in practice could do with some clarification, especially where warrant has been established in MoCRCG in Article 2 b. 2). a). as to what ought to happen.
It is difficult to ask churches to submit Ministry Shares based on their 2011 active professing member count when Yearbook 2012 does not exist, or there is not warrant established in the Acts of Synod.
I apologize, if I appear to be somewhat difficult on this matter.
Posted in: When do we count members for Ministry Shares?
Hi Sheri...
I'm looking at the 2008 Revision edition of the Manual of CR Church Government on page 248 where 2) a. reads " The classical treasurer informs the church of its [ministry-share] allocation on the basis of the [membership] count as reported in the CRC Yearbook." As churches and classical treasurers only have the 2011 Yearbook in hand, and not the 2012 Yearbook, they would be using active membership data from the former.
This is not to say that a church couldn't possibly develop their 2012 budgets on the basis of the 2011 active membership count.
However, based on what is set out in the MoCRCG and what I have seen in practice - churches are more likely to base their budgets on the current printed Yearbook as per the directive set out in the MoCRG, as do classical treasurers when setting the ministry share allocations for each church.
The result in practice is that local church and classical 2012 Budgets are probably based on the 2010 active membership count.
Posted in: When do we count members for Ministry Shares?
Thank you.
Unfortunately, I am still missing a reference from the Acts of Synod 2008 - 2011 for the grounds on which the administrative change is based.
1. per member Ministry Share rate: understand Synod sets rates in June and Classis in fall for the coming calendar year.
2. active professing membership rate: can appreciate both the arguments for "adminstrative change" or "reasonableness."
3. MoCRCG on page page 9 indicates the manual incorporates decisions made by synods through to Synod 2007.
4. The question boils down to - when did Synod change the policy decision found in MoCRCG page 248, and what is the content of that decision on which the "administrative change" is based.
5. If Synod did not make a change in policy, then however "reasonable" the above proposal seems - the "administrative change" is invalid as the directive 2. b. 2). a) on page 248 in the MoCRCG is still in force.
6. The policy directive is of long standing origin, as it also exists in the MoCRCG of 1987.
7. If there is such a change to be found in the Acts of Synod, it would be helpful. From your response above I would suppose it does not.
Posted in: When do we count members for Ministry Shares?
An interesting point with some cogency, though not strictly relevant to the question.
Went back and read the Communal Covenantal Commitment Task Force Report in the Agenda for Synod 2009.
The recommendation in Acts of Synod 2009 Article 29 I. B 1.a. (page 579) would have benefited with some further clarification on what active professing membership count year is to be applied to the coming calendar year Ministry Share rate.
MoCRCG 2008 Revised would therefore still stand with respect to "active professing members", even if it is within the ability of a local congregation to give beyond the set "Ministry Share rate."
Posted in: When do we count members for Ministry Shares?
Hi John...
Pragmatically if I were doing the budget in a dreamy moment, I might consider that a possible option. The Boards which I reported to as a former administrator would probably think I was acting without due diligence and abrogating my fiduciary responsibilities to them.
Also, not certain local church budget committees would agree, if they were to consider the potential reaction of congregants.
~;-)
I'm doing a research project where information on this issue is a small but critical component of the larger picture - to help people grapple with the notion that there may be monies to do ministries both locally and globally.
Fudging the process is as problematic as getting bogged down in the technicalities. No disrespect intended.