As I indicated, it is not my intent to show disrepect. My apology.
The intent of the original question was focused on obtaining clarification on the determination of what calendar year to utilize for active professing membership when developing a church budget as it applies Ministry Share rates for the coming calendar year.
I fear the conversation, though interesting, is drifting into areas not directly related to the inquiry - other than to comment that scriptural stewardship also comes with due diligence and fiduciary responsibilities and obligations.
As I indicated earlier, "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" ..."
Secondly, I would also agree with Colin "And one more note: why in todays computer age can we not simply put the yearbook online rather then spending money publishing a book that is out of date by the time it is delivered?"
This revision would achieve the currency objective denominational office is hoping to achieve.
I need to separate a number of issues. The research report I am working on, the arguments being made for "good sense" and "reasonableness" with respect to budget development, and that I am drifting off topic.
I should indicate that I don't have a problem with either the concept of "active professing members" or the Ministry Share rate."
As I indicated in my response to John Bolt "2. active professing membership rate: can appreciate both the arguments for "adminstrative change" or "reasonableness."
What is problematic is the equal playing field that budget committees at both the local church and at the denominational level require to "reasonablely" plan for the viability of ministries. That equal playing field is currently articulated in MoCRCG, page 248.
Whether regular attending active professing members contribute the widow's mite or as the Lord has gifted them is up to the Lord to move their hearts through their shepherding community.
What has come out of my inquiries is that it would be beneficial for Synod to revise the MoCRCG so it lines up with the denominational office administrative objectives.
On a related matter, looking at 5 - 10 years of data I have a feeling that the CRCNA at the local level has yet to come to grips with what most mainline churches have been struggling with over the last 20 - 30 years. There is a real difference between those who regularly attend and the number of individuals that are on the books. That difference can range from 80% attenders vs 20% non-attenders, up to and including, 70% attenders to 30% non-attenders.
When the pulpit, council and stewardship committees encourage giving to meet ministry objectives - I feel they are probably speaking to a dark and deep vacuum when it comes to the 20 - 30% of "active professing members" who are non-attenders.
Scripturally, both Matthew 18: 12 – 14 & Mark 4: 2 – 20 have some application.
Thank you, nonetheless, for helping in providing some focus with your comments.
You're right with respect to your observation above, however, with the data sets available for the research project - this group can be separated out.
I am more interested in identifying where a ministry needs exists, recruitment to fill those needs, and identifying funding to meet those needs.
There is a ministry need not only in reaching out to young adults that are drifting out of the church and not coming as was the case 5 - 10 years ago, the pastoral needs of a growing seniors population, but also a growing "active professing member" segment that is disconnecting from active participation in the body of Christ where evangelism/outreach needs need to be explored.
This is borne out in research literature published by Barna and PEW, or others like Postma, Reimer, Bibby, etc.
Along with giving pattern analysis another area to look at is actual Sunday attendance versus the total members number, etc. submited for the yearbook.
If there is a significant discrepancy, perhaps the number submitted for active professing members over 18 which is used for budget purposes is also inaccurate. What percentage of members are no longer attending church that other members are supporting through the budget and ministry shares?
Is it possible that the members in the pews are meeting their budgetary obligations? Do we need to start thinking outside the box on this issue?
A continuing question I struggle with is why this is more of an Ontario issue within the Canadian CRC? The matter of different cultures is a red herring, notwithstanding the fact there are differences between the two countries - but there are also substantive cultural differences between Ontario and Quebec, let alone Ontario and Alberta, and perhaps even British Columbia.
Is it necessary for churches in Canada to absorb the financial costs of a new administrative infrastructure to manage various ministries? I don't feel there is a call for this at the local congregation level. More likely, in terms of those sitting in the pew, there's been a gradual loss of connection ever since the 1980's with the implementation of Synod's Vision governance report which led to a gradual erosion between denominational ministries and the local congregation.
Since then it's been a battle within the denominational hierarchy over who controls the corporation and ministries, rather than focusing on ecclesiastical matters. Establishing a fraternal Canadian CRCNA will only shift the question to "why have the denominational office in Burlington, Ontario and not elsewhere in Canada?"
Perhaps it's time to consider spinning off the various ministries into stand alone corporations separate from the CRCNA as an ecclesiastical body. These corporate ministries can still seek financial support at the local congregation level, but be removed from this ongoing politicking. Secondly, it would re-establish a more direct link between the person in the pew, the diaconate and denominational ministries.
In that sense the SALT report is perhaps a preliminary step forward.
Notwithstanding the fact that CRC's in Canada are currently paying for the for the offices in Burlington, there has been a call at Synod to decrease the denominational administrative infrastructure footprint. Creating a separate denomination will only add to the desire to add additional entities and costs at a time local churches are struggling to maintain their existing ministries and staffing.
The push for separation has more to do with the exercise of power and control over denominational ministries, than a common ecclesiastical tradition grounded in a reformed world view and/or a commonality in Christ our Saviour. At the root of the problem is the 1980's Vision Report.
Regardless of the fact Canadian provinces share a commonality in terms of history, etc. - Ontario has traditionally misread the west (western alienation) and in that sense Canadian CRC immigrants are probably more Canadian than Dutch in that reading after 70 years of residence. This misread is even now playing out between Ottawa and Alberta. Notwithstanding the opinion expressed above, there is a commonality between mid-western provinces and states based on immigration patterns in the 1800-1900's, socio-economics, etc. that does not necessarily align with Burlington/Grand Rapids. This is also the case along the British Columbia, Washington and Oregon west coast corridor.
It's time to find our commonality in Christ rather that focusing on our differences.
As to the litany of grievances outlined in the Field-Guide, might I suggest that these are matters the local church and the members in the pew are to a large degree oblivious to and/or unconcerned with. This speaks to a large degree to the extent to which reform polity (Church Order, Articles 26-27) has been upended by the emergance of a bi-nationational clerical administrative class which has replaced the "original authority" of the local church council. These same concerns were raised in the 1980's at Synod.
And no, not every ministry or agency needs to be mirrored on either side of the border, however, that some will be - will only add to costs and duplication of services (see Harry Boessenkool's comment above). These are costs over and above that of 3 executive directors, as well as the COD, which is why I have previously raised the question whether Synod's decision to implement "Vision 21" in 1987 was the wisest. Maybe it's time to step outside the box rather than trying to continually restructure the same shape over and over.
I wouldn't lay this matter at the door of the offices in GR or Burlington.
They live within the box of Vision 21. It was the delegates at Synod 1987 who adopted the Vision 21 report after lengthy discussions throughout the 1980's.
We are "all" here today due to the implementation of that decision without attention to due diligence, risk management, and/or fiduciary obligations to Church Order.
Furthermore, the denomination has struggled since the 1980's with the problem of how to exercise control over incorporated ministries and agencies with an initial stab at the problem in 1987 with the adoption of the Vision 21 report. Since 1987, Synod has grappled with different solutions but confined itself within the box of the Vision 21 report.
As a consequence, reformed polity as set out in Church Order, Articles 26 - 28 has suffered and the "original" authority of the local church council has been undermined to be replaced by a top down hierarchical structure populated by an increasing number of executive directors, including the Council of Delegates.
Perhaps the time has come to release incorporated ministries and agencies from the supervision / control of the denomination and have them deal directly with the local church diaconate for funding.
World Renew just like Redeemer University, The Kings University, including Christian elementary / high schools, Christian labour unions, etc. operate within each of their areas of sphere sovereignty. As incorporated entities they operate independently of the denomination even though they share a common world view; and in some cases a close working relationship. In the USA there are probably similar examples. Many of those entities in either country are identified as ministries / agencies approved by the denomination for local church funding.
By continually attempting to integrate separately incorporated entities under one denominational umbrella and/or two (2) bi-national incorporated entities the CRCNA has sacrificed: (1.) the reformed concept of sphere sovereignty; (2.a.) but also, reform polity as set out in Church Order, Articles 26 - 28 by undermining the "original authority" of the "local church" through the creation of a top down hierarchical structure populated by an increasing number of executive directors, including a Council of Delegates; (2.b.) as well as, the local church's direction over ministry.
Structure is taking precedence over the organic "ecclesiastical" life of the "local church." It is not the role of incorporated entities "to shape the local church (KvG)" - that is the calling of the local church, i.e. to shape ministry.
Though Sean's last comment is duly noted, it would nonetheless appear that the article is advocating a shift away from the principles of "deliberation" and "discernment" imbedded in CRCNA reformed polity. [see Church Order 2020, pages 7-8; and Articles 34 & 39]
Thank you for the update. The recommended articles have merit. My concern rests with how the article was framed, including the discussion/discernment process, i.e. "let the rumble begin."
Posted in: When do we count members for Ministry Shares?
As I indicated, it is not my intent to show disrepect. My apology.
The intent of the original question was focused on obtaining clarification on the determination of what calendar year to utilize for active professing membership when developing a church budget as it applies Ministry Share rates for the coming calendar year.
I fear the conversation, though interesting, is drifting into areas not directly related to the inquiry - other than to comment that scriptural stewardship also comes with due diligence and fiduciary responsibilities and obligations.
As I indicated earlier, "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" ..."
Secondly, I would also agree with Colin "And one more note: why in todays computer age can we not simply put the yearbook online rather then spending money publishing a book that is out of date by the time it is delivered?"
This revision would achieve the currency objective denominational office is hoping to achieve.
Posted in: When do we count members for Ministry Shares?
Hi John...
I need to separate a number of issues. The research report I am working on, the arguments being made for "good sense" and "reasonableness" with respect to budget development, and that I am drifting off topic.
I should indicate that I don't have a problem with either the concept of "active professing members" or the Ministry Share rate."
As I indicated in my response to John Bolt "2. active professing membership rate: can appreciate both the arguments for "adminstrative change" or "reasonableness."
What is problematic is the equal playing field that budget committees at both the local church and at the denominational level require to "reasonablely" plan for the viability of ministries. That equal playing field is currently articulated in MoCRCG, page 248.
Whether regular attending active professing members contribute the widow's mite or as the Lord has gifted them is up to the Lord to move their hearts through their shepherding community.
What has come out of my inquiries is that it would be beneficial for Synod to revise the MoCRCG so it lines up with the denominational office administrative objectives.
On a related matter, looking at 5 - 10 years of data I have a feeling that the CRCNA at the local level has yet to come to grips with what most mainline churches have been struggling with over the last 20 - 30 years. There is a real difference between those who regularly attend and the number of individuals that are on the books. That difference can range from 80% attenders vs 20% non-attenders, up to and including, 70% attenders to 30% non-attenders.
When the pulpit, council and stewardship committees encourage giving to meet ministry objectives - I feel they are probably speaking to a dark and deep vacuum when it comes to the 20 - 30% of "active professing members" who are non-attenders.
Scripturally, both Matthew 18: 12 – 14 & Mark 4: 2 – 20 have some application.
Posted in: When do we count members for Ministry Shares?
Thank you, nonetheless, for helping in providing some focus with your comments.
You're right with respect to your observation above, however, with the data sets available for the research project - this group can be separated out.
I am more interested in identifying where a ministry needs exists, recruitment to fill those needs, and identifying funding to meet those needs.
There is a ministry need not only in reaching out to young adults that are drifting out of the church and not coming as was the case 5 - 10 years ago, the pastoral needs of a growing seniors population, but also a growing "active professing member" segment that is disconnecting from active participation in the body of Christ where evangelism/outreach needs need to be explored.
This is borne out in research literature published by Barna and PEW, or others like Postma, Reimer, Bibby, etc.
Posted in: What can you do when your church is not meeting its budget?
Along with giving pattern analysis another area to look at is actual Sunday attendance versus the total members number, etc. submited for the yearbook.
If there is a significant discrepancy, perhaps the number submitted for active professing members over 18 which is used for budget purposes is also inaccurate. What percentage of members are no longer attending church that other members are supporting through the budget and ministry shares?
Is it possible that the members in the pews are meeting their budgetary obligations? Do we need to start thinking outside the box on this issue?
Posted in: The SALT Report Explained: Question #6
A continuing question I struggle with is why this is more of an Ontario issue within the Canadian CRC? The matter of different cultures is a red herring, notwithstanding the fact there are differences between the two countries - but there are also substantive cultural differences between Ontario and Quebec, let alone Ontario and Alberta, and perhaps even British Columbia.
Is it necessary for churches in Canada to absorb the financial costs of a new administrative infrastructure to manage various ministries? I don't feel there is a call for this at the local congregation level. More likely, in terms of those sitting in the pew, there's been a gradual loss of connection ever since the 1980's with the implementation of Synod's Vision governance report which led to a gradual erosion between denominational ministries and the local congregation.
Since then it's been a battle within the denominational hierarchy over who controls the corporation and ministries, rather than focusing on ecclesiastical matters. Establishing a fraternal Canadian CRCNA will only shift the question to "why have the denominational office in Burlington, Ontario and not elsewhere in Canada?"
Perhaps it's time to consider spinning off the various ministries into stand alone corporations separate from the CRCNA as an ecclesiastical body. These corporate ministries can still seek financial support at the local congregation level, but be removed from this ongoing politicking. Secondly, it would re-establish a more direct link between the person in the pew, the diaconate and denominational ministries.
In that sense the SALT report is perhaps a preliminary step forward.
Posted in: The SALT Report Explained: Question #6
Notwithstanding the fact that CRC's in Canada are currently paying for the for the offices in Burlington, there has been a call at Synod to decrease the denominational administrative infrastructure footprint. Creating a separate denomination will only add to the desire to add additional entities and costs at a time local churches are struggling to maintain their existing ministries and staffing.
The push for separation has more to do with the exercise of power and control over denominational ministries, than a common ecclesiastical tradition grounded in a reformed world view and/or a commonality in Christ our Saviour. At the root of the problem is the 1980's Vision Report.
Regardless of the fact Canadian provinces share a commonality in terms of history, etc. - Ontario has traditionally misread the west (western alienation) and in that sense Canadian CRC immigrants are probably more Canadian than Dutch in that reading after 70 years of residence. This misread is even now playing out between Ottawa and Alberta. Notwithstanding the opinion expressed above, there is a commonality between mid-western provinces and states based on immigration patterns in the 1800-1900's, socio-economics, etc. that does not necessarily align with Burlington/Grand Rapids. This is also the case along the British Columbia, Washington and Oregon west coast corridor.
It's time to find our commonality in Christ rather that focusing on our differences.
Posted in: The SALT Report Explained: Question #6
We probably do share some thoughts in common.
As to the litany of grievances outlined in the Field-Guide, might I suggest that these are matters the local church and the members in the pew are to a large degree oblivious to and/or unconcerned with. This speaks to a large degree to the extent to which reform polity (Church Order, Articles 26-27) has been upended by the emergance of a bi-nationational clerical administrative class which has replaced the "original authority" of the local church council. These same concerns were raised in the 1980's at Synod.
And no, not every ministry or agency needs to be mirrored on either side of the border, however, that some will be - will only add to costs and duplication of services (see Harry Boessenkool's comment above). These are costs over and above that of 3 executive directors, as well as the COD, which is why I have previously raised the question whether Synod's decision to implement "Vision 21" in 1987 was the wisest. Maybe it's time to step outside the box rather than trying to continually restructure the same shape over and over.
Posted in: The SALT Report Explained: Question #6
I wouldn't lay this matter at the door of the offices in GR or Burlington.
They live within the box of Vision 21. It was the delegates at Synod 1987 who adopted the Vision 21 report after lengthy discussions throughout the 1980's.
We are "all" here today due to the implementation of that decision without attention to due diligence, risk management, and/or fiduciary obligations to Church Order.
Posted in: The SALT Report Explained: Question #2
I would concur with Doug's observations.
Furthermore, the denomination has struggled since the 1980's with the problem of how to exercise control over incorporated ministries and agencies with an initial stab at the problem in 1987 with the adoption of the Vision 21 report. Since 1987, Synod has grappled with different solutions but confined itself within the box of the Vision 21 report.
As a consequence, reformed polity as set out in Church Order, Articles 26 - 28 has suffered and the "original" authority of the local church council has been undermined to be replaced by a top down hierarchical structure populated by an increasing number of executive directors, including the Council of Delegates.
Perhaps the time has come to release incorporated ministries and agencies from the supervision / control of the denomination and have them deal directly with the local church diaconate for funding.
Posted in: The SALT Report Explained: Question #2
But therein lies the rub.
World Renew just like Redeemer University, The Kings University, including Christian elementary / high schools, Christian labour unions, etc. operate within each of their areas of sphere sovereignty. As incorporated entities they operate independently of the denomination even though they share a common world view; and in some cases a close working relationship. In the USA there are probably similar examples. Many of those entities in either country are identified as ministries / agencies approved by the denomination for local church funding.
By continually attempting to integrate separately incorporated entities under one denominational umbrella and/or two (2) bi-national incorporated entities the CRCNA has sacrificed: (1.) the reformed concept of sphere sovereignty; (2.a.) but also, reform polity as set out in Church Order, Articles 26 - 28 by undermining the "original authority" of the "local church" through the creation of a top down hierarchical structure populated by an increasing number of executive directors, including a Council of Delegates; (2.b.) as well as, the local church's direction over ministry.
Structure is taking precedence over the organic "ecclesiastical" life of the "local church." It is not the role of incorporated entities "to shape the local church (KvG)" - that is the calling of the local church, i.e. to shape ministry.
Posted in: Human Sexuality Report: Ready to Rumble?
Though Sean's last comment is duly noted, it would nonetheless appear that the article is advocating a shift away from the principles of "deliberation" and "discernment" imbedded in CRCNA reformed polity. [see Church Order 2020, pages 7-8; and Articles 34 & 39]
Posted in: Human Sexuality Report: Ready to Rumble?
Hi Sean...
Thank you for the update. The recommended articles have merit. My concern rests with how the article was framed, including the discussion/discernment process, i.e. "let the rumble begin."