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.
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.
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.
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.