I am not certain that labeling things as left, centre or right is helpful to a fruitful conversation, let alone making the charge that "Canadian" Banner editors "liked" to be provocative. That individuals may disagree with the arguments laid out in some of the articles that were published is one thing and an opportunity for an ongoing dialogue, however, we always need to ask ourselves whether our comments occasionally slip into ad hominem attacks.
The comment, "It's also worth asking whether we should have such Canadian dominance of the Banner editorship when a large majority of CRC members are U. S. citizens," raises an important question. Why does citizenship in a nation state trump membership in the Body of Christ? Does civil religion take precedence to following Jesus Christ?
Paul VanderKlay raises some important points above regarding the mandate given the Banner by Synod over the years in contrast to other writers who feel that mandate needs to be revised. The question that needs to be asked is whether there has been shift within the CRC "not" to a more conservative outlook on issues, but a shift from it's Reformed roots to realignment with North American fundamentalism.
Regardless, the Banner and it's editors are an easy targets for what are ongoing pastoral and ecclesiastical discussions on various topics at annual Synods. That these topics are on the table at all, is a reflection of what local churches are struggling with in ministering to their flock. If pastoral care is to be extended that means both dialogue and engagement with scripture and God's creation is required rather than mounting the ramparts.
Though I can understand Hamstra and Sikkema's point about furthering the kingdom, I feel they have both missed the point on "stewardship" by focusing purely on the monetary aspect of the transaction. Both congregations in the relationship are involved in tilling the fields of the Lord and contributing to the upkeep of his flock. The landlord church may or may not need the rent, nontheless the hope would be that whatever is collected would go to furthering the Kingdom. Secondly, the tenant church may or may not be able to pay rent, nonetheless we are called to give of our gifts to further the the Kingdom. Should the landlord church decide to forgo the rent to further the Kingdom, that is also a gift.
There is a Foucaultian post-modern tendency to view relationships with suspicion when it comes to the matter of power.
Though I can understand that "power" might be an issue, nonetheless a landlord / tenant relationship is usually premised on a contractual relationship with obligations and responsibilities similar to the concept of a covenantal relationship. Secondly, that contractual relationship is regulated by legislation and civil authorities where recourse for remedies can be pursued even though it may not always work effectively.
Moreover, quite apart from the state ensuring that the interests of the respective parties being protected there are also other matters which need to be addressed that are raised by Harry Bossenkool and Brian Tebben.
As I've indicated in previous posts, I can understand the desire to further Kingdom work.
What I don't understand is the avoidance to engage in the notion that these congregations operate within civil and legislation frameworks as two distinct corporate entities.
Framing the matter as purely a monetary / power imbalance ignores both the biblical stewardship relationship between the parties, as well as the civil / legal issues that arise when two parties jointly agree to share in the use of a facility. What Hanford CRC has offered the other church meeting in it's space may "feel good" but may also be problematic in the eyes of the civil authorities, as well as, other parties such as insurance companies, e.g. what binds the other church to abide by CRCNA Safe Church policy.
The article above does not provide a lot of detail on the Hanford CRC relationship, however, the Brian Tebben example is more helpful and moves in the right direction. Harry Boessenkool also alludes to the complexity of legal constraints that exist in Canada, and probably also the United States, on providing services and facilities on the same equity terms to both church members and non-church members.
There are brother's and sisters in Christ in the conversation thread "Tomrrow's Theology" who neither share your "particular take" on science and scripture.
They desire, like you, to listen carefully to everything God is saying both in his original creation and his redemptive creation.
It's one thing to have a spirited discussion, and another to declare the author and publisher to be antathema needing strong discipline in a new conversation thread "How would the go about discipling a retired pastor who suggests and promotes changing many of the core CRC doctrines?"
If Walhout is to lose his ministerial credentials and DeMoor is to fired, what is to be done to those whose opinions differ from yours in "Tomorrow's Theology?"
Where is the charity? [1 Corinthians 13] This is what makes the conversation not fruitful.
What is at issue is not John Z's freedom to open a discussion on discipline, but his attempt to silence all discussion on differing points of view other than his own - even to the point of disparging Augustine and Calvin.
Secondly, is the grounds for disciplinary action against Edwin Walhout, et al. John Z. lays out an argument and cites source material which is grounded in position #1 Young Earth Creation or Creation Science [see above] with the underlying assumption that this is the official position of the CRCNA.
This is not to say that there are not people who agree with the Creation Science within the CRC, like John Z.
Nonetheless, there is a large body of people who are both scripture believing Christians and work in the field of science, et al. who disagree with position #1.
Is possible that you are reading more into what article lays out as questions of enquiry?
For the last two hundred years sections of the church have painted themselves into a corner over what in the end is nothing more than a theory. Some christians in the 20th century, like their opponents have bought into a form of postivism, fighting over the factualism of evolution. It's no different than individuals in the field of science treating empirical data as metaphysical statements.
It's unhealthy for the body of Christ. We've lost a sense of the mystery in God's creation that He will reveal in His good time, or not.
I see you have 2 threads going on this topic: <http://network.crcna.org/forums/synod/accountability-and-clarity-salary-grid#comment-10220>
The question of what party (church administers vs ministers) is compensated better, can come back potentially to bite the comparision group. At the end of the day the person in the pew can not come close to either party and ends up footing the bill.
The following comes from <http://www.crcna.org/sites/default/files/CanadianPlanHighlights.pdf>.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Final Average Salary (FAS) is the average of cash salaries of ("ALL") CRC ministers serving in the three years before the calendar year in which the minister’s benefit amount is determined. A projected FAS is used for future estimate calculations.
The amount due to the retiree in most cases is the sum of the following:
· 1.1% multiplied by the FAS, then multiplied by a minister’s pensionable years of service before January 1, 1985.
· 1.46% multiplied by the FAS, then multiplied by a minister’s pensionable years of service from January 1, 1985 through December 31, 2010.
· 1.3% multiplied by the FAS, then multiplied by a minister’s pensionable years of service after December 31, 2010.
Example of pension benefit calculation
If a minister has 36.5 years of pensionable service at the time of his retirement (at age 66) on July 1, 2013, the normal benefit would be calculated as follows:
1.10% x $48,763 (FAS) x 8 years = $4,291.14
1.46% x $48,763 (FAS) x 26 years = $18,510.43
1.3% x $48,763 (FAS) x 2.5 years = $1,584.80
These total $24,386.38 per year or $2,032 (rounded) per month in Canadian funds.
++++++++++++++++++++++
In order to compare oranges with oranges, and not apples with oranges, one also needs to take into consideration several tax planning advantages available to ministers that may or may not be available to your comparator groups, and especially not the person in the pew.
1. Pension Plan remittance: 100% paid by the local church. The practice in the public / private sector is 50% employer paid and 50% employee paid, a pension plan is provide which in many cases it is not.
2. Housing allowance: $18,000 +/- can be written off as tax deductible item which is only available to ministers, but not their parshioners.
3. Extended Health & Dental Plan: Local church usually pays 100%, whereas in the public / private sector the employer / employee split tends to be 70%/30% or 80%/20%, if an EH&D plan is provided which is not always the case.
A good "steward" would take these saving over 36.5 years and put them aside over and add them CRCNA Pension to their CPP/OAS and/or Social Security pension payments on retirement.
They would still be better of than most of their parshioners.
My apologies for becoming inarticulate in my last two sentences in the previous post.
The second last sentence should have read "...putting them aside and adding the multipled savings to the CRCNA Pension, CPP/OAS, and/or Social Security payments on retirement."
On another matter, one needs to consider the scope of responsibility and span of control of the position when determining compensation. Making an assessment on pension payment allocation solely on job title is not helpful.
If I might try and walk a line in between, since we are all agreed that we are called to look to both scripture (theology) and creation (science) as the two books God has given us to know him, then argument seems to be one about the paradigm being used to explore and understand nature.
In particular, if the assumption is that Walhout's paradigm is incorrect, then there is also an assumption that the Zylstra paradigm is also incorrect. Unfortunately, it is possible that both assumptions are true, in that they are two sides of the same coin in that both theories rest on materialist positivistic scientific axioms.
Consequently, if Walhout is to be brought before the church fathers, so ought Zylstra.
There's a sense of the absurd at play here, like being in a Franz Kafka novel.
Not certain that the comparison with school principals is strictly speaking a good example when looking at ministers versus the administrative ED position. Many Christian school systems also have ED's that are being compensated for responsibilities greater than those of the school principal.
If the argument is that pastors recruited for HQ administrative positions ought to be compensated based on what is being paid to those ministering in churches, it still begs the question of scope of responsibility and span of control. Secondly, pastoring a church is really not the same thing as being a school principal or school ED, let alone running the corporate entity that the CRCNA HQ in GR and Burlington has become.
Posted in: What Do We Want from The Banner?
I am not certain that labeling things as left, centre or right is helpful to a fruitful conversation, let alone making the charge that "Canadian" Banner editors "liked" to be provocative. That individuals may disagree with the arguments laid out in some of the articles that were published is one thing and an opportunity for an ongoing dialogue, however, we always need to ask ourselves whether our comments occasionally slip into ad hominem attacks.
The comment, "It's also worth asking whether we should have such Canadian dominance of the Banner editorship when a large majority of CRC members are U. S. citizens," raises an important question. Why does citizenship in a nation state trump membership in the Body of Christ? Does civil religion take precedence to following Jesus Christ?
Posted in: What Do We Want from The Banner?
Paul VanderKlay raises some important points above regarding the mandate given the Banner by Synod over the years in contrast to other writers who feel that mandate needs to be revised. The question that needs to be asked is whether there has been shift within the CRC "not" to a more conservative outlook on issues, but a shift from it's Reformed roots to realignment with North American fundamentalism.
Regardless, the Banner and it's editors are an easy targets for what are ongoing pastoral and ecclesiastical discussions on various topics at annual Synods. That these topics are on the table at all, is a reflection of what local churches are struggling with in ministering to their flock. If pastoral care is to be extended that means both dialogue and engagement with scripture and God's creation is required rather than mounting the ramparts.
Posted in: Why We Don't Want To Rent Space
Though I can understand Hamstra and Sikkema's point about furthering the kingdom, I feel they have both missed the point on "stewardship" by focusing purely on the monetary aspect of the transaction. Both congregations in the relationship are involved in tilling the fields of the Lord and contributing to the upkeep of his flock. The landlord church may or may not need the rent, nontheless the hope would be that whatever is collected would go to furthering the Kingdom. Secondly, the tenant church may or may not be able to pay rent, nonetheless we are called to give of our gifts to further the the Kingdom. Should the landlord church decide to forgo the rent to further the Kingdom, that is also a gift.
Posted in: Why We Don't Want To Rent Space
There is a Foucaultian post-modern tendency to view relationships with suspicion when it comes to the matter of power.
Though I can understand that "power" might be an issue, nonetheless a landlord / tenant relationship is usually premised on a contractual relationship with obligations and responsibilities similar to the concept of a covenantal relationship. Secondly, that contractual relationship is regulated by legislation and civil authorities where recourse for remedies can be pursued even though it may not always work effectively.
Moreover, quite apart from the state ensuring that the interests of the respective parties being protected there are also other matters which need to be addressed that are raised by Harry Bossenkool and Brian Tebben.
Posted in: Why We Don't Want To Rent Space
As I've indicated in previous posts, I can understand the desire to further Kingdom work.
What I don't understand is the avoidance to engage in the notion that these congregations operate within civil and legislation frameworks as two distinct corporate entities.
Framing the matter as purely a monetary / power imbalance ignores both the biblical stewardship relationship between the parties, as well as the civil / legal issues that arise when two parties jointly agree to share in the use of a facility. What Hanford CRC has offered the other church meeting in it's space may "feel good" but may also be problematic in the eyes of the civil authorities, as well as, other parties such as insurance companies, e.g. what binds the other church to abide by CRCNA Safe Church policy.
The article above does not provide a lot of detail on the Hanford CRC relationship, however, the Brian Tebben example is more helpful and moves in the right direction. Harry Boessenkool also alludes to the complexity of legal constraints that exist in Canada, and probably also the United States, on providing services and facilities on the same equity terms to both church members and non-church members.
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
There are brother's and sisters in Christ in the conversation thread "Tomrrow's Theology" who neither share your "particular take" on science and scripture.
They desire, like you, to listen carefully to everything God is saying both in his original creation and his redemptive creation.
It's one thing to have a spirited discussion, and another to declare the author and publisher to be antathema needing strong discipline in a new conversation thread "How would the go about discipling a retired pastor who suggests and promotes changing many of the core CRC doctrines?"
If Walhout is to lose his ministerial credentials and DeMoor is to fired, what is to be done to those whose opinions differ from yours in "Tomorrow's Theology?"
Where is the charity? [1 Corinthians 13] This is what makes the conversation not fruitful.
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
Hi Philip W:
What is at issue is not John Z's freedom to open a discussion on discipline, but his attempt to silence all discussion on differing points of view other than his own - even to the point of disparging Augustine and Calvin.
Secondly, is the grounds for disciplinary action against Edwin Walhout, et al. John Z. lays out an argument and cites source material which is grounded in position #1 Young Earth Creation or Creation Science [see above] with the underlying assumption that this is the official position of the CRCNA.
This is not to say that there are not people who agree with the Creation Science within the CRC, like John Z.
Nonetheless, there is a large body of people who are both scripture believing Christians and work in the field of science, et al. who disagree with position #1.
"Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda"
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
Is possible that you are reading more into what article lays out as questions of enquiry?
For the last two hundred years sections of the church have painted themselves into a corner over what in the end is nothing more than a theory. Some christians in the 20th century, like their opponents have bought into a form of postivism, fighting over the factualism of evolution. It's no different than individuals in the field of science treating empirical data as metaphysical statements.
It's unhealthy for the body of Christ. We've lost a sense of the mystery in God's creation that He will reveal in His good time, or not.
Posted in: Pensions for Pastors Serving churches and Pastors Employed by CRCNA H.O.
I see you have 2 threads going on this topic: <http://network.crcna.org/forums/synod/accountability-and-clarity-salary-grid#comment-10220>
The question of what party (church administers vs ministers) is compensated better, can come back potentially to bite the comparision group. At the end of the day the person in the pew can not come close to either party and ends up footing the bill.
The following comes from <http://www.crcna.org/sites/default/files/CanadianPlanHighlights.pdf>.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Final Average Salary (FAS) is the average of cash salaries of ("ALL") CRC ministers serving in the three years before the calendar year in which the minister’s benefit amount is determined. A projected FAS is used for future estimate calculations.
The amount due to the retiree in most cases is the sum of the following:
· 1.1% multiplied by the FAS, then multiplied by a minister’s pensionable years of service before January 1, 1985.
· 1.46% multiplied by the FAS, then multiplied by a minister’s pensionable years of service from January 1, 1985 through December 31, 2010.
· 1.3% multiplied by the FAS, then multiplied by a minister’s pensionable years of service after December 31, 2010.
Example of pension benefit calculation
If a minister has 36.5 years of pensionable service at the time of his retirement (at age 66) on July 1, 2013, the normal benefit would be calculated as follows:
1.10% x $48,763 (FAS) x 8 years = $4,291.14
1.46% x $48,763 (FAS) x 26 years = $18,510.43
1.3% x $48,763 (FAS) x 2.5 years = $1,584.80
These total $24,386.38 per year or $2,032 (rounded) per month in Canadian funds.
++++++++++++++++++++++
In order to compare oranges with oranges, and not apples with oranges, one also needs to take into consideration several tax planning advantages available to ministers that may or may not be available to your comparator groups, and especially not the person in the pew.
1. Pension Plan remittance: 100% paid by the local church. The practice in the public / private sector is 50% employer paid and 50% employee paid, a pension plan is provide which in many cases it is not.
2. Housing allowance: $18,000 +/- can be written off as tax deductible item which is only available to ministers, but not their parshioners.
3. Extended Health & Dental Plan: Local church usually pays 100%, whereas in the public / private sector the employer / employee split tends to be 70%/30% or 80%/20%, if an EH&D plan is provided which is not always the case.
A good "steward" would take these saving over 36.5 years and put them aside over and add them CRCNA Pension to their CPP/OAS and/or Social Security pension payments on retirement.
They would still be better of than most of their parshioners.
Posted in: Pensions for Pastors Serving churches and Pastors Employed by CRCNA H.O.
My apologies for becoming inarticulate in my last two sentences in the previous post.
The second last sentence should have read "...putting them aside and adding the multipled savings to the CRCNA Pension, CPP/OAS, and/or Social Security payments on retirement."
On another matter, one needs to consider the scope of responsibility and span of control of the position when determining compensation. Making an assessment on pension payment allocation solely on job title is not helpful.
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
If I might try and walk a line in between, since we are all agreed that we are called to look to both scripture (theology) and creation (science) as the two books God has given us to know him, then argument seems to be one about the paradigm being used to explore and understand nature.
In particular, if the assumption is that Walhout's paradigm is incorrect, then there is also an assumption that the Zylstra paradigm is also incorrect. Unfortunately, it is possible that both assumptions are true, in that they are two sides of the same coin in that both theories rest on materialist positivistic scientific axioms.
Consequently, if Walhout is to be brought before the church fathers, so ought Zylstra.
There's a sense of the absurd at play here, like being in a Franz Kafka novel.
Posted in: Pensions for Pastors Serving churches and Pastors Employed by CRCNA H.O.
Not certain that the comparison with school principals is strictly speaking a good example when looking at ministers versus the administrative ED position. Many Christian school systems also have ED's that are being compensated for responsibilities greater than those of the school principal.
If the argument is that pastors recruited for HQ administrative positions ought to be compensated based on what is being paid to those ministering in churches, it still begs the question of scope of responsibility and span of control. Secondly, pastoring a church is really not the same thing as being a school principal or school ED, let alone running the corporate entity that the CRCNA HQ in GR and Burlington has become.