Not clear on why dichomy with respect to vision rests solely with the preacher. Just because an individul is designated a leader does make them leadership material or a good "mensch" leader. If the vision is great but the leadership and/or preaching is wanting, the flock may have a shepherd but not necessarily a Good Shepherd.
John Zylstra: Let's set Walhout aside since not all agree with him, just as you do not. Some of these individuals also do not agree with your theory of the natural world.
Nonetheless, you lumped them in with what you feel Walhout is arguing.
You're deliberately avoiding the point on "fallacy."
You're not engaging people in discussion but trying to beat them into submission to your "singular" notion of the natural world.
I wonder if the argumentation hasn't gone adrift somewhere in this and the related conversation thread, especialy as the author of the article is deliberatively hesitant by stating "The best option is prayerful attention, listening carefully to everything God is saying both in his original creation and in his redemptive gospel."
To argue that Walhout and Demoor need to be disciplined verges on suggesting that heresy or apostasy lies at the root of what was published.
The question as raised, steps over the line of Christian charity.
John is correct. There are ecclesiatical judicial processes in place with to deal with matters of discipline. Empirical science also has it's ground rules. God provides us with two books: scripture and creation.
At heart of this discussion thread and related ones is a difference of opinion on how to do empirical research, and that one particular position on the origin of the universe and life is core CRCNA dogma.
There is a helpful breakdown of the differnet postions in Shiao Chong's blog 3-D Christianity in two articles titled "Beyond Evolution vs. Christianity" & "Religion and Science, Faith and Reason."
I'm going step out on a limb, and say that the position being promoted by John Zylstra who raised the question on displince is position #1. Young Earth Creation or Creation Science. All others contravene scripture.
1. Young Earth Creation or Creation Science – this is the popularly understood “creation” position – it believes that the earth is only about 6,000 years old and rejects macro-evolution (evolution across species) but accepts micro-evolution (evolution within species). The Institute for Creation Research (Henry Morris and Duane Gish) and Answers in Genesis (Ken Ham) are examples of organizations that espouse this view.
2. Progressive Creation or Old Earth Creation – this position accepts the scientific consensus that the universe is 10-15 billion years old but still rejects macro-evolution. It holds that God directly intervened in the development of life in order to create the basic “kinds” or species of organisms over billions of years. An example of a progressive creationist is Hugh Ross and his Reasons to Believe.
3. Evolutionary Creation – this Christian position believes the universe is billions of years old and accepts both macro and micro evolution. It holds that God uses evolutionary processes and sustains them for his purposes. It still holds to a personal God that works in the world, accepts the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus, and believes the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Lamoureux falls into this category, along with world renowned geneticist and evangelical Christian Francis Collins and the Biologos organization.
4. Deistic Evolution – this is historically known as Theistic Evolution but Lamoureux argues that its position is more akin to Deism, where God is impersonal and doesn’t enter into our time-space continuum. In this view, God designed the evolutionary clock, so to speak, wound it up and then let it run its evolutionary course without any intervention or involvement from God. Some notable advocates of this position include Charles Darwin himself, for most of his life. Near the end of his life, Darwin waffled back and forth between Deism and Agnosticism. Other famous advocates are Michael Denton and the famous ex-atheist turned deist, Anthony Flew.
5. Dysteleological Evolution or Atheistic Evolution – this is often popularly misconstrued as THE “evolution” position. Atheists like Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens have championed this position as the only scientific position.
Unfortunately, John Zylstra's question raises a question whether he is attempting to discipline individuals without using due process, and secondly arguing that his position is dogma when his own position may be suspect and non-scriptural.
John Z: Your respond is more than passing strange since:
1. it is your proposal that Walhout and DeMoor ought to be disciplined;
2. you chose to be an arbiter of what ought go into homes subscribing to the Banner;
3. regardless of your argument to the contrary, the material you cite is primarily sourced from position #1 Young Earth Science or Creation Science; and
4. underlying your articulation of position #1 is that it constitutes the official position of the CRCNA whereby Walhout and DeMoor are judged to be in error and therefore need to be disciplined.
Dialogue means giving people who disgree with you the space to actually disagree with you.
The people who have disageed with you have been graceful in acknowledging the diferences and have not resorted to misinterpreting or twisting what you have said.
As I have indicated in an earlier comment it is apparent that you love your Lord and his Word, but some of your brothers and sisters have expressed in threads on this topic in the Network and Banner that you are less than charitable towards them.
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.
Posted in: Leadership or Preaching? What is more important in the CRC?
Not clear on why dichomy with respect to vision rests solely with the preacher. Just because an individul is designated a leader does make them leadership material or a good "mensch" leader. If the vision is great but the leadership and/or preaching is wanting, the flock may have a shepherd but not necessarily a Good Shepherd.
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
John Zylstra: Let's set Walhout aside since not all agree with him, just as you do not. Some of these individuals also do not agree with your theory of the natural world.
Nonetheless, you lumped them in with what you feel Walhout is arguing.
You're deliberately avoiding the point on "fallacy."
You're not engaging people in discussion but trying to beat them into submission to your "singular" notion of the natural world.
Therein lies the hubris.
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
I wonder if the argumentation hasn't gone adrift somewhere in this and the related conversation thread, especialy as the author of the article is deliberatively hesitant by stating "The best option is prayerful attention, listening carefully to everything God is saying both in his original creation and in his redemptive gospel."
To argue that Walhout and Demoor need to be disciplined verges on suggesting that heresy or apostasy lies at the root of what was published.
The question as raised, steps over the line of Christian charity.
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
Hi Adam...
John is correct. There are ecclesiatical judicial processes in place with to deal with matters of discipline. Empirical science also has it's ground rules. God provides us with two books: scripture and creation.
At heart of this discussion thread and related ones is a difference of opinion on how to do empirical research, and that one particular position on the origin of the universe and life is core CRCNA dogma.
There is a helpful breakdown of the differnet postions in Shiao Chong's blog 3-D Christianity in two articles titled "Beyond Evolution vs. Christianity" & "Religion and Science, Faith and Reason."
I'm going step out on a limb, and say that the position being promoted by John Zylstra who raised the question on displince is position #1. Young Earth Creation or Creation Science. All others contravene scripture.
1. Young Earth Creation or Creation Science – this is the popularly understood “creation” position – it believes that the earth is only about 6,000 years old and rejects macro-evolution (evolution across species) but accepts micro-evolution (evolution within species). The Institute for Creation Research (Henry Morris and Duane Gish) and Answers in Genesis (Ken Ham) are examples of organizations that espouse this view.
2. Progressive Creation or Old Earth Creation – this position accepts the scientific consensus that the universe is 10-15 billion years old but still rejects macro-evolution. It holds that God directly intervened in the development of life in order to create the basic “kinds” or species of organisms over billions of years. An example of a progressive creationist is Hugh Ross and his Reasons to Believe.
3. Evolutionary Creation – this Christian position believes the universe is billions of years old and accepts both macro and micro evolution. It holds that God uses evolutionary processes and sustains them for his purposes. It still holds to a personal God that works in the world, accepts the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus, and believes the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Lamoureux falls into this category, along with world renowned geneticist and evangelical Christian Francis Collins and the Biologos organization.
4. Deistic Evolution – this is historically known as Theistic Evolution but Lamoureux argues that its position is more akin to Deism, where God is impersonal and doesn’t enter into our time-space continuum. In this view, God designed the evolutionary clock, so to speak, wound it up and then let it run its evolutionary course without any intervention or involvement from God. Some notable advocates of this position include Charles Darwin himself, for most of his life. Near the end of his life, Darwin waffled back and forth between Deism and Agnosticism. Other famous advocates are Michael Denton and the famous ex-atheist turned deist, Anthony Flew.
5. Dysteleological Evolution or Atheistic Evolution – this is often popularly misconstrued as THE “evolution” position. Atheists like Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens have championed this position as the only scientific position.
Unfortunately, John Zylstra's question raises a question whether he is attempting to discipline individuals without using due process, and secondly arguing that his position is dogma when his own position may be suspect and non-scriptural.
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
That would not be a fruitful exercise.
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
John Z: Your respond is more than passing strange since:
1. it is your proposal that Walhout and DeMoor ought to be disciplined;
2. you chose to be an arbiter of what ought go into homes subscribing to the Banner;
3. regardless of your argument to the contrary, the material you cite is primarily sourced from position #1 Young Earth Science or Creation Science; and
4. underlying your articulation of position #1 is that it constitutes the official position of the CRCNA whereby Walhout and DeMoor are judged to be in error and therefore need to be disciplined.
Dialogue means giving people who disgree with you the space to actually disagree with you.
The people who have disageed with you have been graceful in acknowledging the diferences and have not resorted to misinterpreting or twisting what you have said.
As I have indicated in an earlier comment it is apparent that you love your Lord and his Word, but some of your brothers and sisters have expressed in threads on this topic in the Network and Banner that you are less than charitable towards them.
Yours in our Lord and Saviour
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.