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.
John, I've read the supporting documentation you have cited to back up your theory of the development of the natural world and the underlying premises are no different than those held by evolutionists who come to atheistic conclusions by inverting empirical data into metaphysical statements.
Your approach has the potential to lead believers not only to atheistic conclusions if you can't step outside the positivist paradigm, but will also cause people to doubt their faith when they are confronted with the understanding that you have forced empirical evidence into a package that is inconsistent with their research findings.
Your approach is more dangerous to the faith life of Christians than Walhout.
I agree with John Kralt on the need for "due process." In court of law, for fairness to rule, it is not only Edwin Walhout's ideas which would be under examination but also those of John Zylstra. Though the empirical evidence they present about their examination of the natural world may be the same, the presuppositions (theories) about why it is organized the way it is may vary.
It is possible that the court might rule that neither presupposition is correct because they are not sustained by the empirical evidence.
John Zylstra: "Rather the entire raw theory of evolution as secularly presented in the absence of God, is being promoted and assumed..."
John Zylstra: Unfortunately John, you are the only one assuming and promoting this fallacy. I hear and understand that you love The Lord and His Word, however, it is time to show some charity towards your brothers and sisters in Christ and not put words in their mouths and thoughts in their minds that they did not express.
As Dan indicates, it is your particular theory of the natural world that they take issue with, not God's Word.
There is an element of hubris in your approach on this matter.
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.
We have one collection, a cause selected by the deacons. The collection for the budget is received either at a box at the entrance to the sanctuary, automated deposit, or in the budget envelope during the collection for the deacon selected cause.
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.
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
John, I've read the supporting documentation you have cited to back up your theory of the development of the natural world and the underlying premises are no different than those held by evolutionists who come to atheistic conclusions by inverting empirical data into metaphysical statements.
Your approach has the potential to lead believers not only to atheistic conclusions if you can't step outside the positivist paradigm, but will also cause people to doubt their faith when they are confronted with the understanding that you have forced empirical evidence into a package that is inconsistent with their research findings.
Your approach is more dangerous to the faith life of Christians than Walhout.
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
I agree with John Kralt on the need for "due process." In court of law, for fairness to rule, it is not only Edwin Walhout's ideas which would be under examination but also those of John Zylstra. Though the empirical evidence they present about their examination of the natural world may be the same, the presuppositions (theories) about why it is organized the way it is may vary.
It is possible that the court might rule that neither presupposition is correct because they are not sustained by the empirical evidence.
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
Dan....
Thank you.
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
John Zylstra: "Rather the entire raw theory of evolution as secularly presented in the absence of God, is being promoted and assumed..."
John Zylstra: Unfortunately John, you are the only one assuming and promoting this fallacy. I hear and understand that you love The Lord and His Word, however, it is time to show some charity towards your brothers and sisters in Christ and not put words in their mouths and thoughts in their minds that they did not express.
As Dan indicates, it is your particular theory of the natural world that they take issue with, not God's Word.
There is an element of hubris in your approach on this matter.
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: Diakonia — We've Passed This Way Before
If the following agencies are part of the agenda of Synod:
Disability Concerns, Office of Social Justice, Centre for Public Dialogue (Canada), Race Relations, Safe Church, ServiceLink, World Renew/CRWRC
they would also seem to be core to the diaconal mandate and ministry.
Posted in: How many churches no longer take special offerings?
We have one collection, a cause selected by the deacons. The collection for the budget is received either at a box at the entrance to the sanctuary, automated deposit, or in the budget envelope during the collection for the deacon selected cause.