Circumventing a Synod Decision

Preparatory for the annual June meeting of the Christian Reformed churches’ synod, the agenda of materials to be considered and decided is mailed out and put into the hands of every office-holder in the churches several weeks before the meeting. In 1978 the synod received an overture asking that the financial reports included in that agenda be made more complete especially in publicizing the salaries and fringe benefits which each agency paid its employees. Noting, as the advisory committee reported, that there had previously been repeated requests by the constituency paying the quota to make this information public, the synod instructed “all those agencies requesting quota support to include their salary and fringe benefit schedules in their annual reports, and these reports be included in the agenda.” The substantive ground which the synod gave for this decision was “The constituency paying the quota is entitled to this information” (Acts 1978, pp. 94, 95).

It is remarkable that the 1979 Agenda, instead of containing these more detailed financial reports which the 1978 synod had ordered, had lost almost all of such material. Instead of being included in the regular agenda with the committee reports such material has now been collected and issued as a Financial and Business Supplement to the Agenda.  The 1981 Supplement is an impressive, well–organized and informative booklet, and was undoubtedly useful to those who had opportunity to read it. More significant for the financial policy of our denomination than the contents of that booklet, however, is the fact that instead of being sent out to the 9500 local church consistory members who ordinarily receive the agenda several weeks before the synod meets, this production was prepared only for the 156 delegates who attend the synod. An introductory note states “This Supplemental Agenda or any portion thereof is available to all of our consistories upon request.” Notice that immediately after the synod had decided that the agenda financial reports should be made more informative because “the constituency paying the quota is entitled to this information,” the preparers of the agenda moved to very effectively keep all such financial information out of the hands of most of the 9500 consistory members! Could the purpose of synod decision be more completely thwarted than this one was?

In fairness we must observe that although general budget materials have disappeared from the regular synod agenda, in one instance a little of this material does reappear in the Acts of the 1981 Synod in a three page Appendix on pages 391–393 entitled “Report on Salary Schedules Denominational Agencies Uniform Salary Policy.” From reading this report the ordinary office-holder in any of the churches may learn for the first time that he is paying the top “executives” of his denomination a base salary of somewhere between $29,300 and $43,900. To this amount there must be added, as we read on page 393, a number of “non–salary benefits.” Six such benefits are listed, but their percentages are left blank. To discover those percentages one must turn to the Financial and Business Supplement and there learn that in the case of “denominational services” they amount to

Social Security taxes, as required by law 6% of salaries.

Workmen’s Compensation insurance as required by law .5%

Hospital and medical insurance 4%

Group life and long-term disability, the premiums for which are about 1% of salaries

Pension contributions 7% of salaries

Paid vacations 9% of salaries.

These fringe benefits add up to an additional 27.5% of the salaries. The ordinary church office-holder may read about these matters in the Acts which come into his hands a few months after the synod has approved of them. These important matters of the churches‘ financial policy have been approved by the action of the synod, but that approval, if it has not been gotten in complete secrecy, has been obtained with about as little exposure to the knowledge of the ordinary church member and even the ordinary consistory member as would be possible.

The Threats of Government Correction and Public Exposure

It is ironic that this movement into secrecy about denominational finances has come at a time when the raising and use of funds by churches and other religious organizations have been getting an extraordinary amount of government and public attention. We read of law suits against cult leaders charging them with appropriation of church funds for private use. We read of suits against church organizations alleged to have been established in order to avoid payment of taxes. In the November 6, 1981 Christianity Today an editorial reviewed the recent history of growing public concern about the way in which charitable and religious organizations have been raising and using their money. It recalled that four years ago a bill, HR41, was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives. That legislation, it seems, aimed to correct abuses in the handling of money by non–profit organizations by placing them all under some far–reaching government regulation. There were protests against this extensive government interference in religious matters and the bill failed to pass. The editorial recalled that evangelicals in congress at that time warned evangelical religious leaders that unless they took the initiative in trying to correct the abuses in the handling of such funds, the next such bill to come before the congress would be likely to pass. The threat of such government regulation moved a number of Christian leaders in 1979 to organize what was called the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability. This is a voluntary organization of some 185 para-church and denominational organizations who seek to police their handling of funds among themselves. The editorial observed that the efforts of this council had been largely successful.

Another organization that has moved to expose and try to correct abuses in the raising and handling of money for charitable and religious purposes is the council of Better Business Bureaus, Incorporated. It publishes a quarterly update on charitable, educational and religious organizations under the title, “Give, But Give Wisely.” It studies the policies of various organizations in the light of its standards regarding public disclosure, governing bodies, financial accountability, fund-raising practices, solicitations and educational materials, and lists those which comply or partially comply with those standards and those which have failed to answer inquiry about their, practices.

It ought not to be necessary for the government or secular business bureaus to educate churches on what constitutes honesty in handling of their funds. But the fact that church practices have aroused their interest and concern in these matters should prompt us to be at least as concerned about establishing and maintaining standards of accountability in dealing with church offerings as they are.

Requirements of Biblically Reformed Church Order

Our Lord placed the responsibility for leading and governing His church on the elders (or, to use the Greek word, “presbyters”), so that this is the organizing principle of Reformed or Presbyterian church government. They were given authority to rule, (Mt. 16:19; 18:18; Heb. 13:17) but at the same time cautioned repeatedly against any tendency on the part of any of them to seek domination over the rest (Matthew 20:20–28; cf. 1 Pet. 5:1–3). This is reflected in Article 95 of our Church Order; “No church shall in any way lord it over another church, and no church office-bearer shall lord it over another officebearer.” It is also reflected in the principle stated in article 27a that the authority of consistories is “original, that of major assemblies being delegated.” It is this principle that is observed as the annual synod’s agenda is put in the hands of every consistory member before the synod meets so that his representatives there may handle the church business on his behalf as much as possible with his knowledge and support. That principle is being violated when information about the churches’ financial activity is kept out of his hands.

Consider what happens at each of our churches‘ annual congregational meeting. Among the items of business there is an annual budget, prepared by the consistory and submitted to the congregation for its approval. Included in that budget are such items as the pastor’s salary. That, as well as other local int ended expenditures, may get considerable discussion before it is accepted (or rejected). In that same budget there is a large item called “quotas,” which is usually passed without any question, without anyone in the group, including the consistory members, even knowing what kind of expenditures are being approved, or that the salaries of denominational “executives,” so automatically approved, may well be double that which is approved (or rejected) for the local pastor. (The point is not whether these figures are reasonable or excessive, but that the congregation is kept ignorant of them.)

Where in our Reformed Church Order is there really room for denominational “executives” who “run” the churches’ business, increasingly without even the knowledge of those they are supposed to be representing? The denominational quotas, as we stated long ago when the old misnomer “assessments” was discarded as inappropriate, are in principle “recommendations.” The consistory has the right and duty to know what they are before it can conscientiously recommend them.

Not only does the consistory have the right and duty to know these matters, but, as the 1978 Synod decision recognized, all of the members also have the right to know and be assured of what their offerings are being used to support. “The constituency paying the quota is entitled to this information.” The arrangement whereby the members are required to pay but kept in ignorance of what their executive experts do with the money may be compatible with a hierarchical, Roman–Catholic church organization, but it cannot possibly be harmonized with a Reformed Church order. A Biblically Reformed order requires that the people know what t hey and their representatives are doing in the Lord’s service.

Corrective Measures

What can be done to correct this intolerable secrecy which increasingly surrounds our denominational finances? One import ant step in that direction would be an overture asking the 1982 Synod to require that the decision of 1978 which has been so effectively circumvented be carried out, that the Financial and Business Supplement to the Agenda be sent at least to every consistory in the denomination several weeks before the synod meets at the same time as the regular agendas are distributed, and that more significant parts of this material including salary scales be put in the regular agenda for each consistory member.

In addition to and beyond such a corrective overture, we need to recover the Biblical perspective which teaches us to give intelligently as part of our spiritual service of the Lord. The instructions of the Apostle Paul in the 9th and 10th chapters of his Second Letter to the Corinthians are especially illuminating in this respect. Relating the Corinthians’ giving to supply the needs of fellow Christians with the most basic doctrines of the Bible, the Lord’s atonement for us, he urged them to show that “the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ” (8:9) had produced a corresponding grace within them manifested in this giving for fellow Christians (9:12–15). Accordingly in the management of such matters Paul sought to provide “for things honorable not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men” (8:21).

*Note that on pp. 391-393 of the Acts of 1981 such a report on salary schedules does appear although it is not in the Agenda. There is no apparent reason why such reports should not be included in the regular agenda.