| RE: On the gathering of the Fellowship of Presbyterians: a brief summary |
| Written by Jim Babcock, | ||||||||
| Friday, 02 September 2011 14:53 | ||||||||
|
After more detailed study I cannot refrain from another observation. I find that I am truly baffled and quite definitely appalled that these folks have the audacity to even contemplate the thought of possibly retaining a foothold in the PCUSA for the self serving purpose of retaining their pension and health benefits. If that's all the relationship means then we really have some seriously warped leadership. that is more concerned with their own personal well being than that of the constituencies they respectively serve or the cause they purportedly pursue.
These are without question the most ludicrous scenarios I have ever read. Without question the PCUSA pension and health packages are outstanding they are a privilege of membership and loyal service not a token gratuity for those who choose to march to a different drummer yet propose devious means by which they might retain these valuable assets.
If they feel they must leave then have the courage to leave but find their own benefit plans but certainly don't entertain the thought of retaing the PCUSA packages. Frankly if Rob Maggs and his cohort at the Board Of Pensions or the General Assembly even considered such hairbrained overtures, I as a cradle Presbyterian, ordained for fifty four years would seriously consider leaving the denomination and seek some saner spiritual haven... Jim Babcock, Elder. Bozeman, Montana Your Responses (4)
Jim Babcock, elder
said:
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed|
Bozeman, Montana Perhaps my error was stating that the PCUSA Pension and Health packages were " outstanding ", As an insurance and financial; executive, President and CEO of both an investment and insurance corporation I am well aware that there are better performing plans available... BUT.. as far as denominational programs the PCUSA benefit packages are very good... management is a matter of individual perception and choice... However as Casey put it it is morally unconscionable to consider remaing half in and half out of the denomination simply to retain pension and health benefits which these individuals could purchase ( or have purchased for them) from outdside souces if in fact the PCUSA is an undesireable place to hang their hat... |
p.w. gregory
said:
|
lambertville, nj "BOP outstanding"? Those who have read my latest inputs on the issue of BOP know my issues with the system. In the interest of full disclosure I have had careers in the public/federal and private/health care sector so I have experience in all aspects of retirement/health plans. The core problem with the BOP is that it is very limited in both risk-pool, and law of large numbers to mitigate the various storms of demographics, economy, the politics of the church which will hit very soon. At most with about 15K "active" or so members, who happen to be aging and consuming more health care, and in a declining denomination with lesser income going into the system, the math will not work. It is also somewhat poorly administered. On the 403b side of the house, Fidelity when compared in the industry to Vanguard, Pimco, as examples, is very high cost and over time delivers less bang for the buck, or return on investment. That's not me, Morningstar, Lipper will tell you the same. Do the homework. On the health care and defined benefit plan, when compared to those offered in the allied professions, public education, nursing, as examples is very little return and service for the cost of the churches, 33% in 2012, and rising. But I agree that any clergy, or BOP member, who is influenced by BOP issues alone, in reguard to the ultimate questions of faith, confession, and ultimate loyalty, stay or leave the church, is both morally a coward, and weak in conviction. |
Casey Jones
said:
|
... The BOP medical plan,and to some lesser extent the pension plan, get signficantly higher premiums from larger churches that generally pay higher compensation,and pay out disproportinately less in benefits (relative to premiums) to these employees. (Also most (more) highly paid pastors are already vested in pension benefits that wouldn't be lost to them even if they switched plans.) Therefore keeping big steeeple pastors in the plan disproportionately helps employees of smaller churches; it does not necessarily help big steeple employees. It would be useful if those commenting on this thought for a moment about what would help the whole church and not about punishing large steeples who might want dual affiliation but who, all things being equal, would wish to stay in the BOP plan. |
John Erthein
said:
|
DeFuniak Springs, FL Given that all participants in the benefit plan make hefty contributions thereto through their churches of call (31% of gross salary and rising), it is misleading to lay this out as a one-sided benefit. In fact, concerning the health insurance portion of the BOP benefits, everyone on the plan benefits from the contributions of other members. I think it would behoove the BOP, and more importantly, other plan members, to consider what THEY would lose if so many contributors dropped out of the plan. |
