|
|
|
| Douglas Jacoby's Paper Analysis |
|
Excerpts from Jacoby’s The Women’s Role Reconsidered With Commentary The excerpts contained herein concern the financial matters addressed by Doug and Vicki Jacoby in this paper from Spring 2002 entitled The Women’s Role Reconsidered—Special Focus: Sisters on Staff. It appears that this work was originally intended for ICOC staff members only, but was published after the "Henry Kriete Letter" of 2003 with the Jacoby’s permission Generally, The Women’s Role… is not about finances, so this article addresses but two brief sections of the original 12-page paper. The sections are included in their entirety below. Interesting enough, the weighty financial matters addressed by Jacoby seem to have been mere points in passing---they are found in the footnotes! Commentary occurs in blue font. The excerpts occur in the order of their appearance, and each paragraph has been pasted in its entirety in order to be fair to the context. Emphasis has been added in yellow highlights. Anonymous
The WOMEN‘S ROLE RECONSIDERED
This paper was written in spring 2002 and distributed to a number of people in the summer of 2002. Reactions were strong: most people loved it or hated it! Now, a year and half later many of the things the paper addressed have already changed for the good. Progress is being made. Please consider this paper as an historical document, one reflecting (increasingly) a bygone era. The ICOC no longer exists in its former structure — though most of the fellowship remains intact. (Were we to c or rewrite it today, much would be changed.) This introduction by Jacoby begs several questions as to how it is that the "former structure" of the ICOC has been altered. If he is referring to the parent corporation, International Churches of Christ, Inc., the reader should note that this corporation is still active. And this is quite a substantial fact. One must wonder why the parent would exist if there is no longer any "central organization" to this affiliation of churches. Or if Jacoby is referring to the various World Sector Corporations, it is also important to note that several of them are also still listed as active corporations. Perhaps he is referring to any of the number of new "missions societies" that have been formed over the last two years. But regardless, little has changed in the "church life" of the average member of the International Churches of Christ. I fear that Jacoby’s remarks here are meant to be dismissive as to the extremely serious nature of the comments he makes later in his footnotes. Following is the section from which the footnotes in question originate. The reader should be reminded that this paper is not about church finances, so little of relevance to that topic should be expected from the paragraphs that follow. Today the vast majority of wives work outside the home.6 Children are regularly farmed out to daycare centers and other providers, but why? Many mothers may feel more fulfilled having careers as doctors, lawyers, and business executives. Mothers in two-income families may claim they cannot "survive" with only one income. Perhaps more significant, they are under pressure from their husbands to work. This is not just a matter of keeping up with the Joneses; servicing the considerable debt (mortgages, various loans, an above all, monthly credit card payments) has created a sort of bondage which cripples family life and leaves couples with no choice but to bring in two incomes. Yet is the extra income really necessary? The typical American home in the ‘00s is more than double the floor space of the typical home in the ‘50s or ‘60s (when most of you reading this article were growing up). The fact is, much of the marginal increase from dual incomes is eaten up in higher taxes, daycare costs, and other expenses incurred as a result of the fatigue the working mother suffers trying to cope with day-to-day life.7 Despite all these negative effects, we as a movement have bought right into this thinking.8 In our society at large, sadly, America (though never technically Christian) has departed significantly from a more biblical model. The dual income model has both catalyzed this change and been accelerated by it. So what are the fruits of our society‘s more "enlightened" approach to the institutions of work an family? 6 Despite a countermovement either to work from the home or "be stay-at-home mom." 7 Let me here recommend Robert Wuthnow‘s penetrating sociological study, Poor Richard‘s Principle, which I have said elsewhere ought to be required reading for all ministers. Wuthnow‘s exposé of corporate America‘s chokehold on us all (debt, companies’ supposedly beneficial perquisites, etc) is masterful. 8 Consider, for example:
The most pertinent of these notes are copied and examined individually below. • Job descriptions patterned after the business world (though without the performance evaluations). We have never see the "job descriptions" of the ICOC and its "affiliated entities". Perhaps the church should post these so that the members can examine the "worldliness" of them for themselves.
• Corporate hierarchy. (Parallels military officers v. enlisted me, or denominational clergy v. laity) Though helpful, hierarchy becomes negative when appreciation and respect become inflated. We are not to lord it over others, nor are we to be treated with adulation. Again, the exact nature of the "hierarchy" has been withheld from the members. The ICOC and all its affiliated entities should publish their organizational charts, both present and past so that the members can make their own judgments on these matters.
• Salary structures patterned after the business world — complete with highly generous severance packages. The salary structures have still not been fully disclosed. The members and former members (who also contributed millions to the ICOC) deserve to know what was done with their money. Further, these "highly generous severance packages" may indeed consist of illegal "inurement". The contributing public deserves to have full details on these expenditures so that it can judge for itself whether improprieties have been committed.
• Insistence that our women be paid in part so that they would have credibility with career women in the world. What an interesting statement this is! To my knowledge, the members of the ICOC were generally not informed that the women (wives of male leaders) were being paid at all, and much less that it was for the purpose of having "credibility with career women…". And the "in part" qualifier begs the question as to the remainder of the reasons for the wives being paid. Again, the contributors deserve to know the full details of this policy. • Artificial distinction (compartmentalization) between "ministry" (business) and everything else. How intriguing! Jacoby owes the world an explanation as to the meaning of this statement. It smacks of misappropriation, conversion, mismanagement, or some combination of the three. • Extensive business travel (and Time away from our kids). What does "extensive" mean? I note that he mentions his concern about "time away from our kids", but what would an IRS auditor think that "extensive" means? Or what would an ICOC member think was "excessive"? Again, the public deserves to know what Jacoby knows and is concerned about so that we can judge for ourselves whether our money was misspent.
• "Executive assistants" It is hard to imitate a lifestyle propped up by extra personnel. There’s some irony here. The idea that it is "hard to imitate" the lifestyle of ICOC executives is likely an allusion to the ICOC teaching that the leaders are to be imitated and that in this way the "kingdom is built". But this sentence is particularly worthy of ridicule when one considers that ICOC leaders were often less "fruitful" in evangelism and in maturity than many of their unpaid underlings! Doesn’t Jacoby know this? Secondly, there’s the issue of the "total cost to employer" of these "Executive assistants". The compensation of these people has, of course, never been revealed by the ICOC and its affiliated entities. Again, the public deserves to make its own judgments, rather than having leaders like Jacoby pontificate in such matters.
• Considerable discretionary spending funds, typical of CEOs and other corporate officers. (This is an area in which we can get into trouble.) What "discretionary spending funds"? How large are these funds, and under whose "discretion" do they operate? Since Mr. Jacoby believes that the public deserves to read his paper, does he also believe that we deserve to know what he’s talking about? • Honoraria and other perks for those who travel und speak. How much "honoraria"? And what about the "perks"? Do they violate the standard of "inurement of benefit" detailed in ICOC Administrative Policies 2001? Note the excerpt below. 17.01.01 Inurement of Benefit Inurement of benefit is the use of the Church’s assets for personal benefit by those deemed to be in control of the organization (i.e., founders, directors, officers, leaders, major donors, and the immediate family members of these individuals). The only exception to this rule is reasonable compensation (salary, housing allowance, and allowable employee benefits) for services performed. Expenditures of any amount deemed to be inurement may result in revocation of the church’s tax-exempt status. Though I certainly do not question Jacoby’s assertion about these questionable practices, it begs the question as to whether Jacoby was unaware that, even though inurement of benefit is detailed in ICOC policy, the "honoraria" to which he refers are also prescribed therein. Note the following excerpt from ICOC’s Minimum Standards 2003: 09.01 Types of Reimbursable Ministry/Business Expenses: Types of expenses that are reimbursable:
• Our spending habits and upper-middle class standards of living
• Business class hotels, airline seats, and restaurants.
|
|
Main Site Navigation: |
|
|