Beyond Protestantism

I appreciated your article [John McLarty editorial] on "Beyond Protestantism" (AT Jan/Feb 2002). As a La Sierra grad who became a Quaker minister I related to much of your expressed sentiments. Although some may consider my becoming a Quaker a rejection of my Adventist heritage, from my vantage it was a way for me to affirm the primitive origins of our common "anabaptist" heritage. I think the SDA denomination has veered more and more toward the Magisterial Protestant model and away from its radical "spirit led" roots. Adventists are right that the "spirit of prophecy" is a mark of the true church, however, too many restraints been placed on the spirit of prophecy. Magisterial Protestants like to measure out the outpouring in approved doses (Ellen White, the Bible, the Clergy). They're the self-appointed pharmacy reps in a world where God wants to dispense life-saving medicine to whosoever will.

None of this is new to denominations, indeed, choking off the divine supply is part of the eternal war between the laity and the leadership. The Quaker model gives the people a voice and guarantees that those who seek to rise, don't rise above the people, but rise with the people. This is the pre-Saul model, whereas Protestants tend toward the post-Davidic. I have never regretted following the prophets instead of the priests, the one is inclusive, God chooses the prophets, but the other is exclusive, only Levites get to play at the temple.

Jesse Leamon Via the Internet

Croft and Corson

The last copy of Adventist Today (Nov/Dec 2002) was especially interesting, as it touched a very sensitive chord with my husband me, as we have had a similar problem inside the church. . . . About ten years ago [we] along with about six other people started studying some of the subjects that Randy A. Croft and Ron Corson have written about such as the Investigative Judgment and, is Ellen White without error. We came up with some differences with the SDA beliefs on those subjects. We were called "kooks" by the pastor, embarrassed from the pulpit until all eight of us left the church. Now, ten years later, five of us have returned. . . . The church we attend now [has a] different pastor. He is a wonderful Christian and knows our different beliefs, but has told us he has no problem with what we believe. He said we are to be united in Christ, not in every thought.

Beverly Story

Faculty on Welfare

There is an article in the Sept -October issue, that captured my interest, . . . "S.D.A. Faculty on welfare?" Here is my problem with that article. I have for years served on executive committees, in several capacities. We would each year study salaries, subsidies, and other factors. I like to think that I'm not narrow minded or very forgetful. I can read summaries, financial statements etc.

The article in question may be accurate in some ways however, your . . . article seems to leave out many items. These items are very important to persons wishing to understand the truth. In my opinion the article is misleading, i.e. it mentions salaries and expenses, however, does not mention subsidies, i.e. living, moving, education, auto, insurance, etc. Would you please let me know when subsidies were discontinued, or if they are still a part of a teacher/preacher package

The article sends a dishonest message to persons in the field. Do me this favor soon please. I'd like to know what the "real story" is. Lay people are not told many things, however, they are not brain dead. Please do your best in the answer.

Edwin Siemens, M.D. Via the Internet

Riley Answers

Dr. Siemens's concern about the "real story" on compensation is not unique. I have heard this same concern expressed by board members, conference presidents, and treasurers. Also, the former NAD treasurer and most recent NAD remuneration task force chairmen have personally expressed the same concern to me; "When you count 'benefits' you don't qualify for welfare, do you?" The answer is yes! The state aid organizations are not interested in what the church puts to my retirement, the criteria is what income do I receive each month that can be used to support my family.

Concerning the "teacher/preacher package," with the exception of medical, dental, and tuition assistance, the benefits are not same, and differences exist even with similar benefits. I will limit discussion to salary "enhancement" benefits to try to explain the "real story" for pastors and teachers. Pastors receive three such benefits, reduced taxes due to the parsonage allowance, area travel, and auto insurance; the last two are cash for use of their personal car. I have for some time tried to affix a value to the parsonage allowance, and have discussed how to do this with several pastors and conference/union/division people. It is not easily done due to the variable conditions for each pastor based on how they live. Pastors do pay their own social security, so I am willing to allow that to offset the compensation gained by tax reductions due to the parsonage allowance. The value of the automobile benefit (travel plus insurance) to pastors is in the range of $4,000 annually.

As a teacher, the only salary "enhancement" benefit I receive is a professional development fund, which WWC has had for about eleven years. This allows for the reimbursement of expenses associated with professional development, i.e. books, software, conference travel, computer equipment and so on. These funds were initially set up, as recommended by the college accrediting organizations, to demonstrate greater differences in compensation amongst the faculty ranks. The values have been as follows: Instructor-nothing; Assistant Professor-$500; Associate Professor-$3,000; and Professor-$4,500. Until this year, these funds were not given as cash, but reimbursable for expenses associated with work. Last year, due to the severe underfunding of faculty salaries, the administration took these funds and raised the Instructor and Assistant to $1,500, left the other two at $3,000 and $4,500, and then split them in half, and gave half as salary, with the remaining half still used for a reimbursable expense fund. This was meant to help the lowest-paid faculty to receive something closer to a "living wage."

However, this does not make a significant impact on my ability to support my family, due to new required deductions. As an Associate Professor, I receive $1,500 this year, payable biweekly. This amounts to, before tax, $62.50 a pay check. However, I am now required to pay health care premiums of $110 per month ($55 in each biweekly paycheck). This produces a net "benefit" of $7.50 per paycheck, or $15 a month. My tax withholdings are about 11.6 percent (Federal, social security, Medicare, and worker's comp); this makes the new development "benefit" worth, after tax, just less than 50 cents a month! That is the "real story."

My 2002 W-2 form shows the total "Wages, tips, other compensation" as $38,724.32; this is for a full-time tenured Associate Professor of Engineering with 12 years of service to the college, and is many thousands less than a pastor 6 years out of college. There is nothing "hidden" in that number. It is this number that is used to determine if I am able to support my family, which for the health of my children, the state has deemed I am not!

Don Riley College Place, Washington