Pension-plan decisions affect generations

My great-grandparents, Carew and Mary Belle Baker Smith, were founding members of the Hindman Methodist Church in southeastern Kentucky around the turn of the 20thcentury. This decision to get involved in the Methodist Church affected the lives of at least six generations. The Smiths were the parents of 12 children, and hundreds of the Smith lineage continue to worship as United Methodists. Two of their descendants – one of my cousins, who is an alternate, and I – will represent the Kentucky Annual (regional) Conference at General Conference.

Just as my great-grandparents decided to be a part of the Methodist tradition, the decisions this General Conference makes concerning the pension programs have consequences for The United Methodist Church for many generations. As United Methodists, we will be making a covenant with clergy for when they are no longer in active service to the church. We must balance their security in their retirement years with providing predictable costs for local churches and providing a sustainable program.

The United Methodist Board of Pension and Health Benefits is presenting three options to consider for the clergy retirement plan. The first is to maintain the Clergy Retirement Security Program. The second (referred to as Modified CRSP) is to reduce the benefit payments for the defined-benefit portion, reduce the non-matching portion of the defined contribution and create a matching portion for the defined contribution. The third is to have a defined-contribution plan that contains both non-matching and matching contributions.

A defined benefit provides a monthly pension payment to the participant for life. It continues a reduced monthly pension payment for the pastor’s spouse upon the clergyperson’s death. This provides security to the clergyperson and his or her spouse because payments are guaranteed for life. For churches and annual conferences, this type of program creates a liability that they must fund. Once fully funded, there is a risk that if the underlying assets reduce in value due to fluctuations in the value of the assets, then additional funds must be raised.

A defined contribution provides an account balance to use during retirement. These funds are the clergyperson’s assets. A concern with a defined-contribution program is that the clergyperson may outlive his or her assets. Depending on the underlying investments, another risk is that the value of the assets could decrease due to changes in the market. However, any gains in the value of the assets benefit the clergyperson. Since the investments are the clergyperson’s assets, they are a part of his or her estate.

Over the past four years, boards, advisory groups, associations, conferences and forums have met to consider these issues. There have been many discussions and disagreements of defined benefits versus defined contributions. A strong sentiment expressed throughout these discussions is that the plan needs to be both sustainable and affordable. Both of the new alternatives offered by the United Methodist Board of Pension and Health Benefits reduce the costs of the program by 15 percent, making them more affordable. Both plans are also more sustainable. Modified CRSP is more sustainable as it reduces the benefits paid in retirement. The third option, a defined contribution-only plan, is more sustainable as there will be no unfunded liability in future years.

As I participate in worship services, legislative committees and plenary sessions at General Conference, I will be thinking of that small-membership church of which my great-grandparents were a part. What effect would these votes have on their church? How would these decisions affect its ministry? I must also reflect upon the impact of these decisions on the clergy who faithfully serve the congregations of The United Methodist Church. Finally, the overriding principle of all of this is how these decisions would make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.

*Watts, a lay delegate from the Kentucky Annual (regional) Conference, is treasurer and director of administrative services for the conference. He lives in Lawrenceburg, Ky.


Like what you're reading? Support the ministry of UM News! Your support ensures the latest denominational news, dynamic stories and informative articles will continue to connect our global community. Make a tax-deductible donation at ResourceUMC.org/GiveUMCom.

Sign up for our newsletter!

UMNEWS-SUBSCRIPTION
General Church
The Rev. Dr. Jean Claude Masuka Maleka. Photo by Mike DuBose, UM News.

Is church separation a good or bad idea?

Separation in the church could affect Africa more than any other continent, and United Methodists must work to keep the unity of the Body of Christ.
Bishops
The Holston Conference’s Bishop Mary Virginia Taylor embraces the Rev. David Graves following his election as United Methodist bishop at the Southeastern Jurisdictional Conference in 2016. On April 30, the Council of Bishops affirmed its decision to delay electing any new leaders until after the postponed General Conference. File photo by Annette Spence, Holston Conference.

Bishops’ election plans draw mixed reaction

Many General Conference delegates praised the bishops for retracting an earlier recommendation of four-year hold on United Methodist elections. But some still have misgivings about a delay until 2022.
General Church
The three European central conferences of The United Methodist Church covering 32 countries and 10 time zones are making plans for a proposed denomination-wide split. Four bishops (clockwise from top left), Edward Khegay, Christian Alsted, Harald Rückert and Patrick Streiff, have drafted next steps should a separation plan win General Conference approval. Image courtesy of the bishops.

Europeans make plans for separation

Under a proposed separation plan, some European churchgoers expect to remain with The United Methodist Church while others join a new traditionalist denomination.