I am curious about the manual and the manual faq.

[Dan Ross]

1. Under what authority do so many Nazarene churches have a "Chairperson" of the board in light of the following information published by the Church of the Nazarene?:

"6. May a person, other than the pastor, be named as chairperson of the local church board? (paragraphs 128, 414.15)

No. The church board may designate an individual as a “presider” of the board meetings to conduct the business, but the Manual states that the pastor is the “chairperson of the local church board.” "

http://www.nazarene.org/ministries/g...Q/display.aspx

[Hans Deventer]

Dan, the Manual and the DS & DAB are the authority:

113.12. [...]Alternative board and committee
structure may be used by a local church in organizing itself
for ministry and missional action, provided such alternatives
are approved in writing by the district superintendent
and the District Advisory Board, and such structure complies
with civil requirements.

This article allows for pretty much any change you can conceive of in organisational structure, if only you have the written approval of the DS and the DAB and if it aligns with civil requirements.

In my view, it's a good step in moving away from a "one man show" and in the direction of a lay driven, clergy coached church.

[Scott Sherwood]

Hans, I am intrigued by your last phrase, "lay driven, clergy coached church." Have you already written more on this topic? I would love to hear more.

I think our General Assembly was designed to strike a balance between clergy and lay influence. I have found at the local church level that vision works much better when we discover together what God is telling us rather than when one person tries to sell the rest on his or her vision. Further, I think lay theology tends to be at least as reliable as the theology of academically trained clergy.

I have a hard time though envisioning a team not being driven by its coach.

[Hans Deventer]

Hans, I am intrigued by your last phrase, "lay driven, clergy coached church." Have you already written more on this topic? I would love to hear more.

I think our General Assembly was designed to strike a balance between clergy and lay influence. I have found at the local church level that vision works much better when we discover together what God is telling us rather than when one person tries to sell the rest on his or her vision. Further, I think lay theology tends to be at least as reliable as the theology of academically trained clergy.

I have a hard time though envisioning a team not being driven by its coach.

Scott, it reminds me of a story I once heard. There was this pastor who disappeared from his office every day around 9:30. Eventually, people found him. It appeared he was sitting on a hill, overlooking the town. When asked what he was doing there, he said: "Well, every day at 9:42 the freight train passes through this town. I love to watch it. Not so much because I love trains, but because it's the one thing that moves in this town without me pushing it".

Thankfully, I see this changing in my local church. Our current pastor considers himself to be more the pastor in line with Ephesians 4:

11 So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12 to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

So he delegates a lot, but tries to teach and lead by example where ever he can. For instance, he didn't do a thing about the organisation of the 6 services in the Holy Week. He had asked me to get a group of preachers together, come up with the theme etc. And so it went. Of course he's there whenever needed! Also, in his preaching, he is purposely trying to teach the church to be the church.

Another example: the other day we had a wedding in our church. I preached, others lead the singing, still others took care of the sound, the welcoming of guests, and even the meal before the service. Everything went well, and our pastor wasn't even involved.

Anyway, this works. Church board and pastor are very happy with the current situation, and I think our local church in general is.

That's basically what I meant with "lay driven, clergy coached".

Of course we're not perfect and have a lot to learn yet, but I like the direction.

[Dan Ross]

Hans, is it not true that any change in the structure of the board MUST be approved by a vote of the congregation? If so, would there not have to be a vote of the congregation allowing a "chairperson" AND the District Advisory Board AND the written approval of the D.S.?

If these rules are not followed, what is the remedy if a church board simply names a "chairperson"?

[Kevin Rector]

Hans, is it not true that any change in the structure of the board MUST be approved by a vote of the congregation? If so, would there not have to be a vote of the congregation allowing a "chairperson" AND the District Advisory Board AND the written approval of the D.S.?

If these rules are not followed, what is the remedy if a church board simply names a "chairperson"?

I can't think of any requirement in the manual off the top of my head that a church vote be held for a person other than the pastor to be the chair of the board. Once the board has been duly elected by the church, it is the board's responsibility to organize itself.

[Wilson Deaton]

My church went through procedure for an "alternative" structure with the Board (not congregation) making the request to DS and DAB.

(Our alternate structure did not include an different chairperson. It included some other issues.)

Wilson

[Dan Ross]

Nobody has mentioned the FAQ. Who writes the opinions in the FAQ and do they carry any weight at all or are they just for those churches where everbody is nice?

[Kevin Rector]

Well, I suppose the FAQ is written by the General Secretary's office. However, it appears that they did not take paragraph 113.12 into account, or maybe 113.12 doesn't apply to the chairing of the board. I suppose you could email the GenSec's office and ask.

[Dan Ross]

Then there's always this question that every church has to face over and over again:

Under what authority may a congregation be required to vote "Yes" or "No" on the full board being reelected as a body in light of the following information published by the Church of the Nazarene?:

HELPING PASTORS WITH THEIR ANNUAL CHURCH MEETING February 2010 (from the General Secretary)

"Church members may not be instructed to vote “yes” or “no” for reelection of the entire church board on a list as one complete group. The church members must have the option of voting “yes” or “no” for each person nominated for a board member position."



http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...www.google.com

[Shea Zellweger]

Then there's always this question that every church has to face over and over again:

Under what authority may a congregation be required to vote "Yes" or "No" on the full board being reelected as a body in light of the following information published by the Church of the Nazarene?:

HELPING PASTORS WITH THEIR ANNUAL CHURCH MEETING February 2010 (from the General Secretary)

"Church members may not be instructed to vote “yes” or “no” for reelection of the entire church board on a list as one complete group. The church members must have the option of voting “yes” or “no” for each person nominated for a board member position."



http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...www.google.com

I've only seen this come up once, and I spoke with the pastor about the validity of the ballot, then voted "no" because it wasn't a proper ballot... I was the only "no" vote.

[Jim Chabot]

Then there's always this question that every church has to face over and over again:

Under what authority may a congregation be required to vote "Yes" or "No" on the full board being reelected as a body in light of the following information published by the Church of the Nazarene?:

HELPING PASTORS WITH THEIR ANNUAL CHURCH MEETING February 2010 (from the General Secretary)

"Church members may not be instructed to vote “yes” or “no” for reelection of the entire church board on a list as one complete group. The church members must have the option of voting “yes” or “no” for each person nominated for a board member position."



http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...www.google.com

This happened last year at our church. A diligent reader of the manual sent an email to the DS and we had a revote the following week with individual names. The result was the same.

[Bill Morrison]

I've only seen this come up once, and I spoke with the pastor about the validity of the ballot, then voted "no" because it wasn't a proper ballot... I was the only "no" vote.

Sometimes it is tough (and LONELY) to take a stand for truth, justice, and the American Way!
We used to have faculty meetings (at a college I will not name) where most votes were simply: "How many say Yes"? Finally one day an esteemed (and crusty) old colleague objected to this practice and asked why a "No" vote was never asked for.
The response was similar to what you experienced, but I feel an important point was made.

BILL

[Ryan Scott]

Well, I suppose the FAQ is written by the General Secretary's office. However, it appears that they did not take paragraph 113.12 into account, or maybe 113.12 doesn't apply to the chairing of the board. I suppose you could email the GenSec's office and ask.

For what it's worth, the Manual does give power to the Board of General Superintendents for interpretation of the Manual. I do believe there is a compilation of interpretations that are considered binding for various circumstances. I'm not sure how one would know what they are until questioned, however.

If the District Advisory Board has not properly approved a local board structure change, I suspect it only has implications if someone challenges a board action. If no one objects, I'm sure they can run themselves as they please - it just might not hold up in court.

[Mike Schutz]

For what it's worth, the Manual does give power to the Board of General Superintendents for interpretation of the Manual. I do believe there is a compilation of interpretations that are considered binding for various circumstances. I'm not sure how one would know what they are until questioned, however.

Ah yes, you speak of secret things, known by many names and by none. Some call it "deep magic," referenced by Aslan in the Chronicles of Narnia. Others speak of it only in hushed tones, while some deny its very existence. Yet, it is said that, deep in the mysteries of the initiation rite of district superintendents, after they have swallowed an entire tin of Altoids and eaten a large plate of burnt ends at Arthur Bryant's, they are given a book. It is a mysterious book, with a strange code understood by a few. They say it is called the District Superintendent's Sourcebook. However, this may be the stuff of legends, as no one who has ever seen the book will speak of it.

[Craig Laughlin]

My church went through procedure for an "alternative" structure with the Board (not congregation) making the request to DS and DAB.

(Our alternate structure did not include an different chairperson. It included some other issues.)

Wilson

We too went through a very large change in structure to a Elder/Deacon format. While we shared it with the congregation it only required the afore mentioned written permissions not a vote of the congregation. I therefore suspect that a church could make the change to an alternate chair simply with the written approval of DAB and DS.

I am curious Dan. Your church is in transition and without a regular Sr. Pastor. Normally that would make the secretary of the board the functional chair with the DS retaining final authority. However, since you have an interim that may all be different. (Or maybe the interim is about the leave? - sorry can't remember)

I know at Marysville the interim was expected to give leadership to the board. I believe he chaired the meetings but I'm not sure what the manual status of an interim is as it relates to the board chairmanship.

Interesting questions.

[Dan Ross]

Our interim pastor flies in on Sunday morning from Narnia, preaches a sermon, gets on the next flight home and repeats this every week. I don't think he's in communication with anybody about anything. Oh ... unless we have a guest speaker.

The last time we had an interim pastor he was given the senior pastor's office and visiting hours were published.

I'm so far out of the loop, I can't even find the loop. Somewhere along the line a mysterious "Management Team" appeared via a note on the offering basket at the Wednesday night dinners. It said something akin to "We want $5" signed by "The Management Team". One of the cooks saw it and said, "What's this?" After a brief description, the cook (I'm not saying which one it was) took the sign off the basket, tore it up and tossed it in the trash. Ya see, we're on hard times. Some of our poorer members are "paying the way" for even poorer members. If a poor member is paying for supper for a family of 3 or 4 even poorer members, it's a hassle. Other members throw in $20. It's sort of a mutual understanding. Our board and whoever "The Management Team" is, don't really mix much with the congregation. When they show up on Wednesday nights, they tend to sit together at the same table. They've developed a sort of "group think" that isn't shared much with the rest of the congregation. A significant number of our board members have never been to a Wednesday night meal with the small part of the congregation that have attended that gathering.

[Hans Deventer]

Hans, is it not true that any change in the structure of the board MUST be approved by a vote of the congregation? If so, would there not have to be a vote of the congregation allowing a "chairperson" AND the District Advisory Board AND the written approval of the D.S.?

If these rules are not followed, what is the remedy if a church board simply names a "chairperson"?

Dan, through my years in the church I've learned at least one thing: when people start asking about rules, the rules are not the issue. I'd try to dig deeper.
(And I get my fair share of questions, since I'm the translator of the Manual, both pastors and laity often address me when they do have a question)

It generally means people don't agree with what is happening in church. And the rules are rarely the best way to solve a conflict.

[Craig Laughlin]

Our interim pastor flies in on Sunday morning from Narnia, preaches a sermon, gets on the next flight home and repeats this every week. I don't think he's in communication with anybody about anything. Oh ... unless we have a guest speaker.

The last time we had an interim pastor he was given the senior pastor's office and visiting hours were published.

I'm so far out of the loop, I can't even find the loop. Somewhere along the line a mysterious "Management Team" appeared via a note on the offering basket at the Wednesday night dinners. It said something akin to "We want $5" signed by "The Management Team". One of the cooks saw it and said, "What's this?" After a brief description, the cook (I'm not saying which one it was) took the sign off the basket, tore it up and tossed it in the trash. Ya see, we're on hard times. Some of our poorer members are "paying the way" for even poorer members. If a poor member is paying for supper for a family of 3 or 4 even poorer members, it's a hassle. Other members throw in $20. It's sort of a mutual understanding. Our board and whoever "The Management Team" is, don't really mix much with the congregation. When they show up on Wednesday nights, they tend to sit together at the same table. They've developed a sort of "group think" that isn't shared much with the rest of the congregation. A significant number of our board members have never been to a Wednesday night meal with the small part of the congregation that have attended that gathering.

I continue to pray for Aurora that God will bring you together with the right pastor. I suspect or new DS has a pretty full plate but I would guess that a new pastor for Aurora would be high on the list of things to do. On a personal note I am looking forward to you guys getting a pastor. Aurora is the only church in the same size category as Marysville up here on the North end and I would really like to have someone to bounce ideas around with. We really are praying for you all.

Grace and Peace Brother,

[Dan Ross]

Okay, I've delted a long message. Thanks for your input.

[Dan Ross]

I appreciate all of the input. These questions are not inconsequential. Here's another one. I'm looking for "authority". Is there anything in the manual, Robert's Rules of Order or Washington State Law that permits or prohibits the splitting of the membership rolls into two lists of eligible voters. For argument's sake, List A and List B. As the member gives his name and his name is found on either List A or List B, he/she is given a ballot and his/her name is checked off of the list. Each name on each list has a number next to it. Everybody on list A is given a ballot. Before handing the ballot to the member on zlist A, the num ber next to his/her name is written on the ballot. Hence, the people on list A receive a marked ballot so the tellers can know how each person on List A votes. The proposal fails.

At a public meeting, members of the board rise in front of the congregation and read scripture verses that indicate the congregation must follow their leaders. The pastor then rises in front of the congregation and reports on people who have disagreed with the pastor, the board and who voted no on the propsal that was defeated and says they are sinners. The chairman of the board rises before the congregation and says he will have another vote on the issue in the fall.

Then, everybody on List A who voted "No" received a letter from the board saying that their names had been dropped from the rolls of the church for non attendance. Some of these people were told over the phone by the pastor that their vote was not counted. Even so, the proposition failed.

Later, the vote was taken again after members, some of them who had been faithful tithers and workers in the church for 30 years, were thrown out of the church by the board, a majority of whom have only attended for three years and this time, the proposition passed.

The proposition involved the sale of approximately 2.6 million dollars of real estate. Coincidentally, the pastor who started these events is now at another church and, wonder of wonders, they are now selling some of their assets.

Is there any "authority" that controls in this situation? Was anything done that could/should be reversed?

[Shea Zellweger]

I appreciate all of the input. These questions are not inconsequential. Here's another one. I'm looking for "authority". Is there anything in the manual, Robert's Rules of Order or Washington State Law that permits or prohibits the splitting of the membership rolls into two lists of eligible voters. For argument's sake, List A and List B. As the member gives his name and his name is found on either List A or List B, he/she is given a ballot and his/her name is checked off of the list. Each name on each list has a number next to it. Everybody on list A is given a ballot. Before handing the ballot to the member on zlist A, the num ber next to his/her name is written on the ballot. Hence, the people on list A receive a marked ballot so the tellers can know how each person on List A votes. The proposal fails.

At a public meeting, members of the board rise in front of the congregation and read scripture verses that indicate the congregation must follow their leaders. The pastor then rises in front of the congregation and reports on people who have disagreed with the pastor, the board and who voted no on the propsal that was defeated and says they are sinners. The chairman of the board rises before the congregation and says he will have another vote on the issue in the fall.

Then, everybody on List A who voted "No" received a letter from the board saying that their names had been dropped from the rolls of the church for non attendance. Some of these people were told over the phone by the pastor that their vote was not counted. Even so, the proposition failed.

Later, the vote was taken again after members, some of them who had been faithful tithers and workers in the church for 30 years, were thrown out of the church by the board, a majority of whom have only attended for three years and this time, the proposition passed.

The proposition involved the sale of approximately 2.6 million dollars of real estate. Coincidentally, the pastor who started these events is now at another church and, wonder of wonders, they are now selling some of their assets.

Is there any "authority" that controls in this situation? Was anything done that could/should be reversed?

All of that sounds entirely illegal, but I've not read the DS's "sourcebook."
The one exception could be if one of the lists was for people who had been declared "inactive," but their attendance at the meeting technically removes them from the inactive list...

[Jon Twitchell]

... but their attendance at the meeting technically removes them from the inactive list...

Not quite.

P. 109.4: Inactive members shall not be eligible to vote in annual or special church meetings or hold office.

P. 109.5: An inactive member may request in writing that the church board return his or her name to the active membership roll of the church. Such request must include a reaffirmation of the vows of membership and renewed participation in the worship activities of the local church. The church board shall respond to the request within 60 days. Full membership may be restored to such a person by recommendation of the Evangelism and Church Membership Committee and action of the church board.

Simply showing up on Annual Meeting does not remove them from the inactive list.

[Jon Twitchell]

I appreciate all of the input. These questions are not inconsequential. Here's another one. I'm looking for "authority". Is there anything in the manual, Robert's Rules of Order or Washington State Law that permits or prohibits the splitting of the membership rolls into two lists of eligible voters. For argument's sake, List A and List B. As the member gives his name and his name is found on either List A or List B, he/she is given a ballot and his/her name is checked off of the list. Each name on each list has a number next to it. Everybody on list A is given a ballot. Before handing the ballot to the member on zlist A, the num ber next to his/her name is written on the ballot. Hence, the people on list A receive a marked ballot so the tellers can know how each person on List A votes. The proposal fails.

At a public meeting, members of the board rise in front of the congregation and read scripture verses that indicate the congregation must follow their leaders. The pastor then rises in front of the congregation and reports on people who have disagreed with the pastor, the board and who voted no on the propsal that was defeated and says they are sinners. The chairman of the board rises before the congregation and says he will have another vote on the issue in the fall.

Then, everybody on List A who voted "No" received a letter from the board saying that their names had been dropped from the rolls of the church for non attendance. Some of these people were told over the phone by the pastor that their vote was not counted. Even so, the proposition failed.

Later, the vote was taken again after members, some of them who had been faithful tithers and workers in the church for 30 years, were thrown out of the church by the board, a majority of whom have only attended for three years and this time, the proposition passed.

The proposition involved the sale of approximately 2.6 million dollars of real estate. Coincidentally, the pastor who started these events is now at another church and, wonder of wonders, they are now selling some of their assets.

Is there any "authority" that controls in this situation? Was anything done that could/should be reversed?

Armchair quarterbacking a situation (that occurred in the past) that I'm not familiar with is a dangerous thing. And I'm not sure that I'm entirely comfortable that we're even having the discussion on a public forum.

However, from a purely hypothetical standpoint, I'm quite certain that the point of a ballot vote is to assure anonymity.

Ultimately, I think that you should probably be having this conversation with your DS.

[David Troxler]

I appreciate all of the input. These questions are not inconsequential. Here's another one. I'm looking for "authority". Is there anything in the manual, Robert's Rules of Order or Washington State Law that permits or prohibits the splitting of the membership rolls into two lists of eligible voters. For argument's sake, List A and List B. As the member gives his name and his name is found on either List A or List B, he/she is given a ballot and his/her name is checked off of the list. Each name on each list has a number next to it. Everybody on list A is given a ballot. Before handing the ballot to the member on zlist A, the num ber next to his/her name is written on the ballot. Hence, the people on list A receive a marked ballot so the tellers can know how each person on List A votes. The proposal fails.

At a public meeting, members of the board rise in front of the congregation and read scripture verses that indicate the congregation must follow their leaders. The pastor then rises in front of the congregation and reports on people who have disagreed with the pastor, the board and who voted no on the propsal that was defeated and says they are sinners. The chairman of the board rises before the congregation and says he will have another vote on the issue in the fall.

Then, everybody on List A who voted "No" received a letter from the board saying that their names had been dropped from the rolls of the church for non attendance. Some of these people were told over the phone by the pastor that their vote was not counted. Even so, the proposition failed.

Later, the vote was taken again after members, some of them who had been faithful tithers and workers in the church for 30 years, were thrown out of the church by the board, a majority of whom have only attended for three years and this time, the proposition passed.

The proposition involved the sale of approximately 2.6 million dollars of real estate. Coincidentally, the pastor who started these events is now at another church and, wonder of wonders, they are now selling some of their assets.

Is there any "authority" that controls in this situation? Was anything done that could/should be reversed?

Obviously there are many details here. I won't try to speak to all of them. However, before a congregation can sell off property or liquidate capital assets, not only must there be a congregational vote, it must pass the vote of the District Church Properties Board or the District Advisory Board on districts that do not have a Properties board. That you can find in the Manual.
[See Manual Paragraph 233 and following.]

[David Troxler]

Then there's always this question that every church has to face over and over again:

Under what authority may a congregation be required to vote "Yes" or "No" on the full board being reelected as a body in light of the following information published by the Church of the Nazarene?:

HELPING PASTORS WITH THEIR ANNUAL CHURCH MEETING February 2010 (from the General Secretary)

"Church members may not be instructed to vote “yes” or “no” for reelection of the entire church board on a list as one complete group. The church members must have the option of voting “yes” or “no” for each person nominated for a board member position."



http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...www.google.com

Dan-
I have done this once since I began pastoring over 25 years ago and only in the following situation:
We accepted the call to our current pastorate with just one month to go in the church year. Because of having worked closedly with the board prior to our move during the call process, I hoped to continue to work with the fine people of the board.

To do that, with the approval of the DS, I asked each board member if they would consider extending their term of board service for one year. If all would agree, then I would take that info to the Nominations Committee and then to the congregation.

The Nominations Committee thought it was a marvelous idea. The motion at the annual vote would be to vote Yes or No to extend the term of the current board for one year. If that failed in the congregational vote, the Nominations Committee did have a list of potential candidates ready to put forth.

However, in our case, it would have been ludicrous for the congregation to vote against this proposal. We had just arrived with a 100% congregational vote. To vote against the motion would have been a vote of no confidence in the work the board had just done for the year of pastoral vacancy. Not only that, the congregation saw the wisdom in wanting the new pastor the ability to work face to face with the board who for much of the year worked only by phone and email. It served to bind us together more clearly.

For a congregation to vote yes or no on an entire slate is inappropriate. Our vote was to extend the term of service but we did have a clearly thought out fall back plan and all of that was carried out only after the DS was consulted and agreed to the plan. Had the DS, the individual board members, or the Nominations Committee made up of key leaders both on and off the board disagreed at any point, we would have done it differently.

dave t

[Dan Ross]

Thanks all. Should this thread be deleted?

[David Troxler]

No need to delete the thread. It will cycle through to the bottom if it gets no more replies.

[Dan Ross]

I spoke to Dr Tim Stearman this morning after church and voting to retain the same board at Aurora was his idea. There is an exception in the 2009-2013 manual to the rule on voting yes or no to retain the same board. On ONE occasion, under strict rules, (that we didn't follow, but nobody's complaining), a church IN TRANSITION between pastors may vote yes or no to retain the whole board. Tim gave an explanation and it is obvious we had no other choice, a discussion of which is unnecessary here. The General Secretary should change those pages I linked to above to show the exceptions. Here is the manual paragraph about retaining the board as a whole:

127.1. When the annual meeting of a local church comes during a time of pastoral transition, the local nominating committee, chaired by the district superintendent, may, with the approval of the district superintendent, present the con- gregation with a resolution, no later than 30 days prior to the annual meeting, to retain the current church board for the upcoming church year. This resolution may be adopted by ma- jority favorable vote by ballot of the church members of voting age present and voting at a duly called special meeting of the church. Should the resolution fail to pass, the church board shall be elected by the annual meeting as usual.

The chairman of our church board, Tom Bourne, has a daughter, Kelsey, who is a student at NNU. She recently came home from NNU because of a medical situation. This past week, she was in emerency care because her condition worsened. Our most recent news is that she has improved somewhat.Tim Stearman was with the family at the hospital yesterday. Please join the Aurora family in prayer for Kelsey and her family. Thanks.

[Bradley Grinnen]

Ah yes, you speak of secret things, known by many names and by none. Some call it "deep magic," referenced by Aslan in the Chronicles of Narnia. Others speak of it only in hushed tones, while some deny its very existence. Yet, it is said that, deep in the mysteries of the initiation rite of district superintendents, after they have swallowed an entire tin of Altoids and eaten a large plate of burnt ends at Arthur Bryant's, they are given a book. It is a mysterious book, with a strange code understood by a few. They say it is called the District Superintendent's Sourcebook. However, this may be the stuff of legends, as no one who has ever seen the book will speak of it.

Mike, this may be the funniest thing i've ever read on NazNet.

[Mike Schutz]

Mike, this may be the funniest thing i've ever read on NazNet.

What do you mean I'm funny? Funny like a clown? Funny to amuse you? What do you mean, Brad?

[Gina Stevenson]

What do you mean I'm funny? Funny like a clown? Funny to amuse you? What do you mean, Brad?

Maybe you could make some extra $$$ on Saturday evening doing stand-up? Unless, of course, you also have a Saturday service.

[Mike Schutz]

Maybe you could make some extra $$$ on Saturday evening doing stand-up? Unless, of course, you also have a Saturday service.

Thanks, Gina. Unfortunately, the only person who laughs at my jokes during my sermon is my lovely wife Esther, and that's only because I mope if she doesn't.

(Wow, this thread was serious at one time. I think I am somewhat to blame. Sorry)

[Gina Stevenson]

Thanks, Gina. Unfortunately, the only person who laughs at my jokes during my sermon is my lovely wife Esther, and that's only because I mope if she doesn't.

Happens to the best of us.

(Wow, this thread was serious at one time. I think I am somewhat to blame. Sorry)

And I he'ped get it off-track. Sorry. But the next poster can quickly get it back on track with the manual question.