I ended my last post with Dave Harvey’s explanation of why plurality is a central feature for local church government within Sovereign Grace Ministries.
Harvey continues in this section with two more points. Quotes from Harvey’s polity statement are in bold italics.
Is a Plurality Possible for Church Planters?
And…
Does a Plurality Necessitate That Elders Be Paid Staff?
Addressing church planters, Harvey states:
Perceptive church planters can become confused, even discouraged, when trying to reconcile the New Testament pattern with the realities of limited personnel and finances in a new church.
Reconciling “realities” with the New Testament pattern is a challenge for all believers. My suggestion would be to ensure that your “realities” are reconciled with the NT pattern. I would expect this from a family of churches who include in their Statement of Faith: “All believers are exhorted to study the Scriptures and diligently apply them to their lives. The Scriptures are the authoritative and normative rule and guide of all Christian life, practice, and doctrine. They are totally sufficient and must not be added to, superseded, or changed by later tradition, extra-biblical revelation, or worldly wisdom.”
Is our polity not a part of our practice? Does our polity not inform our practice? Is our polity exempt from the prohibition against worldly wisdom informing our practice?
Apparently not in SGM’s polity.
Harvey goes on to encourage the church planter to form a “non-governmental” ”leadership team” which are “often disbanded upon the achievement of plurality with the addition of a second elder.”
He also states that within Sovereign Grace Ministries, “plurality in new or smaller churches is also served by more direct access to apostolic involvement.”
Perhaps now would be a good time to remind Harvey what he said on page 2 of this document:
“Thus we begin with an assertion that will ground and guide this entire document. Local-church leadership in the New Testament was a shared endeavor. Churches were formed and leaders were appointed to the offices of elder and deacon. These leaders for local-church ministry did not stand alone or independent, but were called and formed into teams of two or more. Thus, it is said that the New Testament leadership, particularly eldership, was not singular but plural”
Why can’t SGM follow the Biblical pattern of, “Churches were formed and leaders were appointed to the offices of elder and deacon”?
Well, Dave brings it all home for us in the next section:
Does a Plurality Necessitate That Elders Be Paid Staff?
I’ll summarize Dave’s response. YES. Of course, it takes him over 4 paragraphs to build his case, so I’ll let him speak.
While there is plenty of evidence that leaders are worthy of remuneration and that a compensated clergy was a New Testament reality (see Matt 10:10, Luke 10:7; 1 Cor 9:8-14, Gal 6:6, 1 Tim 5:17-18, cf. 1 Peter 5:2, Titus 1:7,11), there is no biblical mandate requiring elders to fill salaried positions. Indeed, there are some situations, such as church poverty or persecution, in which the financial support of full-time elders may become impractical or impossible. Such elders are servants of whom this world is not worthy, laboring diligently on earth for treasure laid up in heaven. However, neither the deep respect we hold for these men, nor the polity flexibility that Scripture allows, should minimize the strategic benefits of a full-time eldership.
I personally don’t see “the polity flexibility that Scripture allows” in regards to plurality of elders, and the statement above- “Churches were formed and leaders were appointed to the offices of elder and deacon. These leaders for local-church ministry did not stand alone or independent, but were called and formed into teams of two or more. Thus, it is said that the New Testament leadership, particularly eldership, was not singular but plural” – does not seem to recognize any flexibility in this area.
Is anyone else confused? What is required is that we forget what we read 3 pages before each portion in Harvey’s document to understand the point he’s now making. In this case, elders must be paid staff.
Dave’s not asking us to take his word on that. He’s provided “plenty of evidence that leaders are worthy of remuneration and that a compensated clergy was a New Testament reality (see Matt 10:10, Luke 10:7; 1 Cor 9:8-14, Gal 6:6, 1 Tim 5:17-18, cf. 1 Peter 5:2, Titus 1:7,11)
Let’s examine that evidence in context.
5 These twelve Jesus sent out, instructing them, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans, 6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And proclaim as you go, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons. You received without paying; give without pay. 9 Acquire no gold nor silver nor copper for your belts, 10 no bag for your journey, nor two tunics nor sandals nor a staff, for the laborer deserves his food. 11 And whatever town or village you enter, find out who is worthy in it and stay there until you depart. 12 As you enter the house, greet it. 13 And if the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it, but if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. 14 And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet when you leave that house or town. 15 Truly, I say to you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town.
10:1 After this the Lord appointed seventy-two [1] others and sent them on ahead of him, two by two, into every town and place where he himself was about to go. 2 And he said to them, “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few. Therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest. 3 Go your way; behold, I am sending you out as lambs in the midst of wolves. 4 Carry no moneybag, no knapsack, no sandals, and greet no one on the road. 5 Whatever house you enter, first say, ‘Peace be to this house!’ 6 And if a son of peace is there, your peace will rest upon him. But if not, it will return to you. 7 And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages. Do not go from house to house. 8 Whenever you enter a town and they receive you, eat what is set before you. 9 Heal the sick in it and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you.’ 10 But whenever you enter a town and they do not receive you, go into its streets and say, 11 ‘Even the dust of your town that clings to our feet we wipe off against you. Nevertheless know this, that the kingdom of God has come near.’ 12 I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town.
In Matthew, Jesus sends out the 12, and in Luke, He sends out the 72. I see the Lord’s instruction as a promise of His provision, but Dave’s a D.Min., so maybe I should accept his interpretation.
9:1 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my workmanship in the Lord? 2 If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you, for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. 3 This is my defense to those who would examine me. 4 Do we not have the right to eat and drink? 5 Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, [1] as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? 6 Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living? 7 Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard without eating any of its fruit? Or who tends a flock without getting some of the milk? 8 Do I say these things on human authority? Does not the Law say the same? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned? 10 Does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop. 11 If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you? 12 If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we even more? Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ. 13 Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings? 14 In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel. 15 But I have made no use of any of these rights, nor am I writing these things to secure any such provision. For I would rather die than have anyone deprive me of my ground for boasting. 16 For if I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting. For necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! 17 For if I do this of my own will, I have a reward, but if not of my own will, I am still entrusted with a stewardship. 18 What then is my reward? That in my preaching I may present the gospel free of charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel. 19 For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. 21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. 23 I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings. 24 Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. 25 Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. 26 So I do not run aimlessly; I do not box as one beating the air. 27 But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.
The context here is clearly the rights of an Apostle, not of an elder. How do we limit or determine who “those who proclaim the Gospel” are? Was Paul speaking of elders? I know many believers who proclaim the Gospel more frequently (and with greater results) than many full time pastors. Should they be on the payroll? My point is this-are we free to yank this verse out of context and apply it to whoever we choose? Having said that, taken out of context, this is the strongest verse in the NT for professional clergy.
6:1 Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. 2 Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. 3 For if anyone thinks he is something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself. 4 But let each one test his own work, and then his reason to boast will be in himself alone and not in his neighbor. 5 For each will have to bear his own load. 6 One who is taught the word must share all good things with the one who teaches. 7 Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. 8 For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. 9 And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up. 10 So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.
Compensation for elders, or the household of faith bearing one another’s burdens? I see no mention of elders in the letter to the Galatians.
17 Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. 18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.” 19 Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 20 As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear. 21 In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without prejudging, doing nothing from partiality. 22 Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor take part in the sins of others; keep yourself pure. 23 (No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.) 24 The sins of some men are conspicuous, going before them to judgment, but the sins of others appear later. 25 So also good works are conspicuous, and even those that are not cannot remain hidden.
Double honor equals wages? Read the text: elders-double honor. Ox-grain. Laborer-wages. I would consider this passage to be the second most convincing for professional clergy, but I also consider it a stretch. If Paul was making a case for compensated elders, why didn’t he just say wages instead of honor? Or double honor and wages? I see this as saying, an elder is worthy of double honor in the same way that an ox is worthy of grain, in the same way that a laborer is worthy of wages. But I’m not a D.Min.
5:1 So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: 2 shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; 3 not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. 4 And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. 5 Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”
This is a verse in favor of remuneration?
5 This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— 6 if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. 7 For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, 8 but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. 9 He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. 10 For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party. 11 They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach.
Sorry, I missed the endorsement of remuneration here. Dr Harvey, a man of your stature, experience, and education should really be above proof-texting. When you resort to proof-texting, it calls the legitimacy of your argument into question.
After this overwhelming Scriptural evidence that a “compensated clergy was a New Testament reality”, Harvey gives us 2/3’s of a page of pragmatism that I won’t bother to address here.
Did Paul ever directly address elder compensation? Maybe. You decide.
In Acts 20, we see the first recorded pastor’s conference. Read what Paul had to say to the Ephesian elders. Emphasis is mine.
17 Now from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called the elders of the church to come to him. 18 And when they came to him, he said to them:“You yourselves know how I lived among you the whole time from the first day that I set foot in Asia, 19 serving the Lord with all humility and with tears and with trials that happened to me through the plots of the Jews; 20 how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you in public and from house to house, 21 testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. 22 And now, behold, I am going to Jerusalem, constrained by the Spirit, not knowing what will happen to me there, 23 except that the Holy Spirit testifies to me in every city that imprisonment and afflictions await me. 24 But I do not account my life of any value nor as precious to myself, if only I may finish my course and the ministry that I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God. 25 And now, behold, I know that none of you among whom I have gone about proclaiming the kingdom will see my face again. 26 Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all of you, 27 for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God. 28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. 29 I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. 31 Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish everyone with tears. 32 And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified. 33 I coveted no one’s silver or gold or apparel. 34 You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my necessities and to those who were with me. 35 In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’” 36 And when he had said these things, he knelt down and prayed with them all. 37 And there was much weeping on the part of all; they embraced Paul and kissed him, 38 being sorrowful most of all because of the word he had spoken, that they would not see his face again. And they accompanied him to the ship.
All I want to know is, what happened to Sola Scriptura?
Hey Jim,
It is interesting that we studied this very chapter in Acts this week in our home meeting of church folks. A home fellowship of whom were kicked out of a SGM church. A point that I made was “That it is sad that Paul set the example of how to be paid as a worker/leader of the church, and very few have followed his example”. What a novel idea, Paul worked and provided for those around him. I gave the example of the good old days of the Keith Green ministries. Keith set a great example for the music ministries, and very few, if any followed his example. The fact that SGM puts a noose around their necks of strongly desiring full time paid staff is also crippling.
Chief,
Long time no see-I’m glad you’re back! Isn’t it funny that when Paul said the often misused “It is more blessed to give than to receive”, he was speaking to elders?
BTW, you’re blessed to have a group that got the boot. It’s lonely out there.
Thank you for reading my over-long post!
Thanks for breaking this teaching by Dave Harvey down. Think how much good could be done in this world if the money that was going to “professional pastors” and big buildings was going instead to worthwhile Christian outreaches (ones the whole body had voted on). Amen!
Mac
Great post, Jim. The problem as I see it is that SGM vigilantly defends what Os Guiness has called “the Catholic Fallacy”: that is, the perpetuation of an artificial distinction and distance between the clergy and the laity. In their mindset, having only compensated elders makes perfect sense…after all, they’re PASTORS, for crying out loud. Their service to the body is so deserving of such rich compensation. You can serve the Kingdom until your brains out, but if you aren’t a PASTOR, then your service is of a lesser quality. The only way we know how to make it obvious to the world who the better servants are is to pay them, and handsomely at that.
I will never forget our last Christmas at an SGM church. One of the CGLs got up to present the church’s Christmas gift (for which he had been collecting money from all the members) to the sr. pastor…and said this (I really wish this wasn’t exactly how he worded it, but it was): “Now this verse (that he had just read) says to count them worthy of double honor. That means give them stuff.” He then presented some pretty state-of-the-art, several thousand dollar electronics crap to the oh-so-worthy elder. At the time, I couldn’t help but think of the poor pastors I had met on missions trips, for whom the purchase price of that crap would represent several years worth of salaries, and who were probably going to bed hungry that night. Thinking about this still makes me feel sick to my stomach.
I find it intersting that Dave essentially justifies “church planters” from a plurality of eldership standard.
How long is said Church planter to have a temporary team (of his choosing I would guess)?
Once the non-elder leadership team is dissolved-who picks the new team of (paid) elders?
And please remind SGM that the verse about double honor says it is for those who do the job well-it implies some sort of critical evaluation on the part of those enduring that elders teaching/preaching. Only those who do it well are worthy of double honor, not just those who happen to have a paid salary thru the church and the title of pastor.
I also find it interesting that the 2 main advocates and defenders of SGM’s theology of church planting have never church planted (CJ and Dave Harvey).
Now this gets me to thinking (that’s southern English, for all you northerners
). Is there any distinction within SGM or just in general between an elder and a pastor? Are those terms used interchangeably? Are they the same word in Greek? I need to look this up.
Gracie,
Pastor is used as a noun in the NT only once in Ephesians 4. It means shepherd. When SGM uses the word pastor and elder, they mean the same thing. I think that if the word pastor is going to be used, it would be correct to use pastor and elder synonymously.
The English words elder and overseer are used synonymously in Scripture.
You won’t find the title of Senior Pastor in Scripture, nor will you find an example of a senior pastor in Scripture. No where.
Now Jesus is our Chief Shepherd, which is the verbiage that most resembles senior pastor in Scripture.
Interesting that the church at large has chosen “pastor”, which comes from the Latin translation of the Greek word poimen, which means shepherd, used in Ephes 4.
I remember back when SGM/PDI had elders seperate from the pastors. Unpaid elders, whose job it was, in part, to give perspective and a correction to the pastors. Sort of a “safety valve”. Le sigh… the golden years….
Stunned,
I remember that, too. In Fairfax, before that church became part of PDI, we had two well-loved and well-respected Elders to support our Pastor. When Brent came in, the Elders were forced out. They eventually disappeared from the church, no explanations.
Yeah I remember them too. They were good guys. One of those men is still in contact with people from our church.
Mac
in all my years in various denominations of churches, I have never heard of paid elders before. My own Dad has been an elder in several churches and has managed huge projects, and well as the more common monthly “board” meetings, all completely as a volunteer. Is paid eldership common?
I think it’s been the norm for at least 20 years in SG.
At CLC there are 20 pastors plus the 3 SGM/PC guys (CJ, Jeff P, and Gary R). Would they say these men are the elders?
Then there are all the bjillion (ok, 100+) care group leaders and ministry team leaders. Would SGM include these men (yes, men only) among the elders? Is there ever a time when these men can speak into a pastor’s life or reason together about how to spend money or how to reach the lost or how to care for the widows and orphans in their midst?
So, in the ideal world, in the ideal church, in order to best fit the scriptural principles outlined above, who are the elders? are they selected or elected? male and female?
In our church, in the membership book, they define the elders as just the pastors.
My memory (from Dave Harvey’s perspective) was that Care Group leaders assisted in pastoral ministry, but were not elders/ pastors and only functioned under the direct supervision of an elder (full time pastor). Care group leaders were not considered elders, and I don’t think our church ever defined deacons, maybe CG leaders fell into that category, but I don’t remember.
acme and musicman,
SGM would define care group leaders as deacons. You won’t find this anywhere (to my knowledge) in any polity statements the group makes, but at least in FL the pastors will tell you this if asked directly. Why isn’t this communicated through mass media channels? My guess is that they are well aware of the fact, and are perhaps embarassed by it, that what they have CGLs do doesn’t even come close to resembling the role that the Bible describes for deacons. At least in my experience, the main function CGLs have is keeping tabs on everybody for the pastors…kinda like official spies…and enforcing and reinforcing pastoral decrees and messages. I think too that they purposely don’t publicly define them as deacons so as to give the casual observer the impression that CGLs comprise a board of elders, which they decidedly do not. They have no authority or ability to hold the pastors accountable in any way, and do not influence the direction or teaching of the church at all, with the possible exception of men who are being “tested” for pastoral ministry.
Ex-that might be specific to individual churches.
We were never defined as deacons in Titusville.
I knew a guy whose main issue before becoming a member was the lack of elders (we had a sr p and a very young intern at the time). He told me that his concerns were satisfied when he realized that the cgl’s were elders. I have no idea where he got this idea, because I don’t know of anyone who would communicate this to him. It was probably a case of your “casual observer” comment. I told him directly that we were not elders, but were “an extention of pastoral ministry” (from “why Small Groups”).
My experiance was different than yours, as our primary responsabilty was to provide care. “Tim can’t be everywhere at once, so I’m here on his behalf”. I understand how funny that sounds.
If our primary purpose was to be an “official spy” I was unaware of it. We could certainly be used for that purpose, as everyone knew that if he asked, the sr p would “be in the loop” on anything that was going on.
Most of us would send a summary of the cg meeting to the sr p, including any prayer requests or life issues that people had shared-sick relative, etc. I would include a “quote of the week” or something along those lines, if anyone shared anything paticularly insightful. This was to give the sr p a chance to commend the person if he wanted to.
There may be a standardized report form in place now, as I know that some sgm churches employ these, but we didn’t have one when I was a cgl.
This statement…
“They have no authority or ability to hold the pastors accountable in any way, and do not influence the direction or teaching of the church at all, with the possible exception of men who are being “tested” for pastoral ministry.”
…is 100% correct, and played a major part in my leaving the church. The concept of pastors only being accountable to other pastors who live an hour away is not only unbiblical, but laughable.
Jim,
that’s interesting…what biblical reason did they give for CGLs then, if not slapping the deacon title on? Because if they’re not elders, and they’re not deacons, are they *gasp*… an unbiblical office created solely from the imagination of the leadership team?! No, that can’t be…
In St. Pete they were definitely not an extension of pastoral care, but an extension of pastoral medling. Ok, before I get in trouble, lemme esplain’…by “medling” I mean that any and everything that I said which I thought was in confidence to a CGL was immediately reported upstairs. And frankly, where I was in my life at the time, there wasn’t anything I wouldn’t have told to “the guys”, and they would swear up and down this is to “care for people’s souls”. But if you have all sorts of private info on people in your church without the relationship to justify knowing it, that’s medling IMO. It’s one thing if I’m commiting an unrepentant sin that needs to be brought before the church, but it’s quite another if I’m being spied upon.
The amount of “care” I received from the care group leaders during my entire tenure at SGM was minimal at best. Most of them in St. Pete couldn’t care their way out of a paper bag. Actually, the most care I ever received from a CGL wasn’t even from my a guy in my church…there’s a guy named Jose in Miami (I’m sure you know him, Jim) who actually cares for people and actually holds his pastors accountable from what I see. And getting to know you Jim, I’m sure you were that way too…but guys like you were extremely rare in my SGM experience.
Well, I should pay attention here in class….I’m in contracts, and I love 4 out of my 5 classes, but contracts is painful.
Ex-I never asked about deacons. I asked way too many questions as it was.
I don’t know if I was a good cgl. I worked really hard and I tried (as did Carole), but it’s hard to evaluate at this point.
Now that we’re gone and have this blog (although the blog may not have anything to do with it), the general consensus is that I was always a jerk.
But weren’t we all “always a jerk”
… and I am a “jerk-ette”
Carole and Jim, you have me laughing here. I need to know, have people come “out” since you left to tell you that you really were sort of jerks (or some other more gentle euphenism?)? Or are you joking? Or just sort of speculating? Frankly, I can see that if you really did use the “you vote with your feet” line, I can see that maybe it was true. But you both seem so nice now.
Stunned, who prefers to think of herself as a wanker-ette
In the last week, 2 people from our former church have told me (in so many words) that I was a jerk. 1 said that they always had that opinion, the second said that it was formed when we left, having nothing to do with the blog.
“Voting with your feet” would be used in response to a question during a journey class about congregational participation in decision making. I would make the statement in a joking manner, but felt that I was serving prospective members by telling them the truth.
You telling me I’ve always been a jerk?
I used a stronger word than “jerk” in my comment above. It was repeated by ex and by Carole. I realized this morning that the word I used had an obscene history, and changed it to jerk.
Just in case anyone’s keeping score….
“In the last week, 2 people from our former church have told me (in so many words) that I was a jerk. 1 said that they always had that opinion”
NOOOOOOOOO! Oh my gosh, how did you respond? Were they saying that because they thought you had changed or were they saying they still thought that. Ouch! I don’t know how I would handle it if they were being serious. Would I agree with them? Or just burst in to tears? (I’m guessing you didn’t do the latter.)
Now I am curious about the word that was used instead of jerk. I hadn’t been keeping score, but now I will. Two points for changing it. I expect a negative point for using “wanker”. It means the same thing as jerk but it just might shock someone as jerk is more common here in the states.
Stunned, who is now thinking of changing her moniker to wanker
Stunned…
Ummmm….I wouldn’t do that…..
:O
Wanted to let you know I got through Part 1 on Polity! I’ll keep plugging away.
Fly