On the second clergy ballot the following were elected as clergy delegates to General Conference:

1. Robert Long
2. Guy Ames III
3. Brian T. Bakeman
4. Margaret Ball
5. Linda Harker
6. Frankye Johnson
7. Darrell Cates

On the second lay ballot the following were elected as lay delegates to General Conference:

1. Judy Benson
2. Frank Denny
3. Bill Junk

On the first clergy ballot the following was elected as a General Conference Delegate:

1. Robert Long

On the first laity ballot the following was elected as a General Conference Delegate:

1. Judy Benson

It is interesting being at Annual Conference and not being able to vote on General Conference delegates. This issue had not previously occurred to me, because I hadn’t thought about it. But now that I am here, it is a weird feeling. In case you don’t know what I am talking about, every four years annual conferences throughout Methodism elect lay and clergy delegates to represent their conference at General Conference, which is the official voice of the United Methodist Church. Lay members of Annual Conference vote for lay delegates. Clergy members of Annual Conference vote for clergy delegates. The catch is that probationary members and local pastors are not members of Annual Conference. Therefore, they have no voice in who represents the church and they also cannot be elected to go to General Conference.

Why can’t people who are pastoring churches vote on General Conference delegates? We are the only group of people who officially have no say in the future of the church, at least for the next 4 years. This year it has really felt like probationers and local pastors are second class citizens. It it hard for me to understand why retired ministers have more of a say in the future of the church than do the pastors who are struggling along the road to ordination and are literally the future of the church.

I would love to hear your thoughts about this or your explanation of why this is an important policy.

The latest sermon in the “Family Matters” sermon series is now online. You can find it by clicking on the deeply committed sermons link on the right side of this page, or you can click here to go directly to the podcast.

Also, a few folks have mentioned some problems with hearing the podcast. When you go to the podcast page, the latest sermon may automatically begin playing. If you are wanting to listen to an older sermon, click the pause button under the heading “revkevinwatson’s podcast.” Then scroll down and find the sermon you want to listen to, and click the green play button. A new window should open and begin playing the sermon. If you still have problems, please post a comment or email me.

As always, this sermon will soon be on the lamontumc.org page soon as well.

This past March I presented a paper at the 42nd meeting of the Wesleyan Theological Society. The title of the paper was “The Form and Power of Godliness: Wesleyan Communal Discipline as Voluntary Suffering.” This paper discusses the crucial role that small group accountability played in early Methodism. The paper argues that the contemporary United Methodist Church has almost entirely abandoned the discipline that the early Methodist believed was so important to the movement’s success. It further seeks to look at the implications this has for the revival of the UMC today. You can read the paper here. I have submitted the paper for publication in the Wesleyan Theological Journal.

Andrew Conard, an associate pastor at The United Methodist Church of the Resurrection, has written a review of the paper that he posted on his blog, Thoughts of Resurrection. You can read his post here and you can read the review here.

If you have the time to read the paper, I would love to hear your thoughts. Thanks to Andrew for taking the time to review it.

I honestly don’t know where this came from. But I was jogging today and I started thinking about the use of unity candles in weddings. In seminary I remember hearing an interesting argument related to unity candles that went like this:

If you are going to use a unity candle in your wedding, you at least shouldn’t blow out the two candles that are used to light the unity candle. The reason is because though two people are becoming one, they also remain two unique people. If you blow out both of the original candles that were used to light the unity candle, it is kind of bad symbolism that is sending a subtle message that the two people are losing their identities and becoming absorbed into each other.

I found this argument fairly convincing at the time. To my way of thinking it is kind of like the Trinity, God is 1, but God is also 3 unique persons.

But today, I thought, maybe there is another way to look at it. Maybe in a time where divorce is all too frequent, blowing out the two candles that light the unity candle can remind the church and those who are getting married of Genesis 2:24 (which Jesus quotes in both Matthew 19 and Mark 10) For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

In other words, maybe in blowing out those candles we are not saying, I renounce my individuality, but rather we are saying, I give up all that would threaten to separate what God has joined together. Maybe in our context, it is more important to emphasize the new “one” thing that has been created in a marriage, than it is to emphasize the fact that we are still individual people.

That is just what I was thinking about today as I was trying not to pass out while jogging. What do you think?

Today I am working on the fifth sermon in the sermon series I have been preaching, “Family Matters.” Sunday’s sermon will address what husbands need from their wives. I have read a lot of books and articles, but I thought it would be great to hear from some real live husbands. So, husbands, this is your chance to make sure that your voice is heard. What do you most need or want from your wife?

A recent post on Andrew Conard’s blog Thoughts of Resurrection discusses worship in the Wesleyan tradition. He asks some great questions. I would encourage you to visit his blog and be a part of this discussion by clicking here.

Here are my two cents:

I think Andrew is on to something when he mentions the means of grace as something that is distinct to the Wesleyan tradition. The main thing that I think comes from thinking about the means of grace as it relates to worship is the Eucharist. In other words, I think if John Wesley walked into your average UM church and sat through worship next Sunday, his first criticism would be, why didn’t you take Communion? (Most UM churches take Communion only on the first Sunday of the month, thought I am aware of their being exceptions to this.)

In his sermon “Upon our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount, Discourse the Sixth,” Wesley referred to Communion as the grand channel whereby the grace of his Spirit was conveyed to the souls of all the children of God (Bicentennial Ed. of the Works of John Wesley, vol. 1, 585). For Wesley, Communion, was the most obvious way that people could expect to receive God’s grace. Worship that is centered in the Wesleyan tradition, then, would take advantage of every possible opportunity to receive this means of grace.

I am aware that many churches have a sort of separate, optional Communion service. That is probably better than not offering Communion at all, but I still think that is missing the tenor of our tradition.

The second distinctive mark of Wesleyan worship that came to my mind is the love feast. This is a specific service of worship (a description of this service can be found in The United Methodist Book of Worship) that the early Methodists used on occasion to come together in fellowship and to give testimony to how God had been at work in their lives.

The third distinctive mark of Wesleyan worship that I thought of is accountability. This post will get way too long if I go into the Methodist structure (society, class, band) but Methodists were, well – methodical, about holding each other accountable for growing in their faith, for making progress along the way of salvation.

A final mark of Wesleyan worship is singing great hymns. Charles Wesley wrote literally thousands of hymns. His hymns used music that people of the time could relate to, they had profound, solid lyrics that told the story of the salvation that comes through a relationship with Christ. Wesleyan worship today will have hymns that are sung in a way that speaks to the people singing them, and they will have lyrics that make the gospel come to life in people’s souls.