On the sixth clergy ballot no clergy were elected.

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

1. Judy Benson
2. Frank Denny
3. Bill Junk
4. Donna Roberts
5. Bob Anthony
6. Harold Wright

On the fifth 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
8. Mouzon Biggs
9. Joseph Harris

On the fifth laity ballot no new laity were elected.

There were no clergy or laity elected in the 3rd ballot.

On the fourth clergy ballot no new clergy delegates were elected.

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

1. Judy Benson
2. Frank Denny
3. Bill Junk
4. Donna Roberts
5. Bob Anthony

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?