Vice Presidential Candidates

Interesting pick today by John McCain. Interesting response by Obama and the media. So a quick recap:

Obama is the candidate for change. This is why it is OK for him to have so little Washington experience. America wants something new. I'm good with that - I want something new too. He picks Biden (actually my favorite of the early Democratic contenders) who was one of the youngest people to ever be elected to Congress but now is a career insider. He is in many ways the antithesis to Obama, but he definitely shores up Obama's foreign policy cred. He was probably picked for that very reason.

McCain is being portrayed by Obama as the status quo (I say portrayed because the "agree with Bush 95% of the time stat is a classic example of making statistics say what you want them to say). No question he's an insider. No question there's much less energy behind him. So he picks the ultimate outsider, Governor Palin from Alaska. There's probably some Americans who didn't even realize Alaska is a state! She shores up his conservative credentials and also potentially makes him look like more of a change candidate too. In her (very) brief time in office Palin has become legendary for bucking the party and instituting reform.

I find the early Obama response to Palin's nomination interesting. They say McCain can no longer argue that Obama lacks experience because he has put someone with less experience "one heartbeat away" from the Presidency. Two thoughts on how this argument may backfire:

1. On one hand, this may actually legitimize McCain's argument. If the experience issue wasn't an issue why is Obama glad it has now been refuted by McCain's choice? If it is an issue, it's still an issue McCain wins because he's the Presidential candidate, not Palin. If Obama's best argument is that he has more experience than McCain's VICE President then Obama is in trouble.

2. On the other hand, McCain could cede Obama's point. Palin's inexperience as VP nixes the argument of Obama's inexperience because the VP and President should be considered together. Then, using the same rationale, Obama's selection of Biden negates Obama as the candidate of change. Biden is not a change agent.

What's most interesting is that Obama's main selling point is change but the McCain-Palin ticket has more experience actually instituting change and working across party lines. In a different election year this would be their selling point. On the other hand, McCain's strong suit is stability and security. As a ticket, Obama-Biden is more stable and secure and has more foreign policy experience. The VP picks of both candidates may significantly alter the dynamics of the whole race.

None of this is an endorsement of either candidate, just observations from a political junkie

Contemporary Worship names

We're starting a new "contemporary" (whatever that means) worship service on Sunday evenings in a couple weeks. I have a couple pastor friends who have also started or soon will be starting simillar services. I'm excited about the possibilities, as this is something very new for Coffey County and certainly new for our church.

So I have a question: is it helpful for a new worship service and/or "praise band" to have a catchy name? I just figured we'd call our worship service "worship" and our band "the band" and figure people would pretty much know what they're getting into when they show up. Do you think having a catchy name legitimizes the worship/band as different or new and makes it more attractive to people? Or is there another reason for doing so that I'm missing?

I don't have much of an opnion on this, I'm just thinking about it...

A Multi-site Denomination

In my last entry I compared the trend towards multi-site churches to the forming of a denomination. The comparison could be made the other way, too, with what I think could be revolutionary results.

When I was a pastor in Kansas City, we were always very clear with each other that we were not in competition with each other for members. Under the surface, though, we always knew when a person moved on to another United Methodist church and were disappointed with that. There was, at least for me, a sense that we had to keep up with other churches or we would "lose" to them. In other words, without admitting it, we did feel in competition.

A few years later I helped start First UMC Lawrence's second site. We always enjoyed having a "guest" who normally worshipped downtown, but if that person went back downtown the next Sunday it was no big deal. We were still connected to them because we were one church. We truly were not in competition.

The difference between these two situations is obvious - in one case, we were functioned as one church in two places. In the other case we functioned as 20 churches in one metropolitan area. But what if a denomination (say, United Methodism, since that's what I am) understood itself as one church in multiple locations with one staff of multiple pastors and laity, one mega-megachurch with shared resources to reach the world for Christ? What would be different? In Kansas City, we could say it's OK for Church of the Resurrection to be a megachurch and for Leawood to be a program sized church and for DeSoto to be a pastoral sized church. We need different sizes to meet different needs. It's OK for one church to reach primarily to seniors and another primarily to postmoderns, for two or more churches to have a shared youth group or UMW, even sharing staff, because ultimately even if someone switches from worshipping in one location (i.e. church) to another location they are still part of the same Church.

This isn't really a new idea. this is the Body of Christ. This is, in UM lingo, the parish system that was popular several years ago. But perhaps the new multi-site movement will give us a new way of framing a conversation about what it really means to be United Methodist (or Lutheran, Baptist, or whatever you might be.)

The fall and rise of denominations

Outreach Magazine publishes an annual list of the largest and fastest growing churhes in the United States. It's no surprise to church watchers that the vast majority of the churches on this list are not affiliated with a denomination. It's probably also no surprise that many of the churches are multi-site churches (worshipping in more than one location). Eleven of the 100 largest churches are multi-site churches and an amazing 47 of the 100 fastest growing churches are multi-site. Seacoast has 10 sites and Lifechurch.TV has 11.

So it makes me wonder, what's the difference between a church with 10 or 11 worship sites and an early John Wesley travelling from place to place preaching? Is the "multi-site movement" with a handful of charismatic and inspiring preachers any different than the early Methodists (or many other denominations) that began as movements before turning into institutions? How interesting that while many non-denominational churches (and many within denominations) criticize denominations as institutional and having lost relevance multi-site churches are building quasi-denominations to take their place.

Perhaps a better example is the Willow Creek Association. The Willow Creek Association formed in 1992 "in response to a fresh movement of God’s Spirit in the work of the local church." Now there are more than 12,000 member churches. WCA is not a denomination, but they do have a statement of faith that member churches are required to agree with. Seems to me like the beginnings of a denomination...

I agree with many that we are in the midst of an important moment in church history. Many denominations will not exist 50 years from now. But it seems more likely to me that those denominations will be replaced by new denominations like WCA, Seacoast, and Lifechurch.tv than that denominations will go away entirely.

UM Homosexual Marriages in California

In the wake of the legalization of homosexual marriages in California, 2 United Methodist Annual Conferenes and the Western Jurisdiction have given varying degrees of support to those who want to wed and pastors who choose to perform or bless the weddings. Additionally, more than 80 United Methodist pastors and retired pastors have agreed to perform such ceremonies. Good News, a conservative group within the United Methodist Church, has published a statement expressing grave concern about this development. The UMC has consistently taken stands against same-gender marriage and a pastor who violates this stand risks forfeiture of ministerial credentials.

I'm not a huge Good News fan. Their "good news" doesn't always seem to be consistent with THE Good News. But I think in many ways they got this one right.

• The action of the conferences and individual pastors is, as Good News asserts, schismatic. It is in clear violation of well established UMC doctrine. This is not a judgement on whether church policy is correct, just a statement of fact. Deliberately acting in a way contrary to stated church policy is schismatic.
• Part of the job of Bishops is to represent the Church. As much as a bishop allows others to not follow church doctrine, that bishop fails to perform his or her responsiblity.

But I think a couple further points need to be made. First, Good News says actions like this will cause continued decline in the denomination. I'll blog about this specifically some other time, but for now let me just say that the decline in the UMC has much more to do with doing stuck in our traditional way of doing things than with decisions around homosexuality. Decline is occuring all over the country, not just in liberal areas, and growth in individual places is happening all over the country, not just in conservative areas.

Second, schism isn't always a bad thing. I don't think the supporters of change see schism as an objective. I think they see faithfulness to the heart of the Gospel as their objective. They are taking what they believe is a prophetic stance against institutional bias and injustice. The Church has taken positions on homosexuality based on theory, not based on people. A mass uprising against Church policy by real live people makes the impact of Church policy clear and real. That's a good thing.

So here's what I think should happen: Pastors, including retired pastors participating in a same-gender marriage should be brought up on charges and lose their credentials. Every pastor participating understands that current UMC policy calls for that action. Prophetic stands never come without sacrifice. This is true of every great movement in culture and faith. Perhaps taken such a stand and being willing to live with the consequences will move the conversation about sexuality in a different direction. Perhaps we'll find better ways of living with each other in community, or perhaps we'll realize that we can't live together in community any longer.