Ministry re-tweeting
There seems to be a couple to types of people I encounter on the internet - tweeters and re-tweeters.
Creators of content (tweeters) and replicators of content (re-tweeters).
Both serve a function and have a place. I will be honest however, I do not care to much about reading the re-tweeters re-tweets.
Re-tweeting is rather safe to do and involves little engagement with the re-tweet. Most of the time when I re-tweet I just post what I am re-tweeting without any context as to why I am doing so. "Hey! Here is a quote I found. Re-tweeted by a person."
Re-tweeting is not a bad thing at all. It however is not the same as tweeting.
When you tweet you create something new and put yourself out there. You have to give some context as to what you are doing or why you are tweeting it. You have to share something about yourself and be expose to criticism. When we only re-tweet we have the ability to hide behind it and no one is sure if we agree, disagree with the re-tweet. No one knows if a re-tweeted comment is meant to be a joke or serious.
Many of us clergy in my beloved denomination might be described as ministry re-tweeters. We say we want to do different ministry or creative or innovate ministry, but this is a code for something else. Most of the time clergy want an different/creative/innovative ministry that someone else has somewhere else but no one is doing it here. For instance, I ministry re-tweeted the Fort Worth Dish Out.
A ministry re-tweet is not bad, it just is much safer and puts the clergy at a safe distance from the failure or success of the ministry.
What the UMC is perhaps missing are clergy and laity who are ministry tweeters. The ones who are creating content/ministry. The ones being vulnerable, exposed and opening themselves up to failure and even, dare it be stated, shame. I am currently working on a couple of ministry tweets: Jubilee Bank (a micro-finance for the working poor in Fort Worth Texas using the connectionalism of the UMC) and Five Thousand Words (which first incomplete draft can be found here).
Others can account to the amount of ministry tweeting and re-tweeting I participate in, but the UMC might be a fruitful place if we were to find a balance between ministry tweeting and re-tweeting.
Creators of content (tweeters) and replicators of content (re-tweeters).
Both serve a function and have a place. I will be honest however, I do not care to much about reading the re-tweeters re-tweets.
 |
| Re-tweeting picture :) |
Re-tweeting is not a bad thing at all. It however is not the same as tweeting.
When you tweet you create something new and put yourself out there. You have to give some context as to what you are doing or why you are tweeting it. You have to share something about yourself and be expose to criticism. When we only re-tweet we have the ability to hide behind it and no one is sure if we agree, disagree with the re-tweet. No one knows if a re-tweeted comment is meant to be a joke or serious.
Many of us clergy in my beloved denomination might be described as ministry re-tweeters. We say we want to do different ministry or creative or innovate ministry, but this is a code for something else. Most of the time clergy want an different/creative/innovative ministry that someone else has somewhere else but no one is doing it here. For instance, I ministry re-tweeted the Fort Worth Dish Out.
A ministry re-tweet is not bad, it just is much safer and puts the clergy at a safe distance from the failure or success of the ministry.
 |
| tweeting pictures :) |
Others can account to the amount of ministry tweeting and re-tweeting I participate in, but the UMC might be a fruitful place if we were to find a balance between ministry tweeting and re-tweeting.
Can we talk about apportionments again...
Not long ago I mentioned a bit about apportionments in the UMC. You can read that original post here which talks about apportionments as an expression of dying of self.
Recently I was thinking about apportionment again and I wanted to share more.
Every charity has a grade that is given to them by different groups on the way they use their monies. The higher the grade the more of your money that goes directly to the mission of the non-profit. The best agencies rock at a 95% rate, good ones are able to give 90% directly to people. So if you know that ninty cents or more of each dollar that is given goes directly to aid, then you know you are making more bang for your buck.
This is where the UMC really can shine.
When you give to the agencies of the UMC, such as UMCOR, 100% of the money that is given goes directly to aid. Let me say that again, 100% of the money you give to UMCOR, goes to the people on the ground. The reason 100% of what is given to UMCOR goes to aid is even possible is because of apportionments.
The United Methodist Church funds all the overhead, all the administrative costs, all the paychecks of staff and all the sundry of costs. So, the giving of people in the pews allow the giving of others to make a larger difference. People of the UMC are funding non-profit's costs so that new people can know more of their money goes to direct aid.
So the people of the UMC give to the local church to amplify the giving of others. Additionally, when members of the UMC give their second mile giving or their offerings (that is anything beyond the tithe) then their gift also is amplified as the overhead is already take care of.
So the UMC gives not only for those who need aid, but we also give so that others giving can be more effective.
This is where the UMC really can shine.
When you give to the agencies of the UMC, such as UMCOR, 100% of the money that is given goes directly to aid. Let me say that again, 100% of the money you give to UMCOR, goes to the people on the ground. The reason 100% of what is given to UMCOR goes to aid is even possible is because of apportionments.
The United Methodist Church funds all the overhead, all the administrative costs, all the paychecks of staff and all the sundry of costs. So, the giving of people in the pews allow the giving of others to make a larger difference. People of the UMC are funding non-profit's costs so that new people can know more of their money goes to direct aid.
So the people of the UMC give to the local church to amplify the giving of others. Additionally, when members of the UMC give their second mile giving or their offerings (that is anything beyond the tithe) then their gift also is amplified as the overhead is already take care of.
So the UMC gives not only for those who need aid, but we also give so that others giving can be more effective.
Is the UMC heading the way of No Child Left Behind?
The Associated Press had this little article the other day which made me think of the UMC's latest push to move toward greater concern about 'metrics'.
Nation wide the UMC is requiring a number of different metrics to be counted and logged into a network online. Basic stuff really. The UMC is saying that it is important to assess where each church is and by counting these different metrics (people in worship, dollars given away, baptisms, etc.) we can begin to set goals for each local church. These goals will be able to help churches who might be "failing".
Ten years ago the USA adopted the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act which sounds rather similar to what the UMC currently saying. NCLB has been exposed for radically falling short of its intended goals (irony if I have ever heard of it). Students are falling behind in math and science and funding is being cut in all areas that are not test related. Teachers are expected to focus on the numbers of the test and students become stats on a spreadsheet.
If the UMC is really embracing the almighty metrics, then might we be wise enough to know that just because people are in worship they are not being spiritually formed. Just because the books might not show service hours does not mean people are not serving their neighbor. Even if people do not know the micro stories of the Bible does not mean the macro narrative is not guiding their lives.
If you are in the UMC I encourage you to read this short article and heed the warnings that we can learn from the failings of the NCLB act.
Nation wide the UMC is requiring a number of different metrics to be counted and logged into a network online. Basic stuff really. The UMC is saying that it is important to assess where each church is and by counting these different metrics (people in worship, dollars given away, baptisms, etc.) we can begin to set goals for each local church. These goals will be able to help churches who might be "failing".
Ten years ago the USA adopted the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act which sounds rather similar to what the UMC currently saying. NCLB has been exposed for radically falling short of its intended goals (irony if I have ever heard of it). Students are falling behind in math and science and funding is being cut in all areas that are not test related. Teachers are expected to focus on the numbers of the test and students become stats on a spreadsheet.
If the UMC is really embracing the almighty metrics, then might we be wise enough to know that just because people are in worship they are not being spiritually formed. Just because the books might not show service hours does not mean people are not serving their neighbor. Even if people do not know the micro stories of the Bible does not mean the macro narrative is not guiding their lives. If you are in the UMC I encourage you to read this short article and heed the warnings that we can learn from the failings of the NCLB act.
Be the change by Jason Valendy is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.