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.
Open Source Continuing Education
Another idea I have been working on as a way to encourage clergy to continue in education while also keeping costs down and using the collective expertise/wisdom of the clergy community of the Central Texas Conference.
You can read the beginning proposal of Open Source Class (a working name) here.
My friend Sarah commented that this idea might work (with modifications) for staff development not just at churches but in any organization.
You can read the beginning proposal of Open Source Class (a working name) here.
My friend Sarah commented that this idea might work (with modifications) for staff development not just at churches but in any organization.
Ministers are Metaphors
Ministers are metaphors.
This is why people will leave their home church and follow ministers who move to another church.
This is why when someone steals from a business it is tragic, but when a minister steal from the church it is tragic and horrendous.
This is why when someone is hospitalized the minister is given access to the patient even when others are restricted.
This is why people will leave their home church and follow ministers who move to another church.
Ministers are metaphors in our culture for something else. Ministers are metaphors for God.
This is not saying that ministers are God or even God like. Not at all. However, ministers and the world gets into trouble forgetting that ministers are metaphors.
Ministers who forget that we are metaphors will fall into the trap of believing that we are god. And when we feel like we have "god-like" power and authority we have the potential to do things that are very un-Godly.
When we forget that ministers are metaphors, we have a potential to allow the minister to act in ways that are not becoming of the office of minister.
The next time you see a minister, remember that ministers are metaphors of God. It is not the minister who should be followed but the God they point to.
Is your minister helping you to follow the metaphor they embody? Have you ever forgotten that a minister is a metaphor for God? Do you know of a minister who has forgotten that as well?
Be the change by Jason Valendy is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.