Church as Revelation

It is often misunderstood, even by Christians, that the Bible contains the words of God.  It does not.  The bible is however contains the word of God, but the bible doesn't contain the exact words of God.

When Christians talk about the word of god, let us also be clear that we at not talking about the words on the page in the bible.  The word of god is made known in the life of Jesus Christ. The bible is one way we access the word of god (AKA Jesus).  Therefore the bible contains the Word of God.  We can access the Word by way of the Bible.

Additionally, since the Word of god no longer is enfleshed among us in the form of Jesus, god called the church to be the body of Christ.  You and I are the body of Christ today.  Just like the bible is used to access the Word of god, so too the church is used to access the Word of god.

Do you see where this is going???

If Christ is the greatest revelation of god known to the world, and the church is now the body of Christ then the church is as revelatory of the nature of god as the bible.

The church is as revelatory as the bible because both give access to the Word of god.

This should scare you a little bit.

It is easy to only see the bible as the source of access to the Word because that keeps the Church off the hook.  When we take seriously the idea that Christ is made known in the church as Christ is also made known in the scriptures, then our behavior is changed.  We are transformed.

When we buy into the idea of Sola scriptura as access to god then we are saying that god is done working.  God is no longer active and moving today.

So while the church may fail at exposing the word of god at times, I wonder what it might look like if the church too seriously the idea that we are called to be the body of Christ.  Are we willing to be that revelatory?

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 picture :)

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.

tweeting pictures :)

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.

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.