Thread by @JonathanLeeman

@M_Y_Emerson @JakeRainwater @w_strickland @SEBTS @9Marks 1) Whenever I write an article that I has the chance of being controversial, I ask several people to read it first: typically my boss (Dever), often several of my elders, often people who know the issue or will be affected by it. Same with tweets. Why would I NOT do that?!

@M_Y_Emerson @JakeRainwater @w_strickland @SEBTS @9Marks 2) I write everything thinking about the members of my church, particularly those on both sides of the relevant issue. I believe I'm fundamentally accountable to them, and nothing I say beyond them should hurt them.
3) By the same token, our elders have challenged people...

@M_Y_Emerson @JakeRainwater @w_strickland @SEBTS @9Marks for their tweets and Facebook posts. I cannot recall confronting someone over an article, but I would if there was need.
4) I don't PERSONALLY choose to correct / hold people accountable on social media. That's answering a fool in his folly b/c fools are the ones slandering..

@M_Y_Emerson @JakeRainwater @w_strickland @SEBTS @9Marks ...in that domain. I'm not saying there's never a place to do that. I genuinely don't think I have the wisdom to judge when it's the right time to do it. So many things can be misunderstood here. Remember: tweets come with NO context. No body language/tone. No qualifications.

@M_Y_Emerson @JakeRainwater @w_strickland @SEBTS @9Marks Ordinarily, correction is best done in person. Ordinarily, it requires the context of relationship. Or: it at least requires longer pieces of writings where you can explain, qualify, affirm, etc. Again I'm not saying I'm not grateful when people stand up to foolishness on Twitter

@M_Y_Emerson @JakeRainwater @w_strickland @SEBTS @9Marks But my own practice is to (i) strive to be at peace when being misrepresented; (ii) remind myself the Lord is judge, not Twitter; (iii) let foolishness incur its own judgment; (iv) speak what is true; (v) tie my accountability to my church (vi) encourage others to do likewise.