What happened to Tommy’s tweets?

You may have noticed that Tommy abruptly gave up his Twitter treatment this week.

He’s not the only one. According to this article, cool cyberkids are giving up social networking because there are too many grownups using the sites. Then there’s the Marines, who have banned Twittering for at least the next 12 months, effective immediately.

Who knew that Tommy was a too-cool-for-you Marine?

UPDATE: Tommy can live without Twitter, but apparently Twitter can’t live without Tommy. Tommy says goodbye, and Twitter falls apart.

Coincidence?

I think not.

Tommy F leads worship

Tommy is thrilled to be in church.

All you ever needed to know about Twitter

Tommy just hit 500 followers.

Quotable TFred

This was too good to just let slide off the sidebar:

Communication without ingratiation equals frustration.

Definitely a Five StarBurst quote.

Unfair and Unbalanced

Look who just got a Twitter account.

Tommy reconstructs his censored comments

Tommy F emailed the following report on what happened at the Brad Cooper blog last week. From what I recall from reading the original discussion, his report here is substantively correct.

The gist of my various posts are below (3 were deleted from BCoop’s site). I have not made any attempt to make them either more polite or more pointed. This posting represents both the spirit and, to a large degree, the letter of what I wrote on BCoop’s site. In the originals, there were no offensive words, no expletives, and no personal attacks. In other words, there was no good reason to delete them. You’ll just have to take my word for it.

Apparently 15,000 people don’t care at all that their pastor and his leadership team have 0 seminary degrees among them. Or perhaps they just don’t know, which is why BCoop needed to delete my posts. This is conjecture, of course. But, if the information was incorrect, he could have simply corrected it. If it is true, but he didn’t want it to be publicized, well that takes a slightly different approach, doesn’t it? I call it the enema approach to blogging (H/T: Ace Noble).

On a less personal note: I find it disturbing that a youth minister’s blog feels it necessary to delete posts recommending theological education. Are they against education? Theology? Or just the combination of the two? Seriously.

I confess that I think highly of ministerial education. Is it perfect? No, but I think if all things are equal a seminary trained minister has a wider breadth of knowledge and has shown the proper dedication of basic preparation for his/her calling. I think it’s clear that Paul had a high view of training, the parchments (the scriptures), and clear teaching when he advised Timothy. For a few passages related to this, see: 1 Tim 1:6-7; 1 Tim 5:22; 1 Tim 6:20-21; 2 Tim 3:14-17; 2 Tim 4:1-4; 2 Tim 4:13.

On to the tantalizingly delete-worthy posts:

1) Theblakebutler wrote:

“@ Tommy F- I believe you need to make a distinction between apostles and disciples here if you are going to split hairs and cause dissension.”

My response:

I should begin by saying that I am not trying to cause dissension. As I see it this is a difference of opinion and perspective: I prefer my church leadership to have deep theological training, while others, apparently … not so much.

Blake asked whether I should make a distinction between apostles and disciples. This distinction is important and vital, and I’m glad he brought it up.

From the angle of apostles and disciples, the argument against going to seminary relies precisely on not making a proper distinction. As I understand it, the argument (at its simplest) runs as follows:

The 12 (apostles) never went to seminary, so why should I/we (21^st century disciples)?

There is a big difference between ministering with Jesus in the flesh for 3+ years, listening to him teach, watching him perform miracles, and observing how he dealt with people (both those sympathetic to Jesus’ ministry and those opposed), compared with the situation that Christians find themselves in today.

In fact, I would argue that it is impossible to parallel the experience of the 12 with any discipleship training that could be experienced today. The approach has to be different. Distincitons need to be made between 1^st century followers of Jesus and 21^st century ones.

I would argue further that the 12 experienced both ministerial on-the-job training while learning the requisite teaching required, and still they were stunned by the crucifixion, and were completely surprised that he rose on the third day. All of this, after following him for 3+ years.

Following the example of the 12 as a reason to avoid seminary is a fool’s errand. Too much time has passed, and Jesus is not walking the earth any longer.

On to the other substantive point made by theblakebutler:

“Tommy writes all of the time on other outlets about not preaching from the word, but I cannot find anywhere where getting a degree certifies and qualifies one to stand in a pulpit. Are you claiming that this should be an addendum to the Gospel? Yes we are to equip ourselves, but can a relationship with the father not simply be enough?”



My response:

I do not think that a degree qualifies one to stand in the pulpit, but often it can prepare someone to know what to say and do, once there. But, more importantly a theological education trains one to know what is erroneous and what is true. In other words it has the effect of preparing one for what should be said (truth), as well as what should not be said (error).

Overall, it seems to me that those who say seminary is an option for full-time ministers are trying to divide what Jesus joined: teaching and training coupled with ministry experience.

2) BCoop was not impressed with my follow-up comment, and came back with this gem:

“NS has a rule”…. id beg you to not make assumptions — you know how that can be perceived…

My original reply to BCoop (before he hit the delete button) was:

NS gives advice to young people re: seminary every time they utter the word cemetery regarding ministerial education. In fact, NS has a unified message regarding theological education. They don’t think it’s worthwhile. BCoop, this is not an assumption. It’s a conclusion drawn from evidence:

1) NS leaders explicitly call seminary cemetery. Not exactly a glowing endorsement, is it?

2) No one on their leadership team has completed a seminary degree. No, not one.

I suppose it’s not a rule in the sense that it’s in their operating manual, but it’s a unified stance regarding language and hiring practice. And I am fairly certain that these two points communicate a level of expectation from the students who look up to them and seek guidance. The combination of calling ministerial education cemetery and not having anyone on the leadership team with a seminary degree communicates loud and clear to high school and college students how NS views seminary: “don’t go. Don’t waste your time. We didn’t.”

3) Spencer wrote:

“I’ve been in the trenches four years w/o a degree. i have a friend who is graduating from four years of bible school this month with a degree in youth ministry.

“i’d put my experience versus his academics any day.”



I have a very simple two-fold reply:

1) Any Bible College that allows a ministerial student to finish without substantive ministry experience is not a very good one. If all s/he has is 4 years of classes, and no experience, then your friend should have gone elsewhere.

2) The posting relies on faulty logic. In the scenario Spencer presents, both individuals need to complete their training: he has 4 yrs of ministry, but no education. His friend has 4 yrs of Bible college, but no experience. Neither is fully prepared in my view.

When it comes to ministry and education, it’s not either/or. It’s both/and.

Another thought on comment vaporization

A few posts last week referenced BCoop’s deletion of Tommy and Twit’s comments, and I wanted to return to the topic briefly to explain why the incident warranted the attention I gave it.

Simply, blog moderators shouldn’t delete comments without a good reason, which would include comments that are off topic, libel, spam, and ad hominem attacks. I’m not questioning BCoop’s right to delete a comment or remove a commentator’s posting privilege; I’ve removed a couple of comments from this blog myself.

The problem with the Tommy and Twit comments was that there was no good reason to delete them, and, I would argue, an affirmative obligation to keep them on the page once the discussion began. Cooper had asked for advice, which Tommy offered.

Cooper responded and refuted Tommy’s suggestion, inviting Tommy to explain or defend himself, which he did. If Cooper didn’t want Tommy playing in his sandbox, the time to shut him down was when he offered the first comment. Once Cooper disagreed and engaged Tommy’s idea, he really needed to let the discussion play out.

From what I recall, Tommy offered several detailed and substantive responses on the difference between us and the disciples, and on NewSpring’s apparent institutional contempt for seminary. Twit, as you know, joined in with a Spurgeon quote supporting book learning. Tommy’s responses took some fine thinking and time in writing, and Twit’s took some research to find. Deleting them was an act of bad faith.

If Cooper felt that the comments section was getting too long, he could have simply shut the post down to further comments and left it at that. That’s done fairly regularly, especially for old posts or for long discussions that have gradually veered far afield from the original point.

The value of seminary and formal learning was certainly appropriate to the advice that Cooper had asked for.

Instead, it seemed that Cooper was worried that Tommy was winning the argument.

That, my friends, should not be a sufficient reason for deleting entries.

BCooP tweets @TommyF

Lot’s of LIPS TALK, few LIVES EARN THE EQUITY to be HEARD. If people are non-responsive to us, perhaps we should examine our lives…

Tommy, you obviously need a lot of examination.

UPDATE: Tommy, now he has a question for you.

Question: Where are you hiding?

Not to pile on…

…but one would have thought this wasn’t the best day for Cooper to be posting questions like this:

To pursue excellence, the only way to REALLY know our strengths and weaknesses is to ASK others…. Who you asking?

Give me “authentic” advice, but make sure I agree with it first

Over on another outlet, Brad Cooper asked readers for advice for people going into the ministry. Our friend, Tommy, suggested in his usual diplomatic way that seminary might be a good idea.

A spirited discussion ensued and lasted on the site for about a day and a half.

Tonight, it’s been sucked down the memory hole. Deleted. Wiped. Gone.

Twit Conway was also annihilated.

That is bad blogging form. Here’s the proof from the way the site looked this afternoon.

One of Tommy’s comments was a response to Blake. Now we’re left with Blake’s response to Tommy, but not the argument he was responding to. It makes curious reading if you don’t know what happened.

The deleted discussion was about the merits of seminary, in counterpoint to NS’s repeated characterization of it as a cemetery. Twit Conway made the egregious error of quoting Spurgeon. (I assume that now that they no longer have to devote their time to two fora, they might reappear on these friendly pages and tell us what happened. T&T, did you get an explanation or notification from BCoop?)

Apparently disagreeable thoughts are too disturbing for some leaders. It would be nice if they could apply the same passion for ideological purity to what they put on stage during worship.

Tommy gets around

It looks like he’s playing elsewhere tonight.

UPDATE: Twit’s joined in.

UPDATE: Never mind. They’ve been disinvited.