The internet did not invent sin. We were plenty awful to each other long before Al Gore went into his lab and wound his web around the world. That said, the internet did bring some new features to the sin party.
Perhaps the first feature is the ambiguity about the cyber world itself. Is it real, or a mirage? It is mirage enough that internet language has invented its own word for the world we actually inhabit, IRL, in real life. The “unrealness” of the internet encourages us to think that when we attack with our words that the attack is unreal. The person who is attacked, however, is assuredly real. As is the person doing the attacking.
Which brings us to the second impetus for our ugliness- anonymity. Common grace carries with it this restraint against our own sinful inclinations- we can bring shame on ourselves. But if the “self” we are is unknown by virtue of a fake name, or no name at all we miss the blessing of shame. A dozen years ago one man, out of hatred of me, turned his bile at Ligonier Ministries, writing dozens of scurrilous pieces under the fictitious name of Frank Vance. He hid his tracks with an elaborate network of proxy servers. He commented and linked under a multitude of other false names. That same man continues to publish a number of www.rcsprouljristhedevil.com sites. And people continue to read him. Now he doesn’t even bother with a fake name, but uses no name at all.
Which brings us back to the first impetus- the ambiguity of the cyber world. One of the deepest blessings of the internet is that it has democratized broadcasting. Time was that to reach an audience one had to amass expensive equipment, buy exorbitant airtime and make it through a gauntlet of professional editors and vetters. Now, anyone can say anything. But we, especially we who are older, look at the new world through the lens of the old, thinking that what we read or listen to carries with it all the backing that was once required to get an audience. Even when we know better we still slip up here. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard from people who say, “I heard this about you, and know it is nothing but a scandalous assault with not a hint of truth in it. I can tell your critic really has it out for you and shouldn’t be trusted. Still, there was this one question I’d love for you to address…”
It’s a good thing to be skeptical of unknown internet hit men. It’s a better thing to not believe what they write. It’s better still not to read them at all.
The problem, however, is found both in what we take in and what we put out. We have no editors, no one to vet us when we vent. So let me make three important suggestions. First, never publish nor read anything without a name attached to it. There is simply no excuse to hide out in public and to blur the lines between the real and the imagined. Second, always remember that no matter how wrong they might be, no matter how famous and powerful, no matter how truly vile they may be, whomever you are talking about still bears the image of God who redeems vile sinners like us. And third, build up and encourage the saints. Use your words to edify. The Bible says the world will know us by our love one for another. When we bite and snipe and attack our brothers we grieve the Spirit within us. Don’t.
Very wise words Dr. Sproul! Thank you!
Was it prudent sir to publish that website in the article?
There is no literal rcsprouljr.isthedevil.com website. So I didn’t actually publish a website. But I appreciate the good warning. God bless.
Glad to hear it. Thanks for the article which was very interesting and yes “trolling” is a very ugly thing. Unless we are in a relationship with Him we can look to dark and extremely unhealthy ways to express being ‘alive’.
Let me go out on a limb here and speculate there’s probably a correlation between the increase in lawsuits against bloggers, and especially against the whistleblower-types, and the increase in anonymity online. You mentioned “Frank Vance.” He may be a good example of what I mean. Didn’t “Frank Vance” make allegations that Ligonier was litigious and he was worried about getting sued if he went forward with his story? Sure enough Ligonier sued him in a failed attempt to shut him up. Ligonier’s lawsuit created quite the Streisand Effect. It became the story, far surpassing in interest the allegations Vance had originally made. Maybe if bloggers weren’t getting sued all the time, including even by Christian ministries, more bloggers would be willing to publish under their own names. It seems to me there has to be better ways of resolving disputes than by violating 1 Cor 6:1-8.
John, Thank you for your thoughts on the matter. The trouble with anonymity is it makes I For. 6: 1-8 of no effect, as well as Deuteronomy 19. One can debate the wisdom of the lawsuit but fear of being sued is no reason to hide behind anonymity. Real publishers face the danger of being sued, and so are careful in what they say. Anonymous bloggers face no such danger and so accuse and lie with impunity.