Is it wrong to publish anonymously?

That depends a great deal on what one is publishing. Last week I nearly broke the internet when first I suggested that while Pastor Alistair Begg’s advice on attending a loved one’s faux wedding was well off the mark, it was not keeping with I Timothy 5:1 to rebuke a father harshly. That, however, was just the beginning. Next, after a long line of internet warriors rebuked me harshly, I pointed out that many of them were doing so behind a veil of anonymity. When I suggested such was less than kosher, that’s when war broke out.

There were a few who gave some semblance of reasoned arguments in defense of anonymity. Many pointed to history, to those who had gone before. Would I, these brave souls wanted to know, stand in judgment of Luther who translated the New Testament into German while disguising himself as Sir George, the Knight, Christians in the early church making the fish symbol in the sand and the founding fathers writing their thoughts on federalism under pen names? A few others were more pragmatic, though no less accusatory, arguing I wanted to starve their families because they could lose their jobs if their bosses knew what their counter-cultural positions were. Or they argued that I wanted to see them exposed to the assaults of Antifa.

I get it. I am now, and always have been, willing to concede that there are certain circumstances where anonymity is the fitting choice. If one is seeking to propagate a perspective that could get one in deep trouble, secrecy may be the order of the day. Under what circumstances, though, is it wrong to maintain anonymity? When you are accusing someone. The right to face one’s accusers isn’t some merely American creation, but goes back to the Bible. To be a witness, one must testify, and not through a sock puppet. John the Baptist met his end because he rightly accused Herod. He neither shied away from the accusation nor hid behind anonymity. He acted wisely and courageously.

Deuteronomy 19 teaches that the one who testifies maliciously must receive the judgment intended for the accused. If I lie and say you committed first degree murder, I am to be put to death. If, however, I go on the internet, using a VPN and create a social media account, @secretherotheobro, and travel the web telling everyone you killed Tupac, I am immune from being judged for my lie. The very anonymity that might, in a just usage, protect me from injustice empowers me to commit injustice when I take up accusations against others.

This is not hypothetical. This is precisely what happened with Pastor Begg, as people not only (rightly) condemned his bad advice, but went on to challenge his masculinity, and worse, his salvation. I’ve been on the receiving end of anonymous internet assaults for decades. There are several rcsprouljristhedevil.com websites out there. Sometimes they rightly accuse me of sins I’ve committed. Other times they falsely accuse. They all, however, are anonymous. (Which doesn’t mean I don’t know who creates them.) It does mean I won’t dignify them with a response. It don’t respond to cowards.

I have also lost a job via doxing. When I began serving as an editor of an online sports website a merry band of anonymous assassins went to the company and laid before them not my actual sins which the employers already knew about, but my conservative, biblical positions on hot button social issues. I lasted a day.

I get it. If you want to speak into the spirit of the age and feel safer hiding your identity, feel free. If, however, you want to accuse a real human being, come out of the cowardly shadows, or put down the keyboard.