or, Silence of the Clams
It’s a simple rule really, but a powerful one, one I have found quite helpful to my peace of mind, making the best use of my time and my mental energy. I follow this rule- anyone unwilling to say who they are gets none of my time or mental energy. If someone hides their identity before pontificating over this theological debate, that scandalous accusation, or even my own sins, real or purported, if they clam up their mouth before announcing who they are, I will clam up my ears before listening to a word they have to say. I don’t care what the anonymous have to say to me, about me, or about others.
Perjury Penalties
There is a reason our justice system gives the accused the right to face their accusers. Because without such the system is not just. The accuser has everything to gain and nothing to lose. Biblical justice requires the same thing, but adds another element. A person convicted of perjury at the federal level would face five years in prison. A person convicted of perjury in the Bible would face whatever punishment the accused would have faced had he been convicted. Lie in a murder trial in Old Testament Israel and you would be put to death.
Opening with Dishonor
When we give ear to the anonymous we give voice to those already committed to dishonesty and injustice by the sheer evil of their anonymity. We empower those whose character and voice reflect that of the Slanderer himself. In short, listening to the anonymous, or those who hide behind pseudonyms, is like listening to the devil himself. Which is something I don’t need.
Fellow Travelers
I have, over the years, been contacted by people who actually use their real names, who ask, gently and kindly, if I would give my side of things on this accusation or that, some accusations that have been made about me, others about people I’ve known and cared for. They’d read something ugly about me or my friends and wanted to give me the chance to rebut before reaching any conclusions. They too receive the same response. “Tell me who this accuser is, and I will be happy to reply. Otherwise, my counsel is that you stop giving ear to anonymous character assassins.”
Advocates for the Devil
Those who use their own names but protect those who will not, who pass themselves off as “protecting their sources” are not heroic journalists fighting the good fight. They are advocates of the devil, distorting justice, smearing names and refusing to take responsibility. And leading astray fools. The wise, on the other hand, build their house on the Word of God. They feast upon that Word, rather than the choice morsels of gossip offered by the devil.
Peace and Liberty
Oh the peace I’ve found. What liberty I’ve been given. I can not only get my mind off my accusers, but more important still, get my mind off myself. Because they don’t matter, and neither do I. Leave the clams in the sandy banks they live in. Soon enough the water will wash them away, while what rests on the Rock stands firm.
While your logic works for accusations and justice-related things, it fails to apply to theological arguments.
I’m not sure that’s right. Anyone saying, “Pastor So and So taught this error” should be willing to sign their name. It’s still an accusation. Now, I suppose if someone said, “Modalism is heresy” there is no need for attach one’s name. But then again, why would one be afraid to do so. Third situation, hyperpreterist says, “Here’s why I don’t believe the Bible teaches a future bodily resurrection” and I would take the same approach- “If you want me to engage you on this you’ll have to give me your name.”
There are plenty of reasons that someone would be anonymous, like in China, or in any persecuted place like America is getting to. Many people lose their jobs nowadays because of their religious perspective. It’s not about the messenger, it’s about the message. I’m also not necessarily talking about your first case since it may be a justice issue.
Being from New York, this is difficult for me to admit… however, for the sake of transparency, I prefer New England clam chowder over Manhattan style.
Pretty sure everybody does brother.
Excellent advice!
I’m not all that bright when it comes to legal matters, but I thought anonymous sources were people who knew about a crime and had to be protected against the criminals ability to do them harm. Like a mobster who could have someone killed from behind bars.
That’s in the legal realm, and even then, at trial, the accused has the right to face the accuser. Which is why we have witness protection programs, so that after testifying the witness is kept safe.
You err in bringing legal comparisons to your moral arguments. Every government agency, especially federal agencies, make liberal use of Confidential Informants to make their civil and criminal cases. Defendants, especially in criminal cases, can demand the prosecution reveal the identities of CIs, but the bar is set so high the defendant is generally unsuccessful in stripping the anonymity of CIs.
As for WITSEC, are you serious? You make WITSEC sound as though it’s some sort of routine and practical solution for a witness to openly testify without fear of retaliation. It’s anything but practical, which is why it’s always the very last option anyone would ever consider, or that the government even offers. For one thing, WITSEC can’t ever work unless the witness moves far away and cuts himself off from everyone he’s ever known, including any family members who don’t enter the program with him. WITSEC was never intended for honest law abiding citizens who are asked to testify about a crime they witnessed. People who enter WITSEC are almost always career criminals themselves, including contract killers. They’re typically forced into WITSEC as a last resort because it’s either take the government’s plea deal to turn rat or spend the rest of their lives in prison.
James, It wasn’t my intention to offend. It was my intention to point out that the right to face one’s accusers is reasonable, historical, and biblical. Are you suggesting that a man could be convicted on the basis of accusations from a confidential informant, and that this is morally justifiable? I didn’t suggest WITSEC was easy, safe, widespread or anything of the sort. I did suggest that it is designed to keep some whose lives are endangered by testifying safe in doing so. I can’t believe we’re at odds in the end, unless you really do believe a man has no moral right to face his accuser.
No offense taken. I’m merely pointing out your factual errors and false assumptions about American criminal justice. I’ve seen you make similar false comparisons before but refrained from commenting. But for the sake of not misleading your readers it really does need to stop. Stick with what you know — the Bible. Oh, and sports comparisons are fair game too!
As for “the right to face one’s accusers is reasonable, historical, and biblical” I agree. But that right must be balanced against the rights of the accuser and the circumstances under which they bring their accusations. The rights of either party aren’t absolute, even far less so outside a courtroom. The list of reasonable exceptions I could offer up on both sides would require an entire article in itself, far longer than your own.
Suffice to say you’ve erred in conflating the standards of the criminal justice system for the standards of “heroic journalists” (bloggers?). You go on to allege “Biblical justice requires the same thing.” Again, more conflating of very different things with different standards. I can understand why you might wish to see murder trials and blogging conducted by the same standards (right to face accusers, right to cross-examine, right to discovery, etc.), but there are valid reasons why they don’t, why they never have, and never will. First and foremost, blogging is conducted under the protections of the 1st Amendment. No blogger is required to comply with the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which appears to be the standard you’d prefer.
I would submit that your entire article is based on a false premise wrapped in a blanket statement: “those already committed to dishonesty and injustice by the sheer evil of their anonymity.” There are many historic examples of good men, even godly Christian men, who wrote and published exposés anonymously. They did so for valid reasons, not because they were “evil” or that their accusations were lies and therefore “evil.” I can only hope you wouldn’t accuse Theodore Beza of being “committed to dishonesty and injustice by the sheer evil of his anonymity.” If not then you really need to be more careful about making such blanket statements.