Break in series (II): “Anonymity: Some Biblical and Cultural Reflections”

(Author’s Note: As I said in a prefatory comment at the beginning of last week, I had to be out of town and was not going to take comments until today.  I am keeping my word, although, since there were brief explanatory posts at the end of the week, I simply allowed everything that was submitted comment-wise to be moderated on through.  I do hope you enjoyed flailing away!  Clearly, some of you are pretty good at it!)

Week before last, one of my deacons (our church calls them “Servants of the Church,” actually translating diakonos) brought me a basically anonymous letter that included a list of half a dozen criticisms of my ministry or suggestions for improvement.  In the process, he told me that only one of these was something he agreed with–and he identified which–and that he had assured the people who had talked to him that he would keep their identities secret.

Now, make no mistake–there was a time, many years ago, when I would probably have told this deacon that, other than his personal criticism, the rest of the letter was not worth the paper on which it was written.  But, a number of things have happened surrounding, and since, that time which have significantly changed–and balanced–my perspective on that issue to where I am today.  I will share those with you, as well as laying out some biblical examples and biblically-related questions to get you to think a tad (unless, of course, you are totally close-minded to even biblical argumentation), even if you end up retaining your current short-sighted bias against anonymous letters and the like.

Classic Wider Cultural Example 1- The President of the United States: When I was in seminary, the Washington Post first began to run stories that connected the dots in what became known as “the Watergate” scandal, nobody beyond the most vitriolic Nixon administration haters believed for one second that there was anything of significance that had taken place, much less that it would eventually force the President from office.  Who was the major information source for the Post until some of the early ones arrested eventually cracked and testified?  An anonymous informant known only as “Deepthroat.”  His identity remained a secret for well over 30 years, until just a short time ago.

(By the way, the ethical standard almost all journalists use today in the determination of whether anonymity is allowable is a legitimate need for protection againt any kind of likely harm that would come about if the source’s identity were to become known.  And, brothers and sisters, that is precisely the case with my friend, the anonymous professor–he fears for his job and professional future because of his coming forward and telling the truth.)

We could also add to this the example of President Clinton.  Had not some early anonymous tips been carefully followed up, Clinton’s infidelity with Monica Lewinsky may not ever have been exposed (until, possibly, true to form, he might have bragged about it in his memoirs)–even though apparently known by a number of people in the administration.

By contrast, no one came forward back during the administration of John F. Kennedy.  His legendary serial infidelity was allowed to go on right there in the White House because he was given a “pass” on morals by the Secret Service and a lot of other people who knew exactly what was going on.  And, if someone had tried to speak up, just exactly how far would it have gotten and how long would that person have retained their job, if their identity was known?

2) Classic Wider Cultural Example 2- Corporate ‘Whistle-blowers’: The best-known of this category had to do with the tobacco industry.  Initially, the fact that the cigarette companies knew very well that smoking causes cancer got out to the news media by anonymous tips.  Yes, those sources eventually had to come forward, but not at the beginning.  At first, nobody was really listening–except the tobacco power-brokers, who were intent on shutting them up–so it was imperative that the sources have the protection of anonymity until other viable protection became available.

Classic Wider Cultural Example 3- Government ‘Whistle-blowers’: Things got so bad in both the business world and government that numerous statutes were enacted under which both corporate and government ‘whistle-blowers’ are protected and do not have to fear for their jobs–in some cases, their lives–as they provide information that is needed for the prosecution of corrupt CEOs and high government officials.  So, even as desperately as many Congressmen and legislators want to always have ways to cover their own hindward portions and avoid any responsibility for their actions, even they were forced to do something as the number of instances piled up in which the only way to make sure that the evidence of pervasive corruption got dealt with was to protect the anonymity of the informer.

Classic Christian Culture Example 1- The Pastoral Arena: Back in the 1980s, I allowed myself to be intimidated out of a senior pastoral situation by a powerful lay leader.  At first glance, this may look like an argument against anonymity–that is the paranoid visceral response by so many in regard to some letters which are indeed highly unfair–but I promise you that it is not.  You see, there is a huge difference between information that is circulating on ‘the grapevine’ which is merely will-o-the-wisp hearsay vs. somebody having the guts to put it down on paper and challenge the party(ies) involved all–not just some “mouthpiece”–to forthrightly open up (“See, we have nothing to hide!”) and carefully and fully demonstrate that there is no truth to the allegations.

Shamefully, rather than splitting the church–as that powerful leader–a strong-willed wealthy M.D., by the way–promised to do if I did not resign, I allowed myself to be intimidated and ‘bought off’ (with a six-month full-pay ‘parachute,’ with benefits) into resigning without taking on the rumors–none of which were ever put into writing–from the pulpit.  If I had it to do over, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, I would certainly have taken the courage to speak out to the entire congregation.  You see, I had done nothing wrong, so I had nothing to fear.

But, I had not yet stood up to my Dad (see my post, “Secrets of a Dysfunctional Family”).  So, I had no experience of taking the courage to speak up.  Nor have many other pastors who never get the chance to clear their reputations by the transparently open public refutation of anonymous written charges.

Of course, if you are anywhere close to a fair-minded person, you must admit that there is another crucial side to the story of anonymous letters.  Have we not all seen numerous instances of pastors who are, in fact, quite guilty of the charges being circulated by fearful victims?  But, since, if they ever get written down, as anonymous letters, they automatically remain “baseless rumors” offered by cowards, in many people’s minds, and the abuse of position or blatant sin just continues until that pastor ends up being literally caught red-handed. 

At that point, of course, many people always ask, “How could these horrible things possibly have been allowed to go on for so long?”  The answer is simple, but absolutely tragic: Because everybody who mattered ignored the allegations.  In many cases, it got down specifically to the fact that those in leadership refused to take seriously completely true charges made in anonymous letters.

Classic Christian Cultural Example 2- Anonymous Believers Overseas: I know of no Southern Baptist who has been critical of Christians in China or North Korea, or other countries where it is not safe to let it be known that you are a Christian.  Why is it OK for them to protect themselves by remaining unidentified, but not my anonymous professor friend?  (Watch it now–don’t talk out of both sides of your mouth because of your short-sighted bias against anonymous open letters!)

I know of no other SBC reform types who have been critical of SBC missionaries who have wanted to state their concerns anonymously concerning the International Mission Board trustees without fear of reprisal.  What’s the difference with my anonymous professor friend?  At the level of principle, none.

Classic Christian Culture Example 3- The Academic Arena: I told the story in my post, “Secrets of a Dysfunctional Family,” about a colleague who brought me the proof of the unconscionable dealings of a powerful Vice-President.  But, he would only allow me to initially divulge them to the Provost under my pledge of anonymity.  When the Provost proved ready to believe me and check the information out himself, the anonymity was quickly lifted. 

But, sadly, that does not always happen.  Over the years, it has been absolutely amazing to me how certain academic higher-ups in the SBC manage to stay in their roles primarily by tightly controlling their underlings through the fear for their jobs and reputations.  While more and more stories of their misdeeds continue to circulate through ‘hush-hush’ back channels year after year from completely independent sources, as far as I know, no one–until my anonymous professor friend–has summoned the courage to come forth and put in writing their behind-the-scenes allegations, for fear of the impact on their jobs and reputations by those upon whom they depend for both.

And, in the academic arena, there exists one of the most ironic and inconsistent practices concerning anonymity that can be possibly imagined.  Professors are required to take completely anonymous student evaluations for every course they teach every term.  But, are those profs allowed to do evaluations of the administrators over them, upon whose decisions their academic survival depends?  Heavens, no.  That would be too fair and just.  That would take away much of those administrators’ paralyzing power of fear over the teachers under them.  That might actually engender humility and accountability in administrators , both of which are virtually lost concepts in the current climate in several of the heirarchies of SBC seminaries.

Relevant Biblical Material- Yes, I am certainly fully aware of Matthew 18:15-17.  But, in recent posts I have brought up–and, incredibly sadly, it has been ignored–that, with leaders, who are expected to be held to higher accountability than the average Christian (Luke 12:48), the higher standard for approaching them is found in 1 Timothy 5:19-20.  There, probably because of the strong potential for valid accusations of powerful leaders getting squelched before they get anywhere, the process begins not with private confrontation, but with the accusations being made before the assembled leaders by at least two witnesses (5:19). 

If you wonder how this relates to the situation before us, in the case of my professor friend, he was the first “witness,” but there are more who know at least as much, who have not yet taken the courage to disclose what they know, whether anonymously or with their names attached.  They are afraid and they are watching us and how we handle things before deciding whether to take the calculated risk. 

The next step is also significantly different than Matthew 18:15-17.  Whereas that passage does have a public dimension which appears to be primarily for the benefit of the guilty party (i.e., to get him/her to repent and be restored), 1 Timothy 5:20 says in no uncertain terms that the public rebuke of a sinning leader is designed to be a deterrent to other leaders: to scare them into not following suit through their own sin!

So, what happens when we of the SBC refuse to challenge powerful leaders who have fallen prey to “power corrupts” and “absolute power corrupts absolutely?”  It not only allows those already high-and-lifted-up to keep getting away with their shenanigans.  It also emboldens other leaders who watch and see them get away scott-free to pull the same stunts themselves.

In regard to “gossip” and the like, it’s the stuff circulating behind the scenes that deserves the name.  By the way, I don’t even really know Drs. Patterson or Mohler personally and, thus, have almost no direct personal knowledge of them at all (although I, along with many others, did get to watch with utter shock as Dr. Mohler spewed like a volcano in San Antonio).

So, yes, in one way, I have been guilty of “gossip”–until I posted my friend’s letter.  He does indeed have considerable personal knowledge of these situations, as do others in the wings.  And, his letter finally brings the information out of the whispering into the light.  Even though you do not know who he is, I promise you that his reputation is spotless and that he is highly trustworthy.

Bottom line here: I confess and repent of the sin of past “gossip.”  I apologize publicly to Drs. Patterson and Mohler for passing on gossip about them–and other SBC leaders who seem to be following in their paths, at least partly because no discipline for the either ungodly, or at least highly immature, behavior of the ‘big dog’ leaders has been forthcoming (1 Timothy 5:20). 

I am not, however, guilty in regard to the open letter I posted.  It is anything but free-floating ’gossip,’ but instead quite specific charges that loyalists are simply attempting to blow off by using anonymity as a smokescreen.

Speaking of anonymity, would you perhaps see it differently if you thought God Himself viewed anonymity–and employed it Himself–in a positive way?

But first, what is the definition of ”anonymous?”  It means “having an unknown name or means of identification.”  That is significant.

In that light, consider these examples related to God for starters :

- God’s angels going into Sodom, looking like men, but anonymous–without identifying themselves (Genesis 19:1ff.)

- The anonymous (i.e., in this case, unidentified) presence of the Lord’s army of angels in protecting Elisha (2 Kings 6:17)

- God’s angels who still walk among Christians anonymously to test our hospitality (Hebrews 13:2)

- Jesus walking on the road to Emmaus anonymously (Luke 24:13-35), seeing absolutely no reason to reveal His identity to those disciples until the perfect timing–in “the breaking of the bread” (24:30-31)

Key Point: God–or God’s agents–clearly act anonymously quite frequently.  So, it simply cannot be concluded that, with God, anonymity is wrong.  If you try to argue that it is, you are convicting God of sin!  And, I don’t think He will be too happy with your ‘holier than God’ attitude!

Further, an example of anonymity and required protection for the vulnerable which is clearly pleasing to God has to do with Israel’s conquest of the Promised Land.  Joshua sent out two anonymous spies to go into the Land, focusing on Jericho.  There, they were protected by Rahab (Joshua 2), who was later spared (6:22-23, 25), then highly commended in the New Testament for her faith in doing so (Hebrews 11:31).  Now, by the logic of those criticizing my friend and me, both the spies and Ruth were in the wrong here.  But, that’s hardly the ‘take’ of either the book of Joshua or the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Another Key Point: Obviously, God is not upset with someone protecting the vulnerable who have been involved in gathering information behind the scenes in order to know the true state of affairs.  In fact, the opposite is true.

Now, let’s look at a biblical example of an “open letter.”  In Nehemiah 6:6-7, we read from just such an open letter from Sanballat, a rival Persian government official, to Nehemiah. 

Now, does Nehemiah decry the ‘open letter’ format?  Not at all.  Instead, he quickly, openly answers the charges (6:8), because he had absolutely nothing to fear, due to his actual transparently godly behavior.  In the case before us in the SBC, it would require both presidents to allow their inner circles to testify on oath without fear of reprisal for the charges to be legitimately affirmed or refuted.  And, at present, the tight-knit protective dysfunctional groups around the presidents are keeping secrets, so such full access will not be allowed. 

A further key point: Suffice it to say here that there is absolutely nothing problematic about an ’open letter’ in and of itself.  It is, at worst, a neutral communication format.

On top of this biblical material, please ask–and honestly answer–the following questions?

- Is there any biblical passage which clearly rules out anonymous documents?  (Certainly, I know of none and, since quite a number of the books of the Bible are technically anonymous–even if we think we know who wrote most of them because of external witnesses–I honestly do not see how anonymous documents could be construed biblically to be a negative concept.)

- Biblically, is there an ethical problem with someone not signing a document?  (Absolutely not.  Many biblical books aren’t “signed.”  There is only a problem with acting as if you are someone else in authoring a document, such as in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3.)

- Is a biblical document to be considered more or less true based on attribution of authorship versus anonymity?  (No.  Yes, there was a little more hesitation to accept Hebrews in the early church because nobody knew for sure who wrote it.  But, that did not prevent its canonical acceptance at all.  There it sits in your New Testament as a loud testimony that anonymous letters can be completely trustworthy!)

Before closing, allow me to bring up for consideration an indirect version of what my friend is trying to do, but which can only be used when the character of the recipient is so absolutely trustworthy that you are fully confident that you can expect a positive outcome.  In 2 Samuel 12, the prophet Nathan approaches the king with what was purportedly a sad story of a poor man whose lamb was taken from him by a rich man (12:1-4).  Of course, the story was nothing more or less than God-inspired subterfuge.  It portrayed David’s tragic affair with Bathsheba and his related sins against her husband, Uriah (12:7-12). 

After the story, Nathan confronted David with the words: “You are the man!” (12:7) and David’s response was “I have sinned against the Lord” (12:13).  David did not attempt in any way to excuse or dodge the truthfulness of the prophet’s accusations.  So, Nathan, who confronted him, was completely safe, with David apparently even naming a son after him (1 Chronicles 3:4).

However, things are dramatically different at an earlier point, when David confronted Saul–who was pursuing David and trying to kill him–with his sin (1 Samuel 26:17-20).  While Saul does indeed admit his sin (26:21), David still knows that he is not at all safe with Saul, who has not proven trustworthy to not retaliate.  So, David wisely does not accept Saul’s assurance of safety (21:21-25).

Does anyone who is reading this who has a shred of objectivity really think that my friend would have chosen to make these allegations by anonymous letter, expecting in advance exactly the kind of criticism he has received, if he really felt there was even a decent possibility of a fair and open reaction by either of these presidents?  Surely, if it even rose to the level of a calculated risk, he would not have taken this completely predictable abuse from most of you, if he thought he could have gotten a fair hearing from the powers that be.  And of course, there is no such animal as a ‘witness protection program’ in the SBC.

Coming full circle, what did I do with the contents of the letter I received last week?  I went into the pulpit Sunday morning a week ago and verbalized three of the six areas to the congregation just before my sermon.  The other three were of a different nature and were faced and dealt with in our monthly ‘town hall’ (feedback/question and answer) meeting after church yesterday.

Yes, it stung and was humbling to have to do this.  But, helpful additional congregational input is now coming in and the people who gave the input anonymously to this deacon felt heard.  Overall, humility by leaders (1 Peter 5:3, 5, 6) and the followers having a sense of having their concerns heard is always a very good thing.

Would any of you please tell me how this sort of desperately needed leaderly humility (Matthew 20:25-28; James 4:6) and having the concerns of the rank-and-file truly heard is even remotely possible in the ‘circle the wagons to defend the great one at all costs and nothing else matters’ administrative defense posture of at least the two SBC entities referenced in the open letter?  Since, realistically, it is not, how else can such long-hidden information ever see the light of day other than through such an act of thoroughly biblical and ethical ‘last resort’ courage as my friend’s anonymous open letter? 

Coming Wednesday: Break in series (III): “An Exercise in Careful Application, Coutesy of Scott Lamb and Peter Lumpkins”