Anonymity is a safety precaution on the Internet. A lot of whack jobs out there. Wouldn't want them to show up at work or the house. I assume that's why your profile does not include your last name or where you live. Smart move. Your insights and opinions are valued on this forum just the same.

There once was a SDA congregation that was losing members. A new pastor rode into town with a vision of a future, vibrant, growing congregation. The leadership embraced that vision and asked him to stay.

He was take-charge, energetic and hit the ground running. He consulted with members as to what they really wanted and how they thought it could be accomplished. He visited in homes and talked to leadership. He asked for people who were in agreement with a developed, common perception as to what was needed and how to accomplish it to join the team. He made himself available. In the initial days of his coming to the congregation he was at the church every day, available to talk to people who wanted to talk to him. Yes, he also visited members. This was a change from a previous practice in which the church had been seldom open and available to people.

Then the letter came. It was biting, hurtful and personal. It outlined specific faults in his program and demanded full compliance within a short period of time and failure to comply would result in this family never returning to worship with that congregation. The letter was unsigned. The writer did not have the moral courage to let the pastor know who they really were.

Without this identification, no resolution could occur. The pastor and congregational leadership could not meet with them in an effort to resolve issues. Misunderstandings as to what was really going on could not be corrected. The council of Matthew 7 could not be followed which is that people should get together and talk.

People in the U.S. have the freedom to worship where and how they please. Members of a SDA congregation have the freedom to leave as they wish. They can seek spiritual enrichment outside of a specific congregation. If they chose, they can seek it on their own.

The failure to identify who had written the letter indicated that the writer really did not want to resolve the issues. It indicated that the writer was not willing to work with the pastor of reach an agreeable resolution. It was a refusal to participate in reconciliation. In short, it appeared to be the action of a coward.

The gospel message tells us that Christians must take stands for what is right. It tells us that is not an easy thing to do and that there are consequences when we take such stands. God calls on people to take positions that have consequences. The writer of that letter apparently was not willing to take a personal stand for what they believed to be right.

As I read the many posts on the Internet forums in which people posting under pennames criticize the denomination and its leadership, I think of what I have just posted above. Yes, in the freedoms that we have in the U.S. one is free to post under a penname. I would not take away that right. But, all to often those who so post are not really listened to. After all, why really listen to one who is not willing to take a personally known position and is unwilling to participate in a process of reconciliation?

I will be the first to say that those who so post may raise valid points which need to be considered. But, by so posting they force of their argument is blunted.

Elle:

Actually the Internet was not my central focus.

I started my post with a comment about letter sent to a pastor. Then I switched to Internet critics who are not willing to take a stand on what they beleive.

I certainly beleive that there are safety issues associated with the Internet.

I am sometimes considered to be a critic of the denomination. This denominaiton has the authority to remove me from my position as a Federal Chaplain. I have never felt in danger of them doing so. One reason for that is that the denomination has never felt that I was hiding anything from them.

I carry this same type of relationship into my job for the Federal government.

Our hospital Director is a female. I am only a Staff Chaplain and I am not a supervisor. At times I meet with her to tell her what I think of what is happening in the hospital. I have told her that she is wrong. A few months ago I fired off an early morning e-mail to her and told her that she was doing an injustice to one of our female employees that whould never have happened if that employee had been a male.

Nothing happened to me.

In the world around us people respect and consider advice that comes form people who are willing to take a stand for what they beleive to be right.

This hospital recently hired a new #2 person who is next in line to the Director. I wrote to her, before she ever came and told her that I wanted some time with her to share with her my vision of the next 10 years for the hospital. She wrote back and told me to make an appointment.

I did and I asked for 30 minutes. I spent 40 minutes with her. She mainly listened. Yes, I was organized, had a written agenda and all of the other things that a person in her posiiton would expect from someone who requested an appointment with them.

I say again: Critics should be willing to take a personal stand for what they beleive to be right. If there are consequences for doing so, they should be willing to accept them.

After all, in End Time, God calls for people to take a stand for what they beleive.

Gregory has commented about my anonymity before. This thread seems but another means for him to attempt to discredit anyone who "hides" behind anonymity. The trouble with his basic premise is--it's not biblical. Anonymity has often been used, even in Bible times, even by prophets of God, to good purpose. There are times in this sinful planet where anonymity must be maintained for the good of all involved. This is just the world we live in.

Now, I've said this before, but it bears repeating for those who seem dull of hearing or who haven't actually read it before: I have a solid reason for keeping my real name private in this forum. If I have a solid reason for it, why should I judge another person's liberty to do likewise?

Gregory, any attempt to criticize users who post here over their usernames is walking a thin line--it is basically against the forum rule which says "No one will attack another individual" and it presupposes an error on the part of the forum administration to allow anonymity here. I realize that your "attack" is done very tactfully, but it is nonetheless speaking very loudly against the anonymity of members here on this forum. You may or may not be surprised to know that this is the majority of members here.

Once again, my reason for anonymity presently has much to do with the fact that the country in which I am residing is a country where Christian witness is illegal. It is a country which monitors internet usage of its residents. I am risking something just to submit this paragraph today. (I have friends who would fear to do this.) It is a matter of personal safety that forces me to remain anonymous here. Any further argument against my liberty to remain anonymous will be seen by me as a personal attack against my safety and well-being. And I have known for years that I might be put into this very sort of position, which is one reason I have maintained my anonymity from the beginning here. Had I not done so, I would have been forced to retire my prior identity to assume a new anonymous one.

There are things that could be said about the particular case of the letter in your story, Gregory. But to make a broad application to anyone who chooses anonymity is to misunderstand the issues and to misjudge others.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

My comment was relating on frivelous accusation amongst brethren whether anonymous or in the flesh with no intention of reconciliation or to restore his brother which is a shameful and wicked stand.

Gregory, any attempt to criticize users who post here over their usernames is walking a thin line--it is basically against the forum rule which says "No one will attack another individual" and it presupposes an error on the part of the forum administration to allow anonymity here. I realize that your "attack" is done very tactfully, but it is nonetheless speaking very loudly against the anonymity of members here on this forum. You may or may not be surprised to know that this is the majority of members here.

As I read the many posts on the Internet forums in which people posting under pennames criticize the denomination and its leadership, I think of what I have just posted above. Yes, in the freedoms that we have in the U.S. one is free to post under a penname. I would not take away that right. But, all to often those who so post are not really listened to. After all, why really listen to one who is not willing to take a personally known position and is unwilling to participate in a process of reconciliation?

The gospel message tells us that Christians must take stands for what is right. It tells us that is not an easy thing to do and that there are consequences when we take such stands. God calls on people to take positions that have consequences. The writer of that letter apparently was not willing to take a personal stand for what they believed to be right.

Any further argument against my liberty to remain anonymous will be seen by me as a personal attack against my safety and well-being.

But there are consequences of standing for what you believe. There is fear from hateful people. Not all are willing to take that stand for all things.

From http://www.libertymagazine.org/article/marriage-proceedings
Web sites were set up to highlight those who had given donations in support of Prop 8 and were searchable by individual name and employer.3 Gay rights advocates boycotted businesses, and some employees whose employers were now listed on the database were fired. In one case a Los Angeles area coffee shop, El Coyote, was mobbed by protesters shouting “Shame on you” because the manager had donated $100 to the Prop 8 campaign. Police in riot gear settled the crowd. Fears of violence and direct economic impact may have prevented Prop 8 supporters from mounting a stronger defense.

There are several posters on this forum that I would not want to meet in person. I would fear for my life.