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.