Critics, stand for what you believe.

[Gregory Matthews]

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.

[Naomi]

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?

Well said Greg

[Gerr]

That's why I don't hide behind any pseudonym. What you see of me is what you get.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

If folks would read my signature, they'd know my name was not Rudy. He was my dog. He woofed. I don't.

[Johann]

But you use a person for your picture. Do you use a model?

[Johann]

In my present country I am listed is the phone- and various directories as Johann. I could have called myself Magnusson, because that way my last name would be tied to my father's first name, as most people in Iceland do, just like in the Bible. Because I was born in Denmark I had to have my father's last name, so I was listed as Thorvaldsson.

This way we are able to trace our ancestry back for several centuries. Mine goes back to a Norwegian king who lived a thousand years ago.

I prefer dealing with people who have no fear of revealing their identity. They seem more likely to be honest.

[CoAspen]

The one issue is keeping the spam box limited with being anonymous. People I get to know are given my real name and address. Some folk feel if they know your real name you are game for anything...in my experience! I'm a bit antisocial anyway!!!

[Naomi]

Johann I am not sure if the picture question was directed at me or someone else; to clarify my picture is about a year and half old and is a snap shot of me in my home.

[Johann]

Johann I am not sure if the picture question was directed at me or someone else; to clarify my picture is about a year and half old and is a snap shot of me in my home.

Your identification seems fully acceptable.

[Bravus]

I've stuck with the nickname I've had ever since I joined here. That was at a time when nicknames were more common on web forums, and it was one I'd already been using online for some years.

For anyone who cares, I make no secret of the fact that my real name is David Geelan and I teach at Griffith University. Way more info here: http://www.bravus.com and here: http://www.griffith.edu.au/education/sch...ff/david-geelan and here: https://www.facebook.com/bravus

One counterpoint to the (good) point Gregory raises in the OP. I'm a university lecturer with a PhD, but I *don't* want to use that fact to bolster my opinions. I don't want to draw on any perceived authority related to my job. By the same token, in an environment here where some are very anti-higher education, I don't want that issue to distract or detract from what I post.

I hope that the ideas themselves are what people will judge. If the ideas are nonsense, or don't make sense to you, that's OK. If they do, or if my approach and demeanor speak to you, great.

So the flipside of judging someone's posts based on their identity is judging someone's posts solely on the basis of the quality of the posts... (and, perhaps, on the basis of the reputation a person has built up over years of posting) and that's the approach I prefer.

(Having said all that, the person in the story in the OP was a coward. I have to read comments from anonymous student evaluations of my teaching each semester, and it's *incredibly* frustrating to read that I have apparently upset someone but yet have no avenue to make it right. I guess all I'm questioning is the applicability of the analogy here.)

[Gail]

To all of you:

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

my picture is really me - taken last March...the only thing different is that my hair is almost waist-length now..

[Naomi]

LOL Pam your hair is longer and mine is shorter ... we are girls, our hair can change ... right

[phkrause]

I agree, a real coward for sure.

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

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.

While definitely feeling the Word has far greater validity than any personal pronouncements I might make re: any person, situation or condition, it seems far more valid that ideas presented incognito are the better part of wisdom, especially when those ideas have an audience residing in possibly multiplied millions of places around the globe, especially when it is known some of those ideas are grounds for retaliation in various cultures much different than where they originate.

Case in point to understand the possibilities now as opposed to times past, warfare use to be practiced by marching in a straight line, side by side toward the frontlines of an opposing force. Present experience and knowledge now accepts the fact that to hide behind objects and approach cautiously gives the opposition much less advantage in rendering the other side helpless, as well as keeping plans out of sight in order to keep the advantage. The recent circumstances involving Edward Snowden should come to mind here.

One could argue that this is a Christian forum, so what's to be concerned about? Even a cursory reading of the Holy Word indicates clearly it is the better part of wisdom to be crafty as a serpent and harmless as a dove.

God cares! Jesus saves!

[CoAspen]

Really!

>...it seems far more valid that ideas presented incognito are the better part of wisdom....

> Even a cursory reading of the Holy Word indicates clearly it is the better part of wisdom to be crafty as a serpent and harmless as a dove.<

[lazarus]

Really!

>...it seems far more valid that ideas presented incognito are the better part of wisdom....

I remember the early days of posting on CA when there were veiled threats of reporting things said to conference officials. I'm less concerned about that now but back then there was a nasty under-current.

[OzarkWoman]

I signed my letter asking for my membership removal and why.

[CoAspen]

People in your position I would gladly support being anonymous!!! Snakes are hiding waiting to attack!!!

[OzarkWoman]

People in your position I would gladly support being anonymous!!! Snakes are hiding waiting to attack!!!

What????

[Tom Wetmore]

All things considered, I have suffered none of the feared consequences of posting using my real name. At least not that I am aware of. And I have been posting using my real name for many years.

[M. T. Cross]

I honestly don't see how using my real name or a nickname makes me any more or less responsible for what I post. Either I am going to be honest, or I am not.

I use nicknames because when I first started posting on the internet it was a "thing". The cooler the nickname you could come up with the better. So I have always just done that.

In the end however, if a person is going to decide if they take what I have to say seriously or not based upon my user name, then I really could care less what someone that shallow and petty thinks of my words.

[CoAspen]

Quote:

I honestly don't see how using my real name or a nickname makes me any more or less responsible for what I post. Either I am going to be honest, or I am not.

I can go with that.

[CoAspen]

Dey don wanna mess wit a lawyer!!

[lazarus]

Dey don wanna mess wit a lawyer!!

That's right. I wouldn't know where to start with a cease and desist letter.