One of the things I found interesting about the process of interviewing with the pastor search committee at the church I now serve was their concern with my future plans. It is understandable that, with the average tenure of pastors in our denomination hovering around two years, churches are concerned that someone not come on the field and immediately begin to look for where they might go next. This kind of stepping-stone mentality obviously does not lend itself to the establishment of effective ministry. I have found that it takes a year or so just to learn everyone’s names and get to know them just at a surface level.
It is also understandable that I would be asked this question because of my resume. The first church at which I served as Youth & Music Minister was a very small church, and the position was part-time. I served there for a year, at which point God opened up a full-time opportunity. That year was a wonderful time of learning, and I and the people in that church were grateful for it; we left with no hard feelings. After that year, I served in three churches in slightly more than five years, and I was at the last one for just over four of those years. I won’t go into the issues that lead to two very short stays; no secrets, it just doesn’t matter to the point of this post. But God used every day of those five years to teach and prepare me for where I am now serving, and the learning and growing continues.My answer to the committee’s concerns was simply that I trust in God. I have seen God use me in a very short tenure to accomplish wonderful things for His glory, and I have seen long stretches where I didn’t see until much later the value of anything I was doing. I want to be where God wants me to be, doing what He wants me to be doing, as long as He wants me doing it. If that means my preschool children leave this parsonage for college, so be it; if we are gone in fourteen months because God is leading, I trust Him to reveal that clearly. God is indeed sovereign, and my trust is in Him, for today and for each tomorrow.
By now, if you’re still with me, you’re wondering what this has to do with anonymity; it is, in fact, the purpose of this post. I call on all those who want to participate in the many facets of our SBC debate to do so prayerfully, thoughtfully, and openly. There has been much damage to trust in our conversation caused by anonymous comments, and this should not be. There has been much-needed repentance, which I deeply appreciate. But there continue to be those who do not have the integrity to place their identity behind their words, and I see this as nothing more than a lack of faith in God’s sovereign care. Of course, I welcome the participation of those whose missionary service in parts of the world where the revelation of their identity would place themselves or their families in physical jeopardy, and I respect this as a legitimate reason for anonymity. But I am convinced that it is the only legitimate reason.
I was not a part of the conservative resurgence in our convention, although I am in agreement with the publicly stated goals of those who led it. I have no doubt that there are those whose actions toward others in the carrying out of our “reformation” leave them in need of repentance, though I myself am under no such personal conviction. I do not question the claims of ungodly treatment that some have made. I do not question the belief on the part of some that if their identity were placed with their statements, they would be targeted for retribution. What I question in those who choose to remain anonymous is their faith in the power of God to sustain them in the trial, or to deliver them from it.
If someone believes that they must say what they have to say, and they are convinced of the truth of their statement, they should be willing to place it before the world openly and allow God to do with it, and with them, whatever He wills.
Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah (better known as Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego) did not anonymously refuse to worship Nebuchadnezzar’s statue. They stood confidently before the enraged king and said, “If the God we serve exists, then He can rescue us from the furnace of blazing fire, and He can rescue us from the power of you, the king. But even if He does not rescue us, we want you as king to know that we will not serve your gods or worship the gold statue you set up.”
It would be fair to say that perhaps it does not require the courage of these three for me to put my name behind my words. It may be fair to say that for others who wish to participate in our debates, it does require this courage, although the repercussions I have heard discussed relate more often to loss of employment than to being burned with fire. But the God who delivered then can still deliver today. And if He had not delivered them, they would have died with their integrity, and they would have been remembered by name.
on May 6th, 2006 at 8:04 am
Wes,
As you might imagine, I agree wholeheartedly with everything. Well said.
Would you allow for anonymous posting if the person is not pejorative?
Would you allow for anonymous posting from someone who feels that their name would be used to discredit others?
Just curious to your thoughts – not picking a fight.
Also, your gold/bronze type is a little brighter than mine, but I have been getting swamped with those who like the white font over at 12 Witnesses. What do you think?
Finally, I’ve been missing you. You have not commented lately at my place or posted much here. I hope you will be more active in the near future. I enjoy your cyber-company.
Reply
on May 6th, 2006 at 9:06 am
Art,
Thanks, as always, for your kind words. I did notice that your blog is easier to read; I don’t have the first idea how to change the color of my font.
As to your questions, I stopped short of saying I would not allow anonymous comments. This was just a statement about my conviction on the matter, and as I said, it’s fair to say it is easy for me to say this. But I am absolutely convinced that the only legitimate reason for it is a missionary family being protected from physical harm.
There are anonymous commenters on all sides of the debates we have had, and it is simply impossible to give those comments their proper weight. The axiom “consider the source” tells us to weigh the comments in light of the person responsible for them. It seems to me that if the person behind them is using a fictional name, there is no reason to give them serious consideration, no matter how much we might agree with the sentiment expressed.
I tend to want to wholly dismiss anonymous comments with which I disagree, and I find myself cheering the anonymous comments with which I agree. This strikes me as not being right, and is the inspiration for what I have written.
Reply
on May 6th, 2006 at 9:31 am
Great post!
Reply
on May 6th, 2006 at 11:37 am
Dear Brother Wes,
I agree. If a brother has something to say that, in his judgment, is of the Lord, he should state it without fear, with his name gladly attached.
I am reminded of John Hancock, who signed the Declaration of Independence in letters big enough for “King George to read without his spectacles.”
Love in Christ,
Jeff
P.S. And every should use his middle, name, too!
Reply
on May 6th, 2006 at 11:59 am
I always use mine!
Reply
on May 6th, 2006 at 1:00 pm
Wes,
Thanks for your answer. I think you are right on every count.
Blessings,
Theron
Reply
on May 6th, 2006 at 4:04 pm
I agree with Wesley.
Reply
on May 6th, 2006 at 8:00 pm
Oh, good. I was hoping for some anonymous comments…
Reply
on May 7th, 2006 at 10:27 am
Wes,
I can understand your point and where you are coming from in writing this post. I wish we could all do so with the same freedom/courage, but some Shadrachs, Mesachs and Abednegos(sp?) are not yet ready to be “burned” solely for a blog comment!
Most of the time I post comments in my own identity as a missionary. However, to disallow anonymous posting would knock out nearly all missionary commenting being done. Anon. commenting has been an outlet for many M’s to be able to express themselves on IMB issues that affect their lives and ministries. There is still a lot of uncertainty as to what is “permissible” thought and what kinds of comments/postings are “out of line” for M’s to express to those back home holding the ropes. Until there is further clarification on these matters, I feel SBC bloggers are doing their M’s a service by not only allowing, but encouraging (like WadeB does) anon. comments. I do agree that such commenting be issue oriented and NOT mentioning/implying names or personalities. If names are used or implied, then it is only correct to post with true identify and be able to stand by one’s statements.
I confess on occasion (some of the IMB issues) I too have commented as an anon M to be able to say what it is I really wanted to say and felt needed to be said, but was unsure of permissible parameters for expressing such things as a M employed by the IMB.
Just my 2-cents.
Reply
on May 7th, 2006 at 1:11 pm
Guy,
Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. Your service is to be commended, and therefore your observations should be greatly valued.
First, please understand that I am not advocating that anonymous comments be disallowed, but that those who make them refrain from saying what they cannot say with their name attached.
I think there is more involved in bearing false witness than simply saying what is not true. If the source of a statement is suspect, the statement itself should be viewed as suspect. When Jesus said to let our yes be yes and our no be no, he assumed that it would be ours.
I am the first to admit that this does not require of me the same courage that it may require of others. But if something truly must be said, we should say it and trust God in the consequences. If what must be said can only be said anonymously, I question whether it must, in fact, be said. You mentioned those who “are not yet ready to be ‘burned’ solely for a blog comment.” I would suggest that if that comment must be made, God can handle the consequences.
Some church members are fond of believing that they pay the salaries of their ministers. Even those who wouldn’t seek to use that to any advantage still sometimes hold on to that notion. I firmly believe, and have told the congregations I have served, that it is God who provides for me. They are either faithful in giving, or not, and that is between them and God. But God is my provider, and if he removes me from this church tomorrow, He will still be my provider. It is the same for those in missionary service. The IMB is the agency God is using to allow you (and others) to fulfill your calling and to provide for your materiel needs. But the calling is from God, and He is able to sustain you if the IMB casts you aside. He who called you is faithful.
Again, thanks for sharing your thoughts. Please know that you have my utmost respect. I do not seek to judge your actions; I am simply calling on all the participants in our conversation to have the courage to make themselves known, and to glorify God by trusting in His providential care.
Reply
on May 7th, 2006 at 5:49 pm
I certainly agree with Guy. I had a comment from an IMB M that those who were commenting negatively better look out for their jobs as first and formost the IMB demanded loyality – even in the face of bad decisions.
Reply