Attack of the Anons: The Christian Ethics of Anonymous Social Media Accounts

Does the Bible really condone making a stance, but not putting your name on it?

This hasn’t been the first time I’ve discussed the ethics of anonymous accounts. When [a prominent anon] decided to go on a jihad against Pulpit & Pen for disagreeing with a certain Phoenix apologist many years ago (I don’t even remember the issue), I asked our tech guy to “do the voodoo” (computer nerd stuff) and find out who he was.

The rumor, which we were told was gospel truth, is that he had to keep his identity a secret because he was a high-powered attorney with ties to the government intelligence community. But what we determined was that, that was not so much. There was an embarrassing something-or-other in his past, a few weird hobbies (neither are worth getting into now, because it’s water far under the bridge), and a pretty mundane job that for the life of me, I couldn’t figure out why it would require discrepancy any more than a regular person.

I didn’t feel bad at all about doxing him, because I reasoned that if he would attack my name, I was entitled to know his.

If you appreciate my work, please consider getting a paid subscription for additional content. This is something I do to provide for my family and I would very much appreciate your help. In addition, as a paid subscriber, you also have full access to the Protestia Insider posts and our Bulldogmatic Polemics Round Tables.

But it didn’t stop there. I doxed several critics, including a woman (again, name withheld because it no longer matters) who was not only attacking me online, but was logging into a different anonymous account, having conversations with herself, and backing herself up on Twitter threads. Bizarre stuff. I suspect she’s a pretty nice lady, just too many cats or something, and I hope she’s well.

In fact, I authored the post, Anonymous Sociopathy, in 2016 about a different anonymous account I doxed (a pastor) - who later apologized and I then redacted his identity.

In each case, doxing the anon accomplished what I considered to be good. In the first, the apologist’s side kick went away for a while. In the second, the lady stopped doing the multiple personality thing. In the third, the pastor repented and apologized (albeit, temporarily). At the time, I wrote…

The rest of us need to learn an important lesson as well. There really aren’t any good reasons for anonymity. Don’t foster someone else’s mental disorders or deceit by engaging with anons. Perhaps the most well-known of these anons – at least in Reformed circles – has created an elaborate backstory about the necessity for his anonymity relating to a high-power government job, but a criminal background check on his true identity reveals an altogether more likely reason for his anonymity. All of us have things to lose by speaking our minds, including me. So speak your mind freely, but put your name on it or else suffer under the well-deserved accusation of cowardice.

I’ve never operated an anonymous account, and made Pulpit & Pen and Protestia contributors sign a statement promising that they don’t operate any.

Back then, it wasn’t dangerous to operate an anonymous account. But, it was dangerous to dox anonymous accounts. In fact, after I doxed a few for what I felt was misbehavior, because Tom Buck and Frank Turk considered them helpful to whatever cause they had at the time, they wanted the anons to report me to the FBI for doxing.

Lol. Those were the days.

But let’s revisit my assertion in 2016 that there’s no good reason for an anonymous account. Is that still true?

Well, let me bring to your attention the warpath that Joel Berry (something-or-other) at the Babylon Bee is on against Joel Webbon, who has the dang-diggity habit of continuing to say wildly politically evangelically incorrect things.

Apparently this is a screenshot of Webbon calling for reinforcements, or at least, suggesting reinforcements wouldn’t be bad. Cue the outrage.

I’ve been around the Internet Wars long enough to know this happens literally all the time. I would add to Webbon’s defense, he didn’t order a hit on somebody, but he did seem to imply such a strategy was good and received the ‘salute.’ But this begs the question, why does Webbon seem to have so many anonymous followers?

Obviously, something has changed in the evangelical-X ecosystem in the years I was away. When I left, I pretty much despised the anons, and it was mutual. When I came back, how do I put this…? We have a mutual appreciation for each other. Mostly.

I remember back when the people complaining most about anonymous accounts now, utilized anonymous accounts the most then.

In fact, I would argue, that the insistence of the Woke Right conspiracy theorists (you’ll have to convince me that’s a thing) that anyone who criticizes a certain religious demographic is Hitler, is somewhat responsible for the phenomenon of exponential growth in the anon community. In fact, calling your ideological opponents “Hitler” or “Nazis” seems pretty dang woke to me.

Imagine, if you will, you’re a guy who “notices” stuff and noticing stuff in and of itself is called “Nazi propaganda.” But, because you’re stubborn, you point out things like:

• Talmudic Judaism is dissimilar from Mosaic Judaism, especially in the realm of ethics

• Talmudic Judaism is pretty hostile to Christianity, or the goyim in general, and the mistreatment of the goyim is codified into their actual system of ethics

• Christianity was not founded on Judaism. It was founded upon the Old Testament (and there is a difference)

• Even the Judaism of Jesus’ day was grossly divergent from the religion of Abraham and instituted in the Old Testament (as Jesus repeatedly pointed out)

• There is a historical context of the Third Reich that without excusing in any way the mistreatment of Jews, can enlighten you as to why WWII happened. And in fact, understanding those things, could help us prevent WWIII

• The “received accounts” (to quote the Antioch Statement) are often wrong, from Churchill’s pristine “champion of life and liberty” reputation, to Covid-19 coming from a wet market in Wuhan, to Kennedy being shot by a lone gunman who only happened to have ties to the CIA

At this point, I’m afraid that if a Reformed Theologian expressed the classical Covenantal view of who is and who is not “God’s chosen nation” they would be accused by other Reformed Theologians (who also hold to Covenant Theology) accusing them of wanting to “replace the Jews” and support Adolf Hitler.

The fact is, the oppressive weight of political correctness surrounding this one issue is so burdensome that I’m not sure we can actually express our views on the subject at all. A new Axis Powers has developed joining Scolfield-era Dispensationalists with Reformed-but-not-Nazi finger-waggers and full-blown Hebrew Roots Judaizers that might suggest, even if our doctrine is correct, we have antisemitic timing or something.

Watching the Dispensationalists with Israeli flags behind the pulpit, link up with the Moscow (ID) Tribe and “Messianic Jews” who insist on giving Jesus a Hebrew name instead of the Aramaic one given him by Gabriel, is absolutely surreal. Frankly, it’s creeping me out a bit. They have nothing in common except that they really, really don’t like Joel Webbon.

Now, back to when I said “imagine you’re a guy.” Let’s say you are that guy, and you know the moment you say any of the above things you’re called a Nazi, imagine the consequences of the accusation. They’re potentially life-altering.

Even the accusation of Naziism is enough to have you kicked out of the church, fired, or disowned by relatives. Is it really wrong for someone to post those opinions anonymously?

It depends. In certain cases, the Bible condones and encourages anonymity.

In Matthew 6:3-4, we’re encouraged to do good deeds anonymously. The purpose is that it is done merely because (1) it ought to glorify God, rather than ourselves (2) is done by design to be thankless, and (3) makes the thought cross the mind of the recipient that although that “charitable deed” came from a human, it ultimately came from God.

Is it a stretch to apply this passage to anonymous social media accounts? Again, I think it depends.

If someone was posting anonymously in LGBTQ+ threads Biblical truth, so that they wouldn’t be fired from their job, they’re being “wise as serpents, and innocent as doves” (Matthew 10:16). While martyrdom is a great witness for Christ, stepping into martyrdom intentionally is stupid. Polycarp, the great martyr and church father, repeatedly admonished young Christian men to stop lining up at the executioner, be discreet, exercise caution, and if necessary run (Polycarp himself evaded capture for many years, until one day he just got tired enough, and figured it was time to die).

It’s like the whole canard about self-defense. Some Christians take the stance that they prefer not to carry a firearm because if they die a martyr, they’ve died for Christ. The theological word for this doctrine is called being dumb, because you’re not a martyr for being carjacked on Martin Luther King, Avenue. If you resist persecution, hide from persecution, or run from persecution and die for Christ, you’re still a martyr nonetheless. Being stupid is not a prerequisite for martyrdom.

I would surmise that Berry’s behavior (and many others who oppose Christian Nationalism) justifies much of the anonymous opinionizing on X and in other social media. If sharing a Biblical (or factual) opinion will bring down injustice on you, anonymity is kosher (pun intented).

Consider the following example:

Webbon’s statements might seem far-fetched to the uneducated. But if you’ve studied Talmudic Judaism, this is the factual. It is explicitly hostile to the goyim. And, I think it’s reasonable to say that if you put the Talmudic teachings next to the Koran, you’ll see that Talmudic teachings are significantly more hostile.

However, if you don’t understand that Talmudic Judaism is not rooted in the Torah (which isn’t hostile to Christianity for obvious reasons), and if you assume the Koran explicitly tells Muslims to blow up innocent civilians by turning airplanes into missiles, their statement might seem outrageous. But, at the least it’s defensible without a warranted accusation of being idiotic.

I responded:

Then guess what happened. You’ll never guess. Not in a million years.

Okay, you can probably guess. An anonymous account jumped on to point out the author of the post looks like the Jewish phenotype. I’d post the conversation that followed, but then I’d dox the author of the post, who doesn’t deserve that.

Can I ask all y’all anons a favor? Don’t be caricatures of what they already claim we are? For the love of all that’s good and pure…

Here’s my suggestion: If you’re anonymous to avoid being called a Nazi and have people call your employer, pastor, or golf club, that’s fair and understandable. Nobody should have to face such accusations if (1) they acknowledge that no one is outside redemptive hope (2) no one deserves mistreatment (3) having evil done to us does not justify doing evil to others and (4) not blaming individual members of any demographic group for the sins committed by many (note: acknowledging a stereotype’s general accuracy does not do that).

I would argue that if you’re anonymous because you don’t want to face the consequence for saying true things, it’s fully justified. Nobody fights a war against an overwhelming force while wearing reflective paint.

However, if you’re anonymous because you’re ashamed to say it publicly, because it’s uncharitable, ugly, or sinful…then it’s not an acceptable reason to be anonymous.

However, if you’re impugning anonymous accounts with sin regardless of whether their reason is the former or the latter, it’s about as wrong as calling anybody who disagrees with a Nazi and shame on you.

Being “based” is one of the most joyful things I’ve ever experienced, and I was based long before it was cool, before I knew it was a thing. I never quite understood how not to say what I’m thinking (and it got me into trouble many times, as you’re probably aware).

When you swallow whatever color pill being based is, and you can finally be free to express yourself, it solicits the same kind of joy as when you finally find a church that agrees with you on doctrine. It’s freeing. You no longer have to walk on eggshells, always afraid you’re going to offend someone. I totally get that.

However, if you’re out there saying insanely idiotic or unchristian things - at least on a regular basis (we all err on this to some extent, as I’ve done despite never having been anonymous) - you’re not walking in Christian integrity. You’re just being ugly.

And finally if the reason why you want an anonymous account to be doxed is so that you can “hold them accountable” for their crass ugliness and misbehavior, I think that’s acceptable. But if you want to dox an anonymous account because you want to personally attack them for holding views you want to wrongly classify as “antisemitic,” you’re being just as awful.