I expected as much. So, you understand that there is a time and place for one to hide one's name. Thank you for accepting your vocation and being our front line against Satan's minions, amongst other things.
The Lord bless and keep you, Reverend and brother Beane.
Sincerely,
Someone with mouths to feed, a church to financially support, and theological opinions that would get me fired
Yes, that's what I wrote in my article, that there is a time and place for anonymity.
But even those few weeks when Luther left the Wartburg and was going about the countryside dressed as a knight, he didn't refuse to confess Christ. He also went home, took up his pen again, went back to the pulpit, returned to the classroom, and served faithfully and openly for decades.
We must not refuse to confess Christ for fear of something bad happening to us.
And take they our life,
Goods, fame, child, and wife,
Though these all be gone,
Our vict'ry has been won;
The Kingdom ours remaineth.
And if a man wishes to rebuke a fellow Christian online - especially someone from the LCMS - he should use his real name. It looks especially cowardly when a man rebukes a lady (who is using her real name) from behind the veil of internet anonymity.
As a man I can anonymously rebuke anyone, be it a fellow Christian online, someone from the LCMS or a lady (who is using her real name).
Only Christ has authority over me. He and He alone can command me whether I should use my real name or not.
That's exactly why Paul suggested women to remain silent, because being a weaker vessel by design they cannot withstand the pressure of criticism, deserved or not.
I decided against anonymity well over a decade ago in a very different world where cancel culture was not yet a thing. Thus far, I suspect I've only made a down payment on that decision, but there's no taking it back at this point. What's done is done.
But I will by no means judge another man for choosing differently. Scripture and history alike show us that there is both a time to embrace persecution and a time to put it off for another day. When Paul escaped Damascus in a basket, was he refusing the accept the consequences of proclaiming Christ in the synagogues? When Luther was anonymous under a pseudonym at Wartburg, was he failing to show himself a man? When Jesus repeatedly slipped away from those trying to stone him because his hour had not yet come, was he "cowering"?
What gives you the right to judge another man for making that choice in their lives and according to their own God-given wisdom and vocations? In my own experience, the deepest wounds have been inflicted by members of the LCMS. I cannot see shaming people for anonymity as anything other than a deliberate attempt to induce vulnerability in those with whom you disagree.
Comparing this situation to those life-and-death situations of St. Paul and Luther and our Lord is pretty pathetic. I guess that is the world we live in where every man with an anonymous account sees himself as a heroic figure, the savior of church and world. Please.
St. Paul suffered martyrdom, Luther risked his life by returning from the Wartburg and serving publicly in the ministry until his death, and our Lord endured the cross for us - and He exhorted us to follow Him by taking up our own crosses and not to disavow Him. None of us today are that important to the Gospel - and certainly not those of us (myself included) who post stuff on the internet. We are all expendable. I believe our confession of Jesus is more important than living another day without scrutiny to "destroy the libs."
I am judging the *actions* of men who would swarm a woman on the internet and refuse to sign their names to it. By the very nature of the anonymity, I am judging no individual. I don't even know who is engaging in this behavior - just as I don't know which men are looking at pornography or having premarital sex. But it is within my vocation to say that this behavior is wrong. So whom am I judging? You?
I guess we have now come full circle to where *conservatives* are playing the "judge not" card.
My vocation as a pastor gives me the right to judge these actions and to exhort men to a more excellent way: "So you see that it is directly forbidden to speak any evil of our neighbor. However, the civil government, preachers, father, and mother are not forbidden to speak out" (LC 1.274 on the 8th Commandment).
Do you really think anybody will buy the "judging no individual" sophistry? Surely, you were writing about no one at all when you chivalrously rode to m'lady's defense over the terrible actions committed against her by no one. Surely it was merely abstract actions and not people of whom you wrote "Imagine the specter of men standing up for biblical patriarchy while cowering behind a fake name because they fear that 'something bad might happen to me.'" They're anonymous, after all. You might as well push a stranger on the street into a puddle and claim it never happened because you don't know his name.
But your take on persecution is what's truly interesting to me. At what point, I wonder, does a Christian's suffering for his faith stop earning contempt from you for not being *real* suffering. When the world merely mocks a man for being Christian, does his brother in Christ who lost his job for the Faith sneer at the pain? Does a third man who was beaten for the faith dismiss the first two as drama queens? As the martyrs beneath God's throne cry out "how long, oh Lord" do they also call out "that's nothing, you sniveling pansies" to all their brothers still on Earth?
I was disowned by half my family because I publicly exposited the Biblical position on gay marriage under my real name. Among other things, my godfather said I was "basically Hitler" because of it (that's a quote, not a summary.) That doesn't make me think of myself as "important", "essential", or "heroic"; it just makes me one among the multitude of whom Jesus spoke in Matthew 10:34-36. Perhaps you consider that "pretty pathetic" because it doesn't rank high enough in your hierarchy of persecution. Perhaps you consider such a loss paltry, and therefore not genuine harm worth considering protection over. For me, my experience has only deepened my sympathy for those who are "only" mocked and my admiration for those who gave even their lives. But I genuinely cannot imagine the sheer aloof arrogance necessary to write what you just did in your comment.
But if the loss of employment, friends, and family is not as severe as the loss of life and limb, then neither is using "ChristDude3:16" as your Twitter handle as severe as fleeing the city. In both cases, a Christian must exercise judgment in considering when to embrace consequences and when to protect oneself. In neither case should his brothers or shepherds condemn men as cowards for doing so.
I don't know about that. I've started a few public discussions in the synod over the years by using my real name. You should give it a try some time. I'm sure that I've hacked off a few people in high places. I don't care. There is something to be said for making the good confession no matter who hears it, and, as lagniappe, to know that my father didn't raise his son to be a Sitzpinkler.
Reverend Beane, are you familiar with the story of Junker Jörg?
I read “Here I Stand” by Roland Bainton 41 years ago.
I expected as much. So, you understand that there is a time and place for one to hide one's name. Thank you for accepting your vocation and being our front line against Satan's minions, amongst other things.
The Lord bless and keep you, Reverend and brother Beane.
Sincerely,
Someone with mouths to feed, a church to financially support, and theological opinions that would get me fired
Yes, that's what I wrote in my article, that there is a time and place for anonymity.
But even those few weeks when Luther left the Wartburg and was going about the countryside dressed as a knight, he didn't refuse to confess Christ. He also went home, took up his pen again, went back to the pulpit, returned to the classroom, and served faithfully and openly for decades.
We must not refuse to confess Christ for fear of something bad happening to us.
And take they our life,
Goods, fame, child, and wife,
Though these all be gone,
Our vict'ry has been won;
The Kingdom ours remaineth.
And if a man wishes to rebuke a fellow Christian online - especially someone from the LCMS - he should use his real name. It looks especially cowardly when a man rebukes a lady (who is using her real name) from behind the veil of internet anonymity.
>he should
Says who?
As a man I can anonymously rebuke anyone, be it a fellow Christian online, someone from the LCMS or a lady (who is using her real name).
Only Christ has authority over me. He and He alone can command me whether I should use my real name or not.
That's exactly why Paul suggested women to remain silent, because being a weaker vessel by design they cannot withstand the pressure of criticism, deserved or not.
I decided against anonymity well over a decade ago in a very different world where cancel culture was not yet a thing. Thus far, I suspect I've only made a down payment on that decision, but there's no taking it back at this point. What's done is done.
But I will by no means judge another man for choosing differently. Scripture and history alike show us that there is both a time to embrace persecution and a time to put it off for another day. When Paul escaped Damascus in a basket, was he refusing the accept the consequences of proclaiming Christ in the synagogues? When Luther was anonymous under a pseudonym at Wartburg, was he failing to show himself a man? When Jesus repeatedly slipped away from those trying to stone him because his hour had not yet come, was he "cowering"?
What gives you the right to judge another man for making that choice in their lives and according to their own God-given wisdom and vocations? In my own experience, the deepest wounds have been inflicted by members of the LCMS. I cannot see shaming people for anonymity as anything other than a deliberate attempt to induce vulnerability in those with whom you disagree.
Comparing this situation to those life-and-death situations of St. Paul and Luther and our Lord is pretty pathetic. I guess that is the world we live in where every man with an anonymous account sees himself as a heroic figure, the savior of church and world. Please.
St. Paul suffered martyrdom, Luther risked his life by returning from the Wartburg and serving publicly in the ministry until his death, and our Lord endured the cross for us - and He exhorted us to follow Him by taking up our own crosses and not to disavow Him. None of us today are that important to the Gospel - and certainly not those of us (myself included) who post stuff on the internet. We are all expendable. I believe our confession of Jesus is more important than living another day without scrutiny to "destroy the libs."
I am judging the *actions* of men who would swarm a woman on the internet and refuse to sign their names to it. By the very nature of the anonymity, I am judging no individual. I don't even know who is engaging in this behavior - just as I don't know which men are looking at pornography or having premarital sex. But it is within my vocation to say that this behavior is wrong. So whom am I judging? You?
I guess we have now come full circle to where *conservatives* are playing the "judge not" card.
My vocation as a pastor gives me the right to judge these actions and to exhort men to a more excellent way: "So you see that it is directly forbidden to speak any evil of our neighbor. However, the civil government, preachers, father, and mother are not forbidden to speak out" (LC 1.274 on the 8th Commandment).
Do you really think anybody will buy the "judging no individual" sophistry? Surely, you were writing about no one at all when you chivalrously rode to m'lady's defense over the terrible actions committed against her by no one. Surely it was merely abstract actions and not people of whom you wrote "Imagine the specter of men standing up for biblical patriarchy while cowering behind a fake name because they fear that 'something bad might happen to me.'" They're anonymous, after all. You might as well push a stranger on the street into a puddle and claim it never happened because you don't know his name.
But your take on persecution is what's truly interesting to me. At what point, I wonder, does a Christian's suffering for his faith stop earning contempt from you for not being *real* suffering. When the world merely mocks a man for being Christian, does his brother in Christ who lost his job for the Faith sneer at the pain? Does a third man who was beaten for the faith dismiss the first two as drama queens? As the martyrs beneath God's throne cry out "how long, oh Lord" do they also call out "that's nothing, you sniveling pansies" to all their brothers still on Earth?
I was disowned by half my family because I publicly exposited the Biblical position on gay marriage under my real name. Among other things, my godfather said I was "basically Hitler" because of it (that's a quote, not a summary.) That doesn't make me think of myself as "important", "essential", or "heroic"; it just makes me one among the multitude of whom Jesus spoke in Matthew 10:34-36. Perhaps you consider that "pretty pathetic" because it doesn't rank high enough in your hierarchy of persecution. Perhaps you consider such a loss paltry, and therefore not genuine harm worth considering protection over. For me, my experience has only deepened my sympathy for those who are "only" mocked and my admiration for those who gave even their lives. But I genuinely cannot imagine the sheer aloof arrogance necessary to write what you just did in your comment.
But if the loss of employment, friends, and family is not as severe as the loss of life and limb, then neither is using "ChristDude3:16" as your Twitter handle as severe as fleeing the city. In both cases, a Christian must exercise judgment in considering when to embrace consequences and when to protect oneself. In neither case should his brothers or shepherds condemn men as cowards for doing so.
You are free to defend the anonymous swarming of a woman online as an act of Christian chivalry, manly virtue, and Christian courage.
"The libs have been pwned!!1!"
~ MemelordLuther
And I am free to hold that as a fine example of what our problem is. Thank you for giving me even more food for thought on this.
There wouldn’t be a public discussion in the synod without anons. You’re welcome, Rev. Beane.
I don't know about that. I've started a few public discussions in the synod over the years by using my real name. You should give it a try some time. I'm sure that I've hacked off a few people in high places. I don't care. There is something to be said for making the good confession no matter who hears it, and, as lagniappe, to know that my father didn't raise his son to be a Sitzpinkler.