I love the anonymity the web provides. And sometimes I confess a perverse sort of pleasure in how some of the most abusive and presumptuous critics are discomfitted by it and scream for more controls, more exposure, less privacy, etc. All in the name of an honesty and accountability they don’t actually model except in quickly offering up their ‘papers’ to anyone who asks – which is more a lazyness and surrender of soul than anything truly decent and honest.
In the religious realm, especially: One has to dismiss the rantings of people who never met an ad hominem they didn’t like – people who’ve never heard of an ad hominem in the first place. People who care not about truth but credentials. People who don’t like dissent, don’t like questions or speculation they can’t attribute to an authority figure, people who want to carry books with the rules spelled out and the authors’ names next to the rules. It’s part of the fundamentalist impulse.
Truly, there are only two reasons that the identity of the author matters:
One reason is so you can accept or dismiss the ideas based on the identity. It’s dishonest, it’s a logical fallacy, and it’s a form of worshipping heroes on the one hand (idolatry) and dismissing those we don’t like or strangers on the other (pride and inhospitality). It is to follow persons, not the truth. The assumption is that the ‘right’ people are usually correct, and the ‘wrong’ people usually aren’t. But it has always been the case that good people with good credentials have offered up swill in place of truth – and our very tradition depends upon the words and deeds of the ‘wrong’ people. Uneducated people, tax collectors, Samaritans, women, and Gentiles. Speaking of the “right” people:
“If I, Paul, or an Angel, or anyone comes to you claiming to be Christ, and preaches any other gospel than the one you have received…”
The other reason is so that those who express ideas we don’t like can be punished for them. I’ve been called a “coward” by people who were angry with my ideas. Such claims imply that there’s actually something to be afraid of, and that the person making the claim actually has it in mind. In other words, he’s validating the reason he wants the information – to punish the offender. Why not just come out and say, “If I find out who you are, I’ll do x to you.” The critic relies on dishonesty, chiding the anonymous writer for being afraid, but withholding acknowledgement on what presumably fearful thing he has in mind.
“The owner of the vineyard sent servants to the keepers of the vineyard, to speak to them, but they did not listen and killed them instead.”
I’ve seen priests act like this. I’ve seen people talk of virtue and honesty and dignity and then act like this. Truly it is said, “there will come a time when your own brethren will deliver you up, and think they do a service to God.”
On the one hand, the zealots will persecute others in the name of Christ, always seeking justification in the fact that it’s “those people” – it’s not the correct people – it’s not us. To any such “correct” people reading this, I am with all the incorrect people. I am with the wrong people who are dangerous and a threat to the world you want to create. I am with the people who are making it worse. Do to me what you would do to them. But don’t expect me to hand my head to you on a platter.
On the other hand, the effeminate weaklings who follow names and approved leaders are just as bad. Those who cannot listen to anything without checking the speaker’s credentials – “he’s part of the such and such school” – “he’s one of so and so’s disciples” – “he used to be one of those people”. For these wishy washy relativists, an idea is not actually true in itself – truth is a subjective thing that depends on who says it. They have committed the fundamental theological and anthropological heresy and fallacy of conflating subject and object, person with operation, who I am with what I do. In the tortured confusion of their own minds, they cannot but be led about by whoever is holding up the golden calf as easily as whoever is wearing the mitre.
Personally, I like to point out to those who lecture the anonymous about responsibility and integrity (usually the mouthiest are US citizens – always lecturing the world on how they should live), that their own political, social, and cultural traditions are rife with elegant anonymity – indeed depend on it entirely. From Publius to Samuel Clemens. Of course it’s not necessary to cite religious examples, as these are more interested in asserting their own culture than in following Christ. Christ for them is the Christ of culture. He is not the Christ who could have said:
“Tell no one who I am.”
To those who talk about where they stand religiously, and cite nebulous principles that they interpret against the moral status of the anonymous, I like to mention the many anonymous saints who left anonymous works, did anonymous deeds, and wrote ikons anonymously, and toiled and gave and lived anonymously. If they look closely, they will find some of them in their scriptures. Indeed, the books of scripture are quite often written anonymously. In fact, the entire monastic tradition is like this – the monks give up their family names when they receive orders. It is so obvious that, failing to take stock of the fundamental liberty within their own tradition, the advocates of exposure want dossiers and ID checks and tracking systems and all the apparatus of the worship of the modern state. They have sold their birthright for the pottage of contemporary personalism and tacit depersonalization. For them, persons and ideas have become inseparable. They would make good officers of the state.
“Welcome strangers, for some have entertained angels unawares.”
In any case, originally this site was anonymous by default, because I never saw a reason to add my name. When I found people making such a big deal about it, and listened to them, and looked at my suffering brethren and how others are wrongfully persecuted or simply dismissed, I decided out of solidarity to refuse to add my name. And when I took stock of how the clamour for putting not ideas in the dock but personalities is a clamour for crucifixion, a clamour for illicit trial, I found that I would not add my voice to those who cried out:
“Tell us plainly who you are. Who do you say that you are?”
Instead, I decided to let them squirm, and do with their ignorance what they like, since they do so very little good with what they know.
“Then neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.”
If you don’t like my ideas, don’t read them. But you don’t own them, visitor. Nor do you own me. Nor anyone else. Nor is your inconvenience at doing something fundamentally illogical at best (ad hominem) if not illicit, a claim on my activity. And if you are merely curious, then the answer to your question is that I have decided not to comment upon it. I don’t answer the merely curious.
For those of you out there who are considering writing anonymously, I encourage you to be accountable to your Confessor. Tell him about the place you write. Go to confession. Live in such a way that your life can change and is subject to ideas other than your own. And then be free. Perhaps your pride will want to put your name on everything, and anonymity will help you overcome it. Whatever you decide, some of the others of us are holding the line, and hope that makes it easier for you.