A few days ago, I posted a response to an anonymous letter that was circulating, in which letter I was accused of Sordid Stuff. In the days since, I have had interaction with three Christian men who were not clear in their minds on why such letters should be immediately walked over to the shredder. It is easy to take principles of scriptural justice for granted, but some of these responses showed that it is dangerous to do so. Judging from these responses, it is likely that there are a lot of people out there who do not know why they should respond to anonymous charges with the contempt that the Bible requires. That said, here is a quick breakdown on why anonymous accusations should be summarily rejected.
In the Bible, a witness is someone who must be qualified to assume the office. Certain conditions must be met before a charge is entertained against an elder. One of the fundamental scriptural conditions is that there must be two or three witnesses, and those hearing the charges must know that there are two or three witnesses (1 Tim. 5:19). But if anonymous accusations are permitted, a false witness could simply sign one letter “A Friend,” the next one “A Different Friend,” and the third one “A Third Friend.” Moreover the testimony from the “three” witnesses would line up exactly.
Secondly, the Scriptures require genuine even-handedness between accuser and accused in this respect — both must in principle be subject to sanctions (Dt. 19: 17). Both men must stand before the judges. If the accused is subject to sanctions if found guilty of the charge, but the accuser is subject to no sanctions for lying in the case, then it is not hard to see how the door is opened wide for the false witness. Where justice is not speedily executed upon the criminal, Ecclesiastes says, there the heart of man is filled to do evil. When there are no sanctions for bearing false witness against one’s neighbor, then false witness will become a growth industry.
Third, the anonymous accuser is profoundly unloving toward a number of those he is not attacking in his charges. He is not loving his neighbor as himself (Lev. 19:18). This is the same kind of situation that you have in any close environment (say, in a school or on a ship) when someone steals something. Not only is the thief stealing the object in question, but he is also causing suspicion to fall on innocent parties who had nothing to do with the theft. When there are only ten people who could have done it, but only one who did, that thief is doing more than stealing a wallet. He is also casting a cloud over nine reputations. When someone attacks anonymously, he is sowing discord among the brethren, which God really hates (Prov. 6:17). In this last passage it is not a coincedence that the last two items on the list are “a false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.”
Fourth, there is a profound tension in the psychology of the anonymous accuser. On the one hand, he needs to strike from the shadows. It may be caused by timidity, cowardice, concern for reputation or business, delight in secret malice, etc. but there is some kind of emotional need for secrecy. This is a necessary tactic for those who do not love the light. The words of Psalm 64 are worth quoting in their entirety. The emphases are obviously mine.
Hear my voice, O God, in my prayer: preserve my life from fear of the enemy. Hide me from the secret counsel of the wicked; from the insurrection of the workers of iniquity: Who whet their tongue like a sword, and bend their bows to shoot their arrows, even bitter words: That they may shoot in secret at the perfect: suddenly do they shoot at him, and fear not. They encourage themselves in an evil matter: they commune of laying snares privily; they say, Who shall see them? They search out iniquities; they accomplish a diligent search: both the inward thought of every one of them, and the heart, is deep. But God shall shoot at them with an arrow; suddenly shall they be wounded. So they shall make their own tongue to fall upon themselves: all that see them shall flee away. And all men shall fear, and shall declare the work of God; for they shall wisely consider of his doing. The righteous shall be glad in the LORD, and shall trust in him; and all the upright in heart shall glory (Ps. 64:1-10).
But there is an opposing tension as well. The person who strikes anonymously is, biblically speaking, a fool. And a fool has the following characteristics that are not consistent (over time) with secrecy. A fool lays open his folly (Prov. 13:16). A fool grows carelessly confident and throws off restraint (Prov. 14:16). And last, a fool’s mouth brings him to ruin (Prov. 18:7). Because anonymous attacks are almost always the product of hatred and bitterness, a bitter root will eventually spring up, and when it does it will defile many (Heb. 12:15). Bitter roots gather substance in secret, but such roots cannot be kept secret.
Fifth, Christians are charged to walk in the light (Eph. 5:8,11). One of the direct consequences of walking in the light is that people can see you. Walking in the light means you are visible. The unfruitful works of darkness are not acceptable to the Lord (Eph. 5:10-11).
And last, anonymous attacks are inconsistent with the Golden Rule. If we permit anonymous attacks in one situation, then the Golden Rule means that we have to be willing to admit them in all situations. Suppose someone says to me that he doesn’t see anything wrong with the anonymous attack on me. Let us render that principle universal (which he must admit if he acknowledges the Golden Rule). Now that the principle is universal, all we need to do is pick that person’s favorite preacher, and with a suitable look of concern and grief on your face, say something like the following, “I am afraid I have here in my possession a letter signed by “A Friend of Jesus” which says that he has seen the Rev. “Dirtball” Davidson coming out of porn shops on six separate occasions. In fact, I have two other letters just like it, signed Cato, and Mephistopheles respectively. The standard for two and three witnesses has clearly been met. Now, I am interested in how your favorite preacher-man could possibly defend himself. No, friend! — no protesting the anonymity now — the people are only writing anonymously because they are afraid this holy man might start molesting their children again.”