- Post 1: In which he notes that some attempts at anonymity are attempts to avoid the consequences of one's words
- Post 2: In which he raises the issue of accountability
- Post 3: In which he suggests that the persona of the messenger is important, even if it is not as important as the messsage
- Post 4: In which he reminds the readers that their Internet posts are not anonymous in God's eyes
- Post 5: In which he commends speaking boldly by Paul's example
- Conclusion: In which he wraps up
A few critical observations:
* Paul's example is all very well, but Paul was also - at another time - let down by a basket from the city walls.
* I strongly object to the claim, "Anonymity removes the messenger from the message, which is a move without any Biblical approval." There are plenty of anonymous books of the Bible. While it is clear there that the underlying author is God, a properly motivated anonymous or pseudonymous Christian seeks to point the reader to the Word of God, not the message of man.
* People can be pseudonymous and still be accountable to their family, friends, and elders.
* Anonymous and Pseudonymous dialog has an important purpose, especially in a society in which Christian behaviors such as proselytizing, spanking one's children, and denouncing sin are prohibited, restricted, or at risk of being prohibited or restricted.
* Anonymity/Pseudonymity can provide a layer of prudential protection to Christian evangelists. I cannot think of any good reason, for example, to insist that a Chinese evangelist would have to give everyone his full name and the name of his elders, and their mailing address, in order to satisfy any kind of Christian obligation.
Thus, on the whole, I believe that Mr. Anderson's posts are interesting and thought-provoking, but ultimately not persuasive (at least not for this pseudonymous blogger).