DAVID WALTZ SAID:
“Hello Steve,__So, anonymity is OK if it endorses a Reformed cause, but is evil is it portrays a contrary opinion against a Reformed individual…__James White’s diatribe__Got it; crystal clear…__David”
David is confounding a number of distinct issues:
1.TF was commenting on pseudonymity, not anonymity. People can have different motives for both.
Sometimes pseudonymity and anonymity are morally equivalent. If a writer is using a transparent pseudonym, that’s equivalent to anonymity. Or if he’s using a pseudonym that doesn’t point to a known individual other than himself (e.g. Mark Twain),that’s equivalent to anonymity.
2.But oftentimes, pseudonymity is a deceptive practice. It’s an attempt to trade on the authority of respected figure whose name is being co-opted for that purpose. A low-tech form of identity theft. That’s the issue regarding spurious patristic writings which TF was addressing. So David’s accusation is a diversionary tactic.
3.People can also have different motives for anonymity. Depending on the individual, the motive can either be licit or illicit. There are times when anonymity merits censure, and other times when it does not. It depends on the motive
4.David is apparently charging Reformed bloggers with hypocrisy on this issue. Now, David is welcome to hold a Calvinist to basic standards of moral consistency.
At the same time, there’s a basic difference between self-consistency and consistency with what a second party says or does. It is not inherently hypocritical for one party to be inconsistent with what a second party says or does. If Calvinist A is a premil, Calvinist B is an amil, while Calvinist C is a postmil, no one is thereby guilty of hypocrisy.
To my knowledge, Reformed bloggers never held a conference to issue guidelines on moral parameters of anonymity. If they did, I wasn’t invited, and I didn’t receive the memo.
5.All David is doing here is attempting to implement a divide and conquer strategy whereby he hopes to show some disagreement within the Reformed blogosphere over the moral parameters of anonymity, and then allege hypocrisy on the part of the concerned parties.
Even if he were successful in demonstrating individual disagreement between one blogger and another, that–of itself-would fall far short of demonstrating hypocrisy.
Of course, Calvinists are sinners, too. So it’s certainly not beyond the realm of possibility that he can document some instance of moral inconsistency on our part. But I don’t see where the documentation he has furnished thus far succeeds in doing so. And if he’s not alleging hypocrisy, then what does this exercise amount to?
6.From the Catholic standpoint, moreover, disagreement within the Reformed blogosphere is only to be expected. After all, we don’t have Mother Church to whip us into line. Disagreement within the Catholic blogosphere is far more problematic than disagreement within the Reformed blogosphere. Is Mother Church a deadbeat parent?