Anonymous Accounts on X and Two Hours of Commentary on Ligon Duncan's Critique of Theonomy and the Moscow Mood

There is a big brouhaha on X about why I refuse to give anonymous Fuentes sympathizers a platform. You would think I am killing them softly with this song. Here is the initial tweet and my principle, which has received over 83k views. I have a much more thorough analysis if you read to the end. I have received plenty of defenders and others who think I am a tyrant seeking to sell their IDs to the mob or the Feds.

So, let me end with a few thoughts:

My argument is not that I will never answer or interact with an anonymous account. I have engaged on a few occasions on lesser issues. My opinion is that serious matters like antagonism towards a people group based on conspiratorial rhetoric that belittles Jews, Ukrainians, or others based solely on their identity require a different level of discourse. If you are going to make assertions for why there is a Jewish cabal within D.C. gathering an hour before Shabbat to discuss the tearing down of Western civilization, and if you claim to have proof for it, you better believe I am going to ask whether you have proof you are an actual person seeking a genuine conversation or whether you would like to use me as a tool or platform for your revolutionary causes.

Meaningful discourse ought to be entirely dialogical; for that to occur, it demands a specific knowledge of the other to make sense. Even though online exchanges can appear mechanical and engineered to give the biggest platform to the most dramatic, Christians hold a crucial role in bringing conversations to a higher level (Col. 4:6), fostering understanding and mutual respect.

For significant conversations to occur, pastoral theology must be the starting point. Pastoral theology is not just the sphere of the church but should be applied to all areas. Human beings do not begin with propositions; interactions must not be like a virtual chessboard that we can play with a human or a robot. If an anonymous account can stand boldly and speak all sorts of things against politicians, pastors, and political ideas without holding responsibility for any of his words, we are encouraging self-appointed papacies that will likely do damage to local churches. Further, if they can speak so disparagingly of others and make negative assertions about influential and powerful people anonymously but still, on the other hand, claim that they would never say such a thing in their workplace for fear of losing their jobs, I think we have detected a massive contradiction.

You cannot claim to have the courage anonymously to confront principalities and powers, but then show fear towards your boss at McDonalds or Wall Street. If your fear of losing your job is so great, you should have lower expectations of interactions online. No, you do not deserve a hearing. You are not as unique as you think, and if the threat of knowing your identity frightens you or your pastor's fear of knowing what you believe leads you to concern, you may wish to rethink your strategy.

When I ask for your name privately, I ask for the privilege of interacting with you as another human being. And in return, I want you to know that you now have skin in the game and can assume responsibility for your words. Further, when I ask for your church, it's not because I wish to turn you in at the first sight of rhetorical impropriety; it's so that I know you have standards to which you can submit.

My time is valuable. I wear many hats, carry the responsibility for many souls, and assume responsibility when things go wrong in any sphere I have been given authority. I don't always have time to get to know you, but I want to make it count if I engage you. I do not wish to cheapen interactions. I am still that old-fashioned.

Notations

I had not yet listened to Duncan’s comments on the Moscow Mood, so I decided to listen to the whole thing and make comments along the way. I actually think the context he offers helps me better understand his concerns about the Moscow Mood. I don’t share any, and I say any of his concerns, but I think there are friendships and history invested that come out when you hear the whole thing.

---

I have been thinking through Friedman’s “A Failure of Nerve” and applying it to forms of anti-Jewish sentiments out there. I concluded that various forms of racial/ethnic animosity are a common thread in a disenchanted world. It is far easier to find massive scapegoats to alleviate our people's political and social sins or our own. In this paradigm, we can live reactionarily, passing out guilt cards to everyone else and every people group but ourselves. Then, our mistakes can be atoned for and absolved by those who regurgitate the same priestly language. It's "their fault" is not a 21st slogan. It is as old as midday in the Garden of Eden. This model chooses a seatbelt society specializing in safety but never giving heed to the adventure of responsibility.

---

I am now getting into a few points of interest in Wilson’s latest book. He argues clearly that modern Judaism “is not the religion of the Old Testament” (47) and that Talmudic Judaism is quite disgusting in some places (see pg. 51). The difference is not so much that the Christian has the New Testament and Jew has the Old Testament; instead, that the Christian has the whole Bible and the Jew has nullified the Scriptures with their traditions (53). But still, Wilson notes that (repurposing the story of the Prodigal Son), our estrangement from the Jews will be undone once they come to Christ in the future. He takes Romans 11:29 as a substantive case in favor of a future conversion of the Jews. If the gifts and calling of the Jews are irrevocable, then we can expect a future return and get the appetizers ready for the postmillennial party.

I don’t see the language justifying a future massive conversion but a restatement of God’s promise that some from Israel “according to the flesh” will be among “all Israel” (Rom. 11:26). As Calvin notes, it is evident that God has not wholly turned his face from the Jews, but that he still believes many of them will come to salvation in Messiah Jesus and find true life in the seed of Abraham.

---