Quick comment to “z@z.com”

I normally do not receive anonymous e-mails.  Even more rarely do I receive negative ones.  And even then, I normally do not comment on them here in my blog; but I admit that I feel unusually tempted by this one on my desk at the moment, since it serves — I believe — as a great opportunity for me to make some helpful points.

Today I received an e-mail through the BBC internet news service (where you can send an e-mail to someone that links to an article you’ve read), in which the return e-mail address was given as z@z.com.  (While it seemed apparent that the e-mail address was a fake, I tried it anyway just to be sure.)  The article that was sent to me was not the point, as “Z” made clear in his/her comments that came along with the article.

So first, to “Z”:

Howdy!  “Z,” if you meant to include your real address, it was not so included.  Perhaps you can write me again and include your real address that I may write you back about the things you have written.

And I could say much.  You begin your e-mail with what seems to be an implied warning not to be judgmental about a particular individual, yet you then proceed through the rest of your e-mail passing judgment on a different individual (and, I might say, a horribly inaccurate and unrighteous judgment, at that).  Perhaps you mean for me to do as you say, but not as you have done.

Please rest assured that I have not “judged” Fellow #1 — at least not in the manner in which you have “judged” Fellow #2, which would be an unrighteous judgment for which I would be held gravely accountable (John 7:24).  I would be happy to discuss with you the things you bring up, but cannot without your e-mail address.  And the ungodly slander in which you have engaged is hardly worth displaying in a public forum like this, so my blog fails to provide an adequate avenue, either.

Don’t get me wrong — I have certainly made such mistakes, as well, so I sympathize with your state of mind.  And I, too, have shot off e-mails too quickly without thinking about them or about the darker side of my nature (that “old man”) that I was inadvertently putting on display.  Perhaps you wrote hastily and would come across more sensibly & rationally in a more thoughtfully composed e-mail.  I know that I have certainly wished for my share of ”do overs”!

What I’m saying, “Z,” is that if you would like to contact me again, please feel free to do so.  But only do so if you are interested in a real discussion, with real questions and an honest seeking after truth — none of which, to be frank, was on display in the e-mail you sent earlier today.  However, if you are only interested in slandering another individual then please do not bother, as I have no interest in assisting the Devil in his work against the servants of God (Rev. 12:10).

Now, to my readers in general: 

I do not mind anonymity, in general.  For example, sometimes we have questions that embarrass us so much that we lack the courage to ask without our faces veiled, yet with which we are spiritually dying for lack of guidance.  In such cases, any minister would want to help in any way he could.  [Still, I would encourage you to identify yourself to your minister, as it is very difficult to help (often impossible) without all the information available.  Effective and godly counsel isn't generally done "Ann Landers" style!]

But if you simply want to contact me to slander or revile someone else, I recommend the following:

(A)  Not contacting me in the first place.  Leave the Devil to his work without trying to take his job.  While he is accusing us before God day and night as it says in Revelation 12:10, you don’t want the Father looking over Satan’s shoulder to see you doing the same thing.  (I would think that would look pretty bad…)  Some have a great deal to learn about presumption and reviling, as well as a good host of other things.  (May God show me where I do, too!)

(B)  If you feel you simply must contact me with such stuff, do so with an open mind and one ready for teaching and correction, should it be necessary.  If you suspect that you cannot discern this clearly, then see recommendation (A).  [Warning: Most given to slander do not seem to be able to discern this clearly.]  Identify yourself, as well.  If you are unwilling to do so, please take this as a good sign that you might not be as open and ready for teaching and correction as you might think, and then — again — see recommendation (A).

I apologize if any of this has sounded overly harsh, but I take both slandering and reviling very seriously — as should we all.  The Greek word for “devil” actually means slanderer, and there is a reason for that.

Sorry to have interrupted your web surfing with this little diversion!  I now reinstate my usual (previously unstated) policy of not addressing anonymous e-mails on my blog, and I return you to your regularly scheduled surfing.