Nazi Sleeper Cells in the Pews?

David Morrill

Bad ecclesiology – I’m talking about the kind of hard-shepherding, quasi-cultic nonsense that finds it acceptable for elders to secretly record meetings with congregants and use edited versions to smear them later – can and has manifested in reputation-destroying absurdity among its adherents.

In this case, it has reached the point where James White, a pastor and formerly well-regarded reformed apologist, has publicly called for the pseudonymous/anonymous Christian behind the “Defiant Baptist” moniker to be “doxed,” even claiming that apostles Paul and John “doxed” their opponents.

For those who don’t know, “doxing” (short for docs, or documents) is “a dangerous form of intimidation involving the publication of someone’s personal information such as their private email, personal phone number, home address, family address, etc. on various platforms to frighten the individual and encourage additional harassment by others.” Rather than merely answering objections to a person’s speech with refutation or disengagement with the person (blocking), doxing is for the express purpose of encouraging others to harass or punish the person for the content of their online speech.

In the case of White, he claimed that he could “make a really good case, biblically, that if anybody knows who this man is, that they should reveal that so that if he is in a church, that the church be made aware of it. Because this is… the stuff this guy posts is very much in line with 2 Peter and Jude.” White insisted that, “it should be Reprobate Baptist, not Defiant Baptist” (claiming that what has been posted proves the lack of Defiant’s salvation), before tying the filthy past communications of Stone Choir co-host Ryan Dumperth to comments on Defiant’s posts, apparently trusting that his listeners will tie any and all facially sinful commentary to Defiant, a comrade in the so-called “anon army.”

White went on to ironically state that he “had no time for” and “didn’t hear” his anonymous opponents before claiming their “utter incapacity to engage with the biblical text” and their desired lack of challenge was the reason for their anonymity. He claimed that “the scary part” was that “these people” were showing up on Sunday and not saying a word,” suggesting that the wolves in sheep’s clothing Christ warned about (Matthew 7:15) are not prophets or teachers, but instead aptly describes the anon in the pew, who secretly harbors malicious beliefs, befriends others in the church, and spreads his vile beliefs like a virus. To White, every reformed church is quite possibly teeming with secret neo-Nazi spiritual insurrectionists, and – much like in John Carpenter’s sci-fi horror movie They Live – the right pair of anon-busting pastoral sunglasses is needed to see how far and wide the anon army scourge has spread.

“Have you ever wondered whether or not the modern state of Israel is the same as eschatological Israel?”

Yet a quick perusal of Defiant Baptist’s posts – rather than containing “anon army” marching orders or endorsements of fringe, stone-brained podcasters – reveals nothing more than a good amount of criticism of White himself and some relatively mild course jesting directed his way. In fact, when correcting for posts and comments that Defiant didn’t write, White’s contention that Defiant Baptist participates in “vile, elder-attacking filth” boils down to nothing more than personal disagreement and irritation. Yet this made Defiant and his “no homo” quip, according to White, “one of the worst” – mind you, in a sea of naked profanity and open racial hatred. Despite the glaring lack of evidence, White argued that Defiant was no doubt part of one of the many flock-devouring sleeper cells lying in wait in the pews, and therefore must be exposed.

Historically, White has not been opposed to online anonymity. Yet his approval of it apparently depends on the anonymous person’s engagement in “thorough research and in-depth analysis” (former Alpha and Omega Ministries host “TurretinFan”), rather than “vile filth attacking elders in churches” (anyone giving White a hard time). In the case of Defiant Baptist, anonymous privilege was lost the moment he disagreed with James White and effectively challenged him, which, of course, was Defiant’s grave and dox-worthy offense.

On the recent Protestia Tonight, I discussed three biblical/logical standards that must be met to conclude that it is righteous to demand an anonymous Christian critic be doxed. First, the speech must be objectively sinful. Second, practical jurisdiction must exist for a non-member to invoke the disciplinary authority of the person’s church. And third, the risk of harm from the online speech must be so damaging as to outweigh the very real risk of harm presented by suggesting someone be doxed.

James White’s juvenile complaint about Defiant Baptist does not meet any of these three.

Clear Sin?

First, White’s blanket determination that Defiant’s expressed views are discipline-necessitating sin rely on either smearing him with things other people have said (White’s happy to suggest with no evidence that the other anons “might be the same guy, there’s no way to know”), or merely the fact that Defiant is opposing/making fun of White himself. Even the allowabililty of the “no homo” phrase is very much in the eye of the beholder (it’s certainly not “sexual innuendo” like White claimed). White is unable to make a case that the speech is palpably infringing on his rights (mere disagreement is not justiciable harm, and defamation has legal remedies), so he resorts to “for the good of other churches” as the justification for what amounts to petty, personal vengeance. Much to the consternation of evangelicalism’s pearl-clutching tone nannies, relying on a subject’s self-serving determination of what constitutes gentle, respectful, self-controlled, etc., speech apart from actionable defamation is not just. Rather, these characteristics are intended to direct the person’s disposition and motivations, and nowhere does the Bible indicate that the sinfulness of speech is determined by what the hearer/reader/subject (or even popular consensus) considers crass/rude/inappropriate.

Discipline By Proxy

Even if a justiciable sin has been committed against him, White is unsatisfied with merely using his platform to identify it as such, and he is unwilling to avail himself of the authority of the magistrate to punish defamation (a biblical option, considering White believes Defiant is not a believer). Rather, he insists on reporting Defiant’s posts to his church elders, presumably so that they will take disciplinary action against him on White’s behalf. Much like White’s fellow pastor Jeff Durbin “disciplines” Apologia church members via secret (sometimes selectively edited) recordings and his patented Elder Slander Kafkatrap™, White holds opposition to elders to be a more serious offense than opposition to mere pew-sitters, and elders to possess special disciplinary dispensation to both conclusively judge sin apart from the church discipline process and wield disciplinary authority without taking it to the church as Jesus requires (Matt. 18:17). Yet elders do not possess “walking authority” to invoke the disciplinary function of churches they don’t belong to. For church discipline to be valid, it must conform to the four-step process Jesus describes in Matthew 18:15-17, which ultimately involves the church removing someone from fellowship. If this is not a possibility (like with personal online disputes), church discipline cannot be properly applied even between members of the same church, much less between a miffed online apologist and an anonymous heckler.

Note: Reputation-obsessed, narcissistic hard shepherds employ the Elder Slander Kafkatrap™ to dodge accountability by demanding (usually quoting 1 Tim. 5:19) that their accuser/questioner publicly repent of supposed prior slander of the elder before they’ll answer. When the accuser inevitably disputes the slander, the elder piles on additional slander charges.

But wait! you might say. Isn’t this part of the elders’ responsibility to disciple and shepherd the flock, and doesn’t this involve knowing what their members are saying online? Simply put, no. Elders are charged with the ministry of the Word within the local church, not carte blanche, father-level authority in the lives of their church members. Apart from witnessing palpable reproach brought to Christ (false teaching, false witness), an elder is no more called to police their church member’s speech than they are to read their emails, inspect their bank accounts, or install secret cameras in their members’ bedrooms. It’s none of their business.

The Risk of Doxing

Lastly, even if the speech is facially sinful and we accept that this sin can somehow be referred to the speaker’s home church for disciplinary action, we must ask if the supposed damage being done by the sin is so significant that the risks of doxing are called for. Publishing personally identifiable details to encourage taking non-specific action against a person (discipline at church, censure at work, online harassment, etc.) is a tool used by those who have no legal right to enforce, and are not satisfied with making an open and convincing case. In this case, under the guise of warning churches about a vague, anonymous threat, James White is presuming his elder title confers upon him the right to take matters into his own hands, claim he can “make a strong biblical case” (which he has yet to make), and call upon his own “anon army” to see if they can expose his enemy for him. To prevent imminent harm? To stop an imminent threat? Of course not.

The only real threat presented by guys like Defiant Baptist is to James White’s reputation and waning influence. White has declared war on anonymity rather than on those who promote truly reprehensible and sinful things online, who are presumably only an LCMS excommunication away from serving as White’s next low-hanging debate partner. James White is busy reserving his strongest ire for those pesky critics who effectively challenge him while not offering him the opportunity to harangue their elders over mean tweets. White may claim doxing serves the interest of smoking out the anon Nazi sleeper cell hiding in your pews, but in truth it merely serves himself.