On Being (and Staying) Anonymous
What does it mean to be anonymous?
Here’s a quick tour through a few biblical, cultural, and philosophical/theological perspectives.
From a biblical perspective:
There are multiple times throughout the ministry of Jesus where he encourages his followers to keep silent about his true identity. In some ways it seems as though Jesus wanted one season of his life to remain hidden from the masses. Of course, we know how the story ends – his true identity is revealed and rest, as they say, is history.
From a cultural perspective:
Within some non-Western societies, the idea that one can have ownership of words is unknown. For example, when discussing plagiarism, the whole notion of a person “owning” certain words or phrases is unknown in various cultures.
From a philosophical/theological perspective:
St. Augustine is attributed with the notion that “all truth is God’s truth” regardless of where it emerges.
Why am I bringing these items into this blog’s conversation? For those who have been part of this blog since it’s inception, it probably comes as no surprise that I will use the departure of A. Amos Love as a chance to discuss the notion of anonymous posting.
I have read the “management’s” reasoning about the anonymous posting policy and it continues to trouble me for several reasons.
First, the idea of emerging suggests that everyone is moving in some direction. But, we all have different starting points. Perhaps there are some people who genuinely believe that they cannot provide their name. If this blog is intended as a safe forum for discussion, what if there is no where else they can go? Suggesting that everyone should at least be able to provide a name, in my opinion, stifles the honesty that may provided. If someone is still thinking through the ideas here – ideas that have openly been called heretical – shouldn’t a little anonymity be allowed and welcome?
Second, how much do we really know from those who have posted names? With the exception of Bill, Brian, Fran, and Dan H., I have not met any other regular posters face-to-face (I apologize if I missed someone), nor have they met me. Why draw the line at a name? Why not a picture? Do we really know “where people are coming from” by the little that is listed online?
I am NOT suggesting full disclosure. I think some things should remain hidden. I have no problem with the anonymity that exists on this blog. Sometimes I think the efforts to disclose our identities is an effort to make the internet something it is incapable of being.
Third, and perhaps most important, what about those who keep their ideas “anonymous” within their congregations? They may post here to explore and think through ideas but when in the presence of real people, they fear to share what they write here. Perhaps they know full-well that their leadership will never read their posts and therefore write things that they would never say in person. That is where a much dire trouble lies – not in the fact that some people post ideas without signing a name.
Feel free to disagree [as long as you sign your name!!]
I’ll share my own identity while I try to protect the identity of others. If anyone wants further information about me, follow my profile for a picture and further information on my employer’s website.
posted by Brent C Sleasman at 9:54 AM
6 Comments:
PART 1
Brent,
You make some interesting and thought provoking points. Allow me to share some of my own on my experiences with the double edged sword of internet anonymity.
I served for about two years as an administrator of the Revolution Church forums. Revolution Church is in NYC, Charlotte, and Atlanta. It is the churches founded by son of Jim Bakker, Jay Bakker. For awhile it was a nice little place where people shared thoughts and views and had great discussions. As it was a forum, you had a "handle" in which you were known by and could have an avatar, or picture of whatever you wanted. We had one rule in the forums, play nice.
The complexion of the forums took a turn for the worse at one point. There was a Sundance Channel mini series made about Jay Bakker called "One Punk Under God". In episode three of the mini series, Jay Bakker took a gay affirming stance while one of the key elders in his church disagreed. The fallout and the hoopla had already shaken his church, but when it hit the Sundance Channel, all hades broke loose on the forums.
Overnight we were assaulted with literally thousands of new registrations and the conversation swiftly went from polite disagreements and healthy discussion to name calling, witch hunts, and flame wars. We had two extremes of pro and anti gay for the church. We went from discussions of faith ranging in all topics to the great gay debate.
The anonymity seemed to embolden people on both sides of the fence to behave in a poor manner and speak in ways that they never would have if they were face to face with someone in coffeehouse.
That was the negative side of anonymity.
The positive side of it comes from a nightmarish scenario we had experienced. James Hartline is an ex gay Christian who has HIV. He is a Christian anti gay activist in San Diego who has been featured on the 700 Club and other places for his closing down of bath houses in San Diego and other things. He jumped onto the forums with fervor. There was another member of the forums who preferred to remain anonymous. He was gay and a believer in Christ. He and James used to disagree vehemently, but they also had a more respectful discussion. They even had some phone calls to discuss the matter. Then, one day, James decided to take it upon himself to "out" the person and put the persons personal information (name and phone number) on the forums without the person's permission. Though I deleted it as soon as I saw it, the damage was already done and that person became the victim of several harassing calls.
The hundreds became thousands and the thousands became about ten of us who got to know each other very well. Many of us have even visited each other's churches, talk on the phone, and share life. The ten o us are all still close to this day even though the forums no longer exists. No, the ten of us DID share our names and information about us and that vulnerability led to deeper discussion and even friendship.
Oh yeah, one other problem we had with anonymous forums was I had busted some people claiming to be things they were not. Their lies did harm to others and led people to believe they had relations with people that were not real.
PART 2
So, I suppose where I am going is this. Anonymous posting leads to the temptation for people to be rude, less than honest, and to act in a nature they would not act on one on one.
On the other hand, you are right. There are some people who may have something genuine to offer to the table of conversation that will only initially come on if they get to remain anonymous. It gives a safe starting point. An example of this is from the Revolution forums. We had a gay pastor who chose to lead a celibate life. He felt there was a sinful element to his desires. As his struggle was a personal one that he did not act on, he had a need for privacy for the betterment his community and his family. Eventually, and in time, he was more open about who he was and where he was and has contributed a lot to the conversations (as well as AMAZING insights on Dietrich Bonhoeffer). He needed the comfort level of being anonymous to initially come to the table.
So, I see the drawbacks and the advantages to anonymous posting. A needed comfort level for some that will draw more enriching conversation to the table. For others, it will be an opportunity to abuse and be rude.
Maybe this is worth exploring.
Cheers
I am generally in favor of real names. That is one of the primary reasons facebook is so nice compared to myspace. What you see is what you get.
Brent, with Jesus the 'messianic secret' has more too it then anonymity I think. I appreciate some of your thoughts though.
I guess if there was some real reason for anonymity on this blog, I can't see what it is. I think it's safe to say at this point that there is not a denominational which hunt. Maybe if one comes from or pastors a very conservative church, some people could try to find ammunition against them on the blog. Personally, I prefer to have my name on what I write.
It is interesting that in my experience on different blogs, it is the people who are the most critical that tend to prefer to be anonymous. I say if you have something to say, own it. If not, don't say it.
Patrick & Dan,
Thanks for the kind replies. I knew when I posted this that I would be in the minority. This blog is under Brian's name and ultimately, the decision about posting is his to make.
This seems like one of those topics to which we often have knee-jerk responses. When the topic of anonymous posting comes up, the immediate answer is "No!" When pressed, a few muttered comments are offered regarding the courage to stand behind your word and not much is are provided.
You each provide some legitimate experiential support of why postings should not be anonymous.
I bring up the biblical, cultural, and philosophical/theological because I want to push us past strictly using experience as a guide. Bill has done a wonderful job of bringing a historical perspective to many conversations. While it may seem mundane, what does an informed answer to the question of anonymous posting look like?
Dan, you are right - there is more at work in Jesus words than simple anonymity. But at least that is a starting point for bringing scripture into the conversation.
Thank you both for avoiding the easy way out with a simple "this has been settled, let's move on" approach.
Brent,
I am a big fan of forums over blogs. I feel forums encourage more diverse conversation and welcome more diverse people. I see both sides of the anonymity debate. To be honest, if I had my druthers, I would be right with you. However, it is not my decision or my sandbox, I just like to play in it from time to time. When I log onto a forum or blog I understand it is not mine and tr to adhere to the community standards laid out by the admin staff. :)
Cheers!
Patrick
Brent, very humble response and perspectives. It's okay for us to disagree.
I think that we should be able to know who is engaging in the discussion, but I don't necessarily think those who are not engaged in the discussion need to know, if that makes any sense.
Because this blog is open, it could easily be and quite possibly is 'trolled' by folks who are unhappy with the conversation.
I'm just happy for people to be able to know who I am - even though many of you don't know me personally - I think that one's setting, background and experience are important factors.
Post a Comment
<< Home