Does anyone else think “Anonymous” is misused and overdone?Years ago, as I ran a meeting, I presented a letter to those assembled, but did not read it aloud. I simply announced that someone sent this letter, (holding it high in my left hand for all to see) but since the author did not put his or her name to it, I crumpled it up (as if I had not read it), then I just tossed it in the garbage.
I wanted to make a statement. My message was that in that group, no member would be permitted to commit a hit and run. I did in fact read the letter before bringing it to the meeting, and it was a hurtful criticism of one of the hardest working contributors of our group. I felt that its author was gutless and the cheap shot deserved a public challenge. Now, I didn’t preach on the evils of such slithery slander, instead, I acted uninterested as I tossed it aside and moved on to the next order of business. No one ever owned up to it, but we never got an anonymous letter again.
But do all anonymous letters fall in the same category? Probably not. Just last week, I came across a letter from someone who used anonymity to take a first step in confessing a sin they were struggling with. They used their letter to test the waters, to see how the church would react to their confession of sin. I can’t blame this person for the way they went about it. I mean, would you go in for surgery if you were not confident that they would anesthetize you to reduce unnecessary pain?
Does there seem to be an upsurge of anonymous comments in the blogosphere right now? …Especially as it relates to the public humiliation of a Christian leader? I found other anonymous comments from opposite sides of political agendas.
What kind of guidelines should we use as pertains to anonymous writings? Certainly not all anonymity is to be despised, right? What shall we do about all those people talking through a paper-bag mask?
Posts
14 comments:
Interesting, I wonder what some of the responses might be?
Really, it can be all good if we then take the "bad" anon comments (that are just drive by's) and show what they really are and what not to do about being persecuted falsely and the fact that we will see some who are self righteous and so on...we use their mailce as an object lesson, as it were...
IOW, the fool shall be "known" by his foolishness, even if anon, and of course Hebrews 4:13...the fool provides us with ample opporuntity for learning, and after all, "God will get 'em"...
Well, I guess it's hard to crumple them up!:)
Mostly, I picture those anonymous comments as being from people who are either shy or worried. Doesn't really bother me too much (One exception, but not from the blog world: when I got anonymous feedback on my book manuscript... that was SO AWFUL... I knew the readers were just being honest, but I also realized that their anonymity allowed them to forget about my feelings as a person. Since, as a writer, I'm so affected by words, I still can't get some of those comments out of my head and heart.)
BINGO!! LL, that’s a perfect example. (I’m so glad for your visits.) Hidden identities make it easier to exercise unrestrained cruelty. But it’s not necessarily “honest,” especially when absolutes are used. It makes me want to tear down the curtain of anonymity and expose the worst of these offenders. Even So…, pastors are frequently on the receiving end of these attacks, and I hope your congregation is the exception.
And yet, I don’t want to pull up the wheat up with the tares. You see, as much as I would like to push a button that converts the anonymous signature with a picture, profile and contact information, such an action would cause damage where I need to show mercy. I really want to be safe and trustworthy for those who need gentle restoration, but fear that they will be humiliated.
Our pastor is considered to be just another one of the elders (though, of course, he is paid and has more responsibilities). That also means he only speaks twice a month, while a different elder and one outside speaker take the other two slots.
This less-hierarchical structure promotes less targeting, I think. Also, he's just a wonderful person... very humble... I'm sure some people have attacked at times, but mostly we know he needs our support just like any other member of the congregation.
I thought I would have a string of anonymous complaints. Silly me.
L.L. - Actually, the reason we have anonymous outside reader reports is because folks are usually more helpful and objective in their analysis and critique than when it comes from people who are known to the author. Granted, sometimes readers are more harsh than they should be (I distinctly remember the sting of "Reader #2" on my latest book manuscript), but these folks can tell us things that others wouldn't say as readily.
Of course, anonymous feedback solicited by your editor is a bit different than the anonymous comments that Craver is talking about in his blog post. Either way, though, it can serve as a bit of a reality check and can be weighed alongside non-anonymous comments, for whatever merit the actual content of the critiques provide.
Oh, Craver, hope you don't mind that you've started a round table discussion. :) (Personally, I really want that on my blog.)
Anyhow, Al has made an important point... soliciting anonymous feedback is far different from being the "victim" of unsolicited anonymous feedback. In either case, even if the words sometimes sting, there's potentially an opportunity for growth. My husband, who's a conflict resolution guy, always notes that the Chinese character for conflict can also mean "opportunity."
P.S.
Sometime, if you don't mind breaking your anonymity, I'd love to know what you do in publishing... and for whom. :)
I tend to view anonymous writings as two different categories...
1. speaking of oneself
2. speaking of another person
The first category I don't really see as a problem because whether the writings are good or bad, the person is not at a place where they feel they can share their own name yet. The second category is something I feel is different. If a person is willing to speak about someone else (especially when they are "naming names"), that individual should not withhold their own name. It makes the entire thing much more "sneaky" in motive...and I can't find any circumstance in which this situation could be with a decent motive. I feel that if you're talking about someone else, you should be mature enough to reveal who you are.
There are, of course, exceptions to both categories. Perhaps for the first category, I wouldn't necessarily ok a serial killer sending anonymous notes about himself...and for the second category I wouldn't necessarily condemn someone writing an anonymous note saying something like "there's a present for so-and-so" because they don't want the giver to be revealed (i.e. Secret Sisters).
And, because I'm a brat that way, I'm remaining anonymous. :)
Aha! An anonymous one has come out of the woodwork! Hmmm… I wonder if I could figure out who it is. She (just guessing) sounds like a real nutcase. I blame the parents. ;-)
Al, I was profoundly moved as I read your post about Cutting but didn’t comment ‘cause I’m afraid to say something really stupid.
LL Barkat, Pah-Leeeease, I love to see lots and lots of comments here. As for my true identity, didn’t I already tell you that my 7-year-old is going to become a superhero? That is privileged information, Civilian. I have a myspace account where I didn’t even use my real picture. (Psst…. Check your email under “General comments.”)
good discussion. i'm not sure i have something valuable to add at this point, except that i really like that picture you used of the statue for this entry. very cool.
Thanks for visiting, clc!
Yeah, that's a neat picture, isn't it? It's the statue of anonymous from Budapest, Hungary. There's an erie picture in the snow and token background at the link I provided.
Reading through your old blogposts and couldn't resist replying to this one.
It's amazing what God uses to change people's lives, isn't it?
Nice blog, btw. Well writtien and funny!
Post a Comment