January 4th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
On some of the religious blogs that I read, I am seeing the call for pseudonymous (fake-name) bloggers to reveal themselves. The proposition is made that because a real name is not revealed, integrity is destroyed and Christian virtue is not extolled.
I’m not sure I can agree with the premise, for more reasons than I just happen to not disclose my last name on this blog.
First: Why withhold my name? For the same reason you don’t put credit card numbers on your web site. People can use your name and other information disclosed in your blog to harass you. I can use the time not spent dealing with harassment for better things. For this reason I don’t disclose exactly where I am until I’ve left. I’m pondering making that “Dan Nation Tour” widget subscriber-only, by the way. 
I can think of three Lutheran bloggers off the top of my head who have decided to pull their last names off their blog. Eating Words is the latest, and he’s not a flamethrower. He doesn’t lose integrity points in my book for going pseudonymous.
People do make pseudonymous blogs for the sole purpose of slamming people. This is wrong. What’s wrong, though, is not the pseudonymity but the slamming.
I have a rule, to not say anything that I am not willing to say in person. This seems to be a good check against writing things people don’t want to read. My pseudo-name is still a name.
I also try not to slam people but to do battle with ideas. Calling people names, even if the names are true, does not advance your argument. When you call a person a derogatory name, your intent is to make readers shun the person. What you should be doing is changing that person’s mind. Win your brother over before you have your friends excommunicate him.
I don’t allow anonymous comments on my blog because it’s very hard to keep track of conversations with more than one unregistered commenter. Commenters have to resort to calling people “Anonymous #1″ and “Anonymous #2,” which is more pain than necessary. If you’re commenting on a blog that allows anonymous comments, use a pseudonym. It’s courtesy, and you won’t cause the moderator and other commenters to hate you right off the bat.
Nobody is pseudonymous before God. He searches the hearts of each one of us and finds us wanting. I am bound to offend someone. Depending on what I did to offend that person, that may be a good thing. People who doubt original sin and their own sinful nature hate this blog; I’ve lost three readers because of that topic alone, friends who either agree to disagree or stop talking altogether, but the truth must be confessed.
Names are convenient. People want to tie content to a face. People also want to confer the qualities of a person they know to the text, perhaps to see if the author is being serious or tongue-in-cheek. If the reader can’t tell, then the writer isn’t that good. Some people want to use a real name to inflict real world consequences on what someone writes on their blog. Ideas can be debated where the “offense” has been made; keep the debate there. Unless someone is breaking the law, such as revealing trade secrets, it’s best to keep what happens on the Internet, on the Internet.
I’m sure more people went to TomDelay.com on its first day than hit here all last year simply because of his name. Eventually, though, it is what he writes that counts, and people will either read it or not. In the end you vote with your mouse, be it single button or not.
Update, January 16th, 6:23am: Aardvark Alley has passed out another round of Golden Aardvarks, and this post was a recipient. Thank you!
January 4th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
As long as a person uses one consistent name, I think that’s perfectly fine. If I were to disagree with, say, a certain action in the LCMS, I should base my argument on theology. It shouldn’t matter what my last name is or where I live.
January 4th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
As one pseudonymous theological blogger, I would have no problem using my real name. I’m not ashamed of a thing that I write, and would gladly sign my name.
My anonymity is for the sake of those about whom I may choose to write. It’s an effort to maintain their reputations. If you know who I am then you might learn the identities of those whose behavior I often write against, and that is not one of my purposes.
But neither will you find me flaming people. If I feel the need to do that, a) I won’t, but b) I’ll confront them personally and in private.
January 5th, 2007 at 7:19 am
I’ve never read any argument for not using your real name on your own blog site that is even remotely persuasive to me.
I believe it is simply disgraceful for a pastor to set up a blog site and then not use his real name. There is nothing about it that brings credit to the office of the ministry, but frankly, everything about it that bespeaks a lack of integrity, courage and the open honest and forthright communication that is required of those who hold the office of the ministry as Christ’s spokesmen.
I’ve noticed time and again that people make all sorts of excuses about not using their real name, but it finally all comes down in the end to the reality that they want to say things that are on their heart, and often they say many good things, but they are simply afraid of using their real name. They are afraid of consequences for what they say. They are afraid of being known and held accountable and responsible for their blog sites.
There is great temptation when not using one’s real name on one’s blog site, and it is simply something that should be shunned and avoided by pastors who blog.
One particular anonymous pastor blogger tried coyly to identify himself to me, and I knew precisely what he was doing when he sent me an e-mail identifying himself, but I will continue to insist that he “come out of the closet” and be the man and use his real name.
We need men, not wimps, in the ministry, and as far as I’m concerned it is a disgrace for a man to hide behind the skirts of a fake name.
When I consider all the bold confessors down through the years in the history of the Church and how they courageously spoke out and signed their names to their documents, I am made to realize how my weak and puny efforts can’t compare, but also how large a disgrace it is for Lutheran pastors to behave like little children playing games on their blog sites.
When we are talking and discussing the holy things of God on our blog sites, then we should use those names with which we were baptized into Christ. Period.
January 5th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Pastor McCain, one of the best pastors I know, who would never be described as a wimp by anyone, blogs without using his name. Therefore I strongly disagree with you, and I resent your vitriol and slams against people whom I hold in the highest regard as people and as called and ordained servants of the Word. And if I am correct that your animus comes from personal experience, I would further state that personal experiences are a poor basis for an all-encompassing, condemning judgment.
January 5th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
I am confused by Pr McCain’s comments, when he himself was (in the recent past) using pseudonyms for commenting on other people’s blogs. Is it different for comments than for blogposts themselves? Or have you had a change of heart with regard to anonymous commenting? Your recent comments against anonymity have confused me.
January 5th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Rev. McCain,
Precisely what is meant by behaving like little children playing games on their blog sites? I’ll agree that there’s enough riff-raff out there to kill a horse. Yet am I to understand that because I choose to blog under a pseudonym you name me “wimp”? And further, that my writings are therefore of a lesser value or more trivial? You are certainly entitled to that opinion on both counts, but I will take exception especially to the former, and certainly not reply in kind. I don’t know you and you don’t know me, but were you to have any informed idea about my ministry and its setting you would likely change your tune. Further, even Dr. Luther adopted a pseudonym for a time. Admittedly, he faced the threat of death. Was he also a “wimp”?
Blogging is a hobby for me. Even so, I take very seriously that which I write, and I consider the implications of those writings quite heavily. Blogging anonymously is intentional on my part, but so is the absolute scrubbing of everything that I do post so that nothing I write might identify anyone. Period. Integrity is certainly not limited to the signing of one’s name.
It cuts both ways, sir. There are those who post anonymously, and with such security take license to trample upon the Eighth Commandment. There are also those who, confident in the “integrity” of their disclosed Christian names, likewise trample the Eighth. Neither one is in keeping with integrity. The Eighth Commandment is not merely an issue of taking credit for words by signing one’s Christian name.
Any Christian who sets out to make public in this way his or her thoughts undertakes a significant task, whether or not s/he understands that. Real name or not, the charge is to publish with integrity. I respect that you have strong opinions on the matter, yet I don’t get from your comment here that you have adequately considered all sides of the issue. Among other things, the internet is a big place. Were one to blog pseudonymously in the interest of identity security alone I would consider that to be a legitimate reason.
Even so, I invite you, if you are willing (and take a pseudonymous blogger seriously, which you are frankly entitled not to do), to visit me at my blog and show me how I am “behaving like a little child” and “playing games on my blog site.” I believe you paint with too large a brush, sir.
January 5th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
I realize I got a little wordy in my previous comment. The short version is, It’s integrity that moves me to blog anonymously.
January 5th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
OSC…what I’m saying to you is that you are demonstrating a lack of integrity and hiding behind a fake name. It’s laughable that you would compare yourself to Martin Luther, for pity’s sake. There was nothing “secret” about nome de plumes in Luther’s time given the nature of publishing!
But one can successfully hide behind fake names on the Internet.
If you do truly take “seriously” what you say, then put your name on it! Take responsibility for what you ride and be willing to be held accoutable for it. Then I might be willing to take you seriously. Unless you are willing to put your name on something that just proves you are unwilling to be held accountable for it.
Your comment that you are doing everyone a favor when you blog anonymous is…frankly…hooey.
You can make all the silly accusations you wish, but you demonstrate nothing thereby.
If you are in fact such a faithful pastor, then be a faithful pastor and sign your name on your blog.
It is obvious that my words have caused you discomfort. That’s the second use of the law at work.
You can not “publish” with integrity when you don’t sign your name to what you have written.
You are decieving yourself, and others, when you do not use your real name.
Now, Susan, as for your silly remarks. I’ve played around on my good friend’s Bill Weedon’s blog site as “ConcordiaFan” and it’s been little secret to anyone, the very fact that you know this is proof positive of that. So, please drop your disengenous “confusion” claim, it just isn’t working.
And, how about YOU sign your name to your posts?
OSC..its cowardice that moves you to blog anonymously and you are fooling yourself if you think otherwise. If you want to exercise just a little bit of courage, e-mail me off line, identify yourself and then you can lecture me on blogging.
Or, remain behind your fake name and keep fooling yourself about your “high motives.”
January 5th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
If I had an objective to convince a person into performing a behavior that said person had expressed concerns performing, I would try not to use a negative method to achieve a positive result. Positive incentive may be more effective. Dismissing concerns would not be as effective.
I don’t know of a single blogger who would be intimidated into revealing their name. If recent history is any indication, e.g. certain seminarians who used to blog, they would rather pull their blog off the web. Yes, Google keeps a copy of it in Google cache, but you can’t comment on it. A good pseudonymous blogger is better than no content at all.
I am open to the comment that a pastor in a public ministry may be slightly incongruent with not publicly giving his name. Yet if a pseudonymous blogger posts his sermons, isn’t that part of his ministry still public? In a way, the Word must increase, the pastor must decrease.
Finally, I ask that any more commenters guard his or her tone well and review what you are submitting to make sure it can’t be taken personally.
January 6th, 2007 at 12:41 am
The excuses given by pastors who are blogging without using their real name is surely that. I’m not trying to “intimidate” anyone into revealing their name. I’m simply calling a thing what it is. I have no expectation that the people hiding behind fake names will stop doing that. To stop running their blog sites anonymously would require the very kind of courage they are not willing to demonstrate to begin with. I just find it totally offensive, particularly when I look back on all the courageous heros of our faith who have sacrified everything.
January 6th, 2007 at 12:44 am
Rev. McCain,
I continue to appreciate the strength with which you hold to your opinion, and I realize that you and I are at loggerheads on this issue.
I am neither a coward nor a liar, sir, and even though you are entitled to believe either one about me, I don’t appreciate being called either one. Neither do I presume to lecture you on blogging.
My Luther reference was certainly not to compare myself with him. Simply, there is a time and a place for anonymity. On this I am already aware that you and I disagree. This one aspect of blogging practice lowers me to being a disgrace in your eyes. I am truly sorry to hear that. I would that you might be a bit more charitable about it. But I do see that this is a more significant issue for you than for me.
I am certainly willing to be challenged on anything that I post to my blog, and I invite you to do so if its substance has been off base. But for the reasons I have already given above, which you are within your rights to reject, I will continue to do so under the name I have chosen.
January 6th, 2007 at 1:12 am
The problem, Pastor, is that you are a pastor. You are one pledged to preach or teach nothing contrary to Scripture or the Lutheran Confessions. When you blog you are teaching. By not using your real name you thereby are avoiding your responsibility to be held accountable for your ministry. It is an obligation you should embrace with joy and confidence, not retreat from by failing to use your real name. This is a very serious issue. I believe it is your duty as a pastor to be open and honest and to be willing to be accountable. You may not appreciate being called a coward, but this is precisely what this is Pastor. It is cowardice. I urge you to repent and embrace your obligation as a pastor to be held publically accountable. You have no valid reason for hiding behind a fake name. None. And I do with you would realize this. If you would care to e-mail me privately I’d be happy to take up this conversation with you privately, in fact, I would prefer that, but since you do not make that possible, you offer nobody any opportunity to address this concern with you privately, again, another problem, no? You are only deceiving yourself Pastor and I do hope you will embrace your obligation as a called and ordained servant of the Word to be open and honest and be willing to be held accountable for what you write. This is your obligation. This is your duty. Embrace it, don’t run from it.
January 6th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Paul, I’m sorry that I came off as being disingenuous. Maybe I’m just a stupidhead, but I spent more than a month reading blogs and comments, not knowing who some of those bizarre long names belonged to. Finally, someone responded back to one of those names and said something about the writer being Pr McCain. Even then, it took me another week or so to even begin making sense of whose pseudonyms were whose.
That’s why (with your recent remarks about anonymity) I couldn’t figure out if you’d had a change of heart over the matter, and were trying to get people to see what you now value, or what?? Or maybe you just thought your pseudonyms were so whacky that everybody would obviously know, but I was just out of the loop and too dumb to realize it.
(By the way, if you’re referring to me with the comment about not signing one’s name, this is Susan Gehlbach. I’m pretty clueless when it comes to technology, and I thought what I’d signed on Dan’s blog was indeed both my first name and last name, but it didn’t show up that way.)
January 6th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
I don’t think you are a “stupid head” or “clueless” or “too dumb.” But, yes, you were just out of the loop.
We have fun on Bill Weedon’s blog site teasing each other with our funny names. It’s kind of an insider thing with Bill since he and I have had fun kidding around about the “Concordia” edition and I’ve had fun tweeking him about reading it often, which he does.
Since, as you say, it was not too hard actually to figure out who “ConcordiaFan” is/was I would hardly compare that to a pastor hosting his own blog site and refusing to identify himself.
I would actually love to have a private conversation with OSC about his anonymous blogging, but you see, this is precisely the problem. Because he won’t reveal his name and thus be able to be contacted, that’s impossible. Another problem with anonymous blogging. He seems like a fine enough fellow and his heart clearly is in the right place, but precisely for that reason, he needs to “come out of the closet” and sign his name on what he posts on his blog site.
It just strikes me finally as immature behavior to play games like hiding behind fake names.
I’m not sure what to think now about Pastor Walt Snyder, whom is well known to most Lutheran pastor-bloggers as the Aardvark! A shameless self-promoter is there ever was one, who runs a very fine site. I do with he would identify himself on his Aardvark site. It strikes me finally as a bit weird when he refers to the Aardvark site on his Chrysostom site, where he does reveal himself. But, whatever. I’m still thinking about that one.
I am sick and tired of game playing in the Synod and I see anonymous blogging as just part of it.
Have I changed my thinking on anyonymous writing and posting? Maybe I have, but I’ve felt this way for a very long time now.
I do think it is a matter of cowardice. Finally, it is a risky thing to stick your nick out on an open public blog site. I’ve caught heck from Muslims, Jews, Calvinists, Romanists, liberal Lutherans, right-wingers in our own Synod, you name it. It just comes with the territory when you blog.
Also, I think it is so tempting to say things you otherwise would not say if you were using your real name that pastors should use their real names.
I think OSC is confused and is rationalizing his anonymity, but he is wrong. Sincere? Sure. Wrong? Yes.
Finally, it is amusing and sad to me to see conservatives do the same thing that liberals do when it comes to these kinds of issues. They run immediately to, “You are breaking the 8th commandment!” rather than dealing with the issues at hand. It’s sad to see the same kind of whiney behavior that we get all the time from the liberals whenever anyone criticizes them or what they are doing.
It’s easy to use your real name here. When you post a comment, in the “Name” box you simply type your whole name, etc.
January 6th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Paul, you say that people aren’t “dealing with the issues at hand.” When I boil down the arguments on both sides, I hear you say that people should have the courage to sign their names. I hear others say that they need to protect their privacy.
You say that it’s risky to stick your neck out when you blog, and that bloggers will take heat from those with different opinions. True enough, and I agree that people (especially pastors) should not be fearful of attaching their names to their theological opinions.
However, on most blogs, a lot more goes on than just discussing opinions. There’s a lot of personal information there too. With the amount of identity theft in America today, I think it is wiser for a blogger to leave fuzzy his identity. Stalkers can gather information off a blog with intent to harm the blogger or his family. I can’t begrudge anyone for trying to prevent this. You’re making it sound like the bloggers are fearful of owning up to their opinions, but it may be that they’re fearful of owning up to when their house will be empty or which route the wife takes to work each day, or other things that may inadvertently be revealed which could endanger physical safety.
There’s also the matter of political opinions. Pastors have opinions too. But because their people expect them to speak authoritatively on behalf of God, pastors have to be very careful to not give the impression that they are “speaking for God” when they are merely engaging in political debate. (I am not referring, of course, to issues such as abortion where God’s word is clear.) It seems perfectly reasonable to me that a pastor might want to engage in discussion/banter with friends and equals, without risking having his people overhear his opinions such that those opinions might be confused with God’s sure and certain pronouncements. Anonymity could give him the chance to debate peers without offending those for whom he is responsible.
(By the way, with regard to signing posts here, now I’ve figured out that if I write my first name on the first line and my last name on the second line, that’s not enough to make my full name appear. I should’ve been able to figure that out, but it wasn’t obvious to me. Of course, I can’t set the alarm clock or work the vcr, so signing my full name here isn’t the least of my technological ineptitude.)
January 6th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
Hi Susan, I can see your point if in fact a blog site is intended to be a personal blog about one’s family activities, etc. I would never advocate posting a lot of photos of one’s children on a public Internet site, etc.
The anonymous blogs I’m referring to however are clearly mostly a pastor speaking on the Word of God.
And my point still remains: pastors who are expressing opinons need to use their real names, no matter what the subject. We are not “on the clock” as pastors and “off the clock” but we are called and ordained to an office in the Church that is literally 24/7/365.
I am not aware of any of the anonymous blog sites I’m referring to that engage in much, if any, political talk. But here again, a pastor should be, and must be, held accountable for anything he says. For the sake of the ministry, if he has a political opinion and he thinks it will be detrimental to his ministry, then let him keep silent.
You make some good points, but I have not noticed any of the anonymous blogs that actually are about what you are referring to.
January 7th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
I will be posting something interesting on my blog later today that is pertinent to this discussion. I’m sure all here will be interested to read it.
January 7th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
Not at all unsurprisingly, Mr. Kobra, you fail to provide all the facts of this particular situation.
Nice try, though, trying to slander me. I’ve been through with you before though, so your latest stunt does not surprise me, at all. Very sad indeed.
I won’t bother to respond to your misrepresentation of the facts here, since I’ve learned with you, Kobra, that discussion is a waste of time.
You know you are not providing all the facts here and only selectively quoting from a chat room log.
Disgusting, though, not surprising.
January 7th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
I do not retract anything I’ve said about pastors anonymously *blogging.*
Kobra is attempting to compare blogging with chat rooms where everyone uses a nickname, I’ve learned.
Kobra is referring here to an incident in an Internet theology chat room, that I had just joined for about the first time I had ever used IRC and did not know how to use my real name or even another nick name. I was savagely attacked by “Dr. Oakley” the nickname that James White uses. He refused to identify himself to me when I asked him who he was, so I figured, ok, let’s see how this goes in his chat room. I had some fun with some folks and they clearly figured out who I was. I’ve got nothing to hide in James White chat room, but I notice that Kobra has never given his real name on his blog site or in the chat room. That’s just weird, is it not?
So, I’m not surprised that Kobra would try to savage me here.
This all goes back to an exchange I had with him and one of his friends, Ron Olson, in a chat room where I was trying to help them both understand why Christians should not listen to the obscene songs of Eminem. “Swede” and “Kobra” both decided to attack me and defend this behavior. They both disparaged the office of the ministry, and engaged in vulgarity and profanity over against me and the office of the ministry. All, I would note, under the cover of their anonymity.
This is but the latest extension of Kobra’s problems as expressed in that conversation some time ago.
I’m pleased to report that I do know now how to use IRC and how to use a nickname, and I’ve since developed a good relationship with Dr. White and have enjoyed many good conversations with him.
I only wish I could say the same for Kobra. But as he has proven now with his latest stunt and attempt to slander me, he is a very angry young man, and a confused one as well. I hope he comes around.
January 7th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
I take no pleasure in the events that have unfolded. I’m not certain I would have made that choice. I do however think we’ve unwittingly uncovered a reason for posting pseudonymously.
Sometimes the message is more than the man (or the woman, but I like the alliteration
). Some people believe that just because a person is hypocritical (FWIW, I’m not saying that of anybody here), the hypocrisy nullifies the message. If we were to affirm that principle, then no preacher could preach. We must reject it.
Pseudonymity does start one out with a “reputation balance” of zero. Nobody expects anything extraordinary out of you because you are a religious scholar, and nobody summarily judges anything you say as bogus because of prior happenings. You are what you make of your name in the context of the Web. A good message will stand on its own.
January 7th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
Exactly what about the post at my blog is a misrepresentation? I have the entire 14 page log available to anyone who would like to see it. Come to my blog and leave a comment that includes your email addy, and I will have my admin. dept. send them out.
First, I’ve never had a problem with pseudonyms on the web or in a chatroom. It doesn’t really matter to me what someone calls themself on the internet.
Secondly, as I’ve argued in my post at http://www.theomony.blogspot.com chatrooms are even MORE intimate than a blog and thus, if we are to follow Pastor McCain’s argument, it is even more crucial to be transparent in that venue.
Finally, there is no need to sully Dan’s blog with this. If you would like to discuss just where I’ve made a misrepresentation of your actions, Pastor McCain, you can engage me at my blog. I might also be able to gather some witnesses who were in the chatroom on the night in question to verify the facts and give their opinion about what transpired. I doubt anything they say will contradict what I’ve said. In other words, before you start making assertions, you might wish to be able to provide facts to back them up. And maybe in the future you will not behave in such a way that will disqualify you from offering a believable opinion in the future.
January 8th, 2007 at 1:57 am
The clues are usually there for those who know where to look.
Anyhow, pseudonymous bloggers are a subset of a larger group of pseudonymous writers, who, in turn belong among this still larger assembly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_known_by_pseudonyms
January 16th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
Because there might be legitimate reasons for writing anonymously, I have retained pseudonymous blogs in the Augsburg Aggregator. However, I have distinguished them from the others since genuine signatures add credibility in many people’s minds, not unreasonably.
I would appreciate notification of any misclassifications.