So I said the other day that a friend linked to this blog under my real name, even though this is an intentionally pseudonymous space.
All along I have been much more concerned about the real name –> blog scenario than the blog –> real name one. Readers of this blog could find out my identity pretty easily. Most of the pseudonyms are easily sussed out for anyone with a basic awareness of the PC(USA). It doesn’t bother me. I don’t blog about confidential church matters, and I have a basic personal filter on. What you read here is me, but there are parts of my life that the Internet doesn’t get to be privy to.
No, my one goal was to be ungoogleable.
What I didn’t want was for some church’s search committee to have this blog be literally the first thing they knew about me after reading my PIF. Or for a youth director or parent from the Mondo Youth Conference to raise a stink because the preacher for that conference has a potty mouth (assuming I ever get to preach there again). I didn’t want myself googleable here, not because I’m ashamed of what I’ve written here, but because others may perceive that a person who blogs about her personal life is going to use the pulpit as therapy, or a person who’s dropped the F-bomb is going to let it fly around “impressionable children.”
*I* understand that different venues have different norms of communication. But it’s very hard to reassure others that you get that when you don’t even know they’re out there. Just yesterday I heard from a friend that a blogger in our denomination is having some trouble finding a call. There may be many reasons for that, but my friend (who is a blogger herself) suspected that there were some TMI things on his blog that were off-putting to search committees, particularly older members who don’t get technology.
That’s what I wanted to avoid. However, even though my friend has updated his page, this blog is still the number one search result when one googles my name. Numero uno. Listed ahead of the church I serve, the column I write for Denominational Magazine, the little piece that was published in the WaPo last year.
So all of this has been bugging me. But not for the reason I expected, but because… I’m not sure I care anymore. Would the kind of church that would be bothered by this (really rather innocuous) blog be the kind of church I’d want to serve as pastor anyway? My husband, who is admittedly biased, actually suggests that this blog would be an asset.
This all came up recently in the context of political bumper stickers. I was talking to the other pastors on staff about how clergy should or should not make their political opinions known. I said that it was unlikely to shock anyone at our church that I am supporting Obama over McCain. One of them responded that it’s a question of it being “in someone’s face.” Ministry is a sacred trust and you don’t want to do anything to compromise your ability to provide care for someone.
(What about Facebook? I wonder. Members of the church have friended me and I’ve got my little Obama icon there. Is that in their face?)
Which leads me to ask, are they right? Would I not feel like I could receive pastoral care from a die-hard Republican? On the contrary, I’m sure I have. Now, if I were to visit two churches, and if the pastor at the first had a “God bless the people of every nation” bumper sticker and the other had one that said “Abortion: A Doctor’s Right to Make a Killing,” I would, well, factor that into my decision. But if I had a long and deep relationship with the second one first, I don’t think I could dismiss him or her that easily.
Is this a generational thing? Do people my age want or expect their pastor to be an ideological blank slate? Is that even realistic? My daughter will be going to kindergarten next year, and we’re told that 50% of her class will speak a language other than English at home. The kindergarten parent meeting had five language translators there. Diversity is going to be a way of life for her, whether it’s religious, culturally, racially or otherwise. The church is still a pretty segregated place, but one thing we do have is ideological diversity. To say that a minister should exist outside of that, or needs to keep a lid on it, is feeling increasingly strange to me.
So this blogging conundrum has been part of a larger questioning about what it means to be a minister. I value my privacy and don’t want my family on display. On the other hand, keeping certain aspects of my core self hidden feels very inauthentic, when part of what I’m preaching is the need for all of us to live whole and congruent lives.
18 Responses to “anonymity and authenticity”
Leave a Reply
Search
Asides
» I have been remiss in posting SBJ’s latest stats: 23 pounds and 27 inches at six months. Yes, I’ve got the big mama biceps.
» Aaaaaand little she-who-is lost another tooth this week!
» SBJ is four months old, 19 pounds 5 ounces, and 26 inches tall. GIGANTOR!
Links
Join | List | Prev | Next Random | Prev5 | Next5
Skip Prev | Skip Next
Join | List | Prev | Next |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
this isn’t in any way a helpful comment, but I just have to say:
at least googling your name brings up you (for many many links in a row) and not Playboy’s Miss July 1980. If you google my name, I don’t actually show up until the bottom of the second page. Which is disturbing all in its own way since 90% of the preceding entries reference a soft-porn star…
No, my name is a very unsexy porn name… unless one has an affinity for the girl-next-door character on Gilligan’s Island.
So, I must say I walk the line on this one. I do believe that having a political bumper sticker on one’s car as a pastor can have adverse affects, not with the folks who already know you but the ones who possibly think they know you and will then know all that bumper sticker means. Does that mean pastors (you and I) need to avoid sharing our political ideologies? No - I share that within conversations when it comes up and am rather open about my support of Obama as well as my questions about certain issues.
This may be because I followed a person who had a “Kerry” bumper sticker on her car for over a year before the election and who actually told a student (who was then a Republican and a freshman),”I don’t think (b/c she was a Rep.) you and I believe in the same God.”
The bumper sticker closed off conversation instead of opening it up.
But I have to admit I’m pretty anti-bumper sticker anyway….
It’s like our July 4th invite - I asked my husband to take off “Margaritas” on there b/c I knew that there would be some that would be offended. Will we still serve margaritas? You bet, along with lemonade and sodas, beer and water. Folks that know us will know we’ll have alcohol. Those that don’t know us will not have that be the first thing they see about us. Inauthentic or careful? I vote for careful.
Right, and that’s exactly what I meant about not wanting this blog to be very very very first thing people know about me.
So OK, bringing up your political affiliation in conversation makes sense. But then the person you were talking to mentions it loudly in the hall to someone else, and now people have overheard where you stand and can judge you based on it. (This happened to me recently at the church.) You aren’t always going to be around to provide context—people are going to make their assumptions regardless of the way they found out the information.
The margarita thing is just prudent!
Now I’m thankful for having the most common last name in the English speaking world.
But to your main point…I wonder if the emphasis on keeping secrets and compartmentalizing made conditions ripe for abuse. I tend to err on the side of openness too, but I do have secrets I have consciously kept from the congregation. Things that felt too personal to share, even though sharing them might have helped someone else, or I might have found support.
Things to ponder.
“In someone’s face” means “I’m afraid of things and wish to blame you instead of taking responsibility.”
Let gay people be gay as long as they don’t shove it in my face.
Let Christians practice as long as it’s not in my face.
What’s more “in someone’s face?” A bumper sticker, or a building with a giant cross on top of it?
“In someone’s face” and “down our throats” both mean the person speaking has no thought besides fear.
I’m with your husband. Although there is no question that being public space creates an more keen internal radar.
About bumper stickers: I tried to
give you on and you’ll remember your response.
I like the way Keith has articulated something I’ve always suspected,but never quite found the right words for, in regards to fear .
Thank you, Cheesehead.
(And that’s the first time I think I’ve ever typed that sentence.)
Re: the question of revealing your political opinions. As you know, I’m a Republican (one of the few RevGals who can make that statement). So let me assure you that I always assume that pastors are more liberal than I am in their political viewpoint. And I’m seldom disappointed!
Does this bother me-? Not unless the pastor exhibits the sort of attitude described by Chaplain Mom.
I think that seminary training and the type of personality that finds herself called to the ministy are naturally compatible with a liberal/Democratic party sympathy. I find that is a good challenge and balance to my legal/corporate/TypeA/ETNJ self and makes me re-examine my own opinions so I don’t stray too far from the Gospel in the other direction. And isn’t that what a good pastor does?
Just my 2 cents.
I even hesitate to comment on certain blog posts because of my position in the Presbytery. Usually when I do comment, I do not link back to my blog. I don’t ever blog about things that would entice wrath, but I don’t need the hassle.
i think i might have shared this story here before but it really relates today, so here goes. sorry if it’s a rerun.
in nov. 2004, after voting VERY early in the day, i flew to texas to visit my sister. i’m liberal. she’s conservative. she is on the staff of a very conservative texas mega-church and on the sunday after the election i visited her church. the pastor said words similar to these—”i want everyone to give liberally to the capital funds drive, but that’s all i want you to do liberally!” earlier in the service he’d made comments about how well the presidential election had turned out.
i felt sooo ill at ease! if i hadn’t been visiting w/ my sister i would have just left the service.
i think there’s a reason why you are feeling a bit uncomfortable about what to do/say about your politics. you don’t want to make other people feel dis-included in worship because their opinions differ from your own (like i did in my sister’s church).
can’t recall the beginning of the expression that ends with “…leave everything else to God,” but perhaps that applies here. share the Good News, encourage people to do things for the least of these, help folks understand what’s in the Bible, offer Christian fellowship at its best, share your own experience of God and let others do the same and leave everything else to God.
does that mean you can’t be politically active on your day off? of course not. but in your official capacity as pastor, i think that’s another matter. good luck sorting this one out and i’ll stay tuned to read your ongoing thinking on this matter.
i’ve been in churches where i was more conservative than most members and i’ve been in churches where i was (am) more liberal than most members. that works out fine as long as politics aren’t a big part of what the church is about. in looking for the right church in the town we live in now (for the last 3 years) i found MANY churches that were WAY too conservative for my tastes and then i sighed a big sigh when i found the church i finally joined. there are subtle (and not so subtle) clues that folks pay attention to. and i think subtle is good—especially from the pastoral staff.
Subtle is definitely good. It probably doesn’t need to be said that I’m against partisan pronouncements from the pulpit (try saying that five times fast).
A side question I’m pondering, is Facebook a day off activity? If members of the church friend me and see political content there, is that the same as them happening to see me out canvassing for a candidate, or the same as me advocating a candidate from the pulpit? That is the question.
I think it’s like the former, for no good reason really. Except that I don’t friend parishioners, I will only confirm them as friends if they extend the invitation. So I feel like if they’re going to seek that contact they get to live with the consequences.
Ah, you may not like this but….do you list your church name on your facebook page? I can’t remember if you do. If you do, it becomes construed as work-related. I know this because an attorney came to talk to us at camp about facebook/myspace. We had the choice of never uttering the name of the camp or its relationship to the other camps on our facebook pages, or mentioning it, but therefore accepting the consequence that the whole page must be camper appropriate. If camp is not mentioned by name and parent finds objectionable material, parent “happened upon us” in our private lives. If camp is mentioned, even obliquely, we are liable for content. Which is why I don’t do superpoke–al lot of those things can be misconstrued.
So, no mention of church=day off. Mention of church name: work related.
Wow, ppb. That’s so good to know.
Well, one of my parishioners just gave me a ticket to Obama’s town hall tomorrow afternoon, and it’s gonna be hard not to skywrite that all over the place.
did you go to the town hall meeting? what did you think?
I can identify with your conundrum, though from an academic perspective and not a pastoral one. Since I work as an adjunct, I have absolutely no job security and my life is thus one long job interview. When I began blogging, I did so anonymously, for exactly that reason. I didn’t want to write about someone’s pet issue and have it cost me a job.
At one point, I figured that I had just about enough personal information leaked out that everyone would probably figure it out anyway. I was a bit afraid that disclosing my ID would make me more timid. And I thought I knew me.
Honestly, I’ve found it to be a freeing experience. I walked into a job interview this past Monday and already had the job because of my blogging. “We need people who can explain these complex taxation issues to a bunch of engineering students.” Well. Ain’t I all bright and shiny as a new penny?
But I’ve also experienced the other end. After writing a particularly critical piece about our Federal Attorney, I got an email from his law partner that sort of casually mentioned that he might have to mention how disappointed he was in my writing to the University President when they next had cocktails. Whether that was the reason or not, I had no less than four courses cancelled over the next three semesters.
I am, from time to time, asked if my personal political beliefs intrude upon my teaching of political science. My answer is, “Of course - and anyone who doesn’t tell you that isn’t self-aware enough to teach this course.” I am very proud of the fact that some of the students who have maintained closest contact with me over the years have, in fact, been some of the most conservative. The reason is simple: I’ve never used my class to convert anyone, I’m simply trying to get them to argue whatever they belief with more passion and tie it to actual facts and ideological foundations.
The difference is that part of a pastor’s job is intrinsically tied to their ideological foundations. At least, in part. Could you set aside your political values, which spring from your spiritual values, in order to comfort some raving evangelical nutcase whose child just died? I have no doubt in the least. But I think that person would simply not find themselves as comfortable in your church as they would in a congregation that more closely matched their own beliefs.
This is something I have wrestled with. I hold some deep resentments against the faith of my childhood. However, the purpose of faith is not to make me feel better, but to draw people ever closer to God’s love (my spin there - feel free to agree or not). As uncomfortable as I would be today attending the right-wing church I grew up in, those same people would feel just as uncomfortable in my church, where our pastor is so openly gay that he sued the state to allow him to marry.
There’s a reason why so many denominations exist. I don’t think it’s because there are different Gods, but because God understands that us little humans need to put a face on Him that we can accept. Just as I don’t care if my adult daughter calls me “Dad” or “Thurman”, I think God doesn’t care if His kids think he is Episcopalian (which he is) or Baptist or Hindu or, perhaps, even non-existent.
So I say, slap that Obama sticker on your car. Yeah, some people might not like it. It will either matter or it won’t, but either way, it will be known sooner than later that it is a problem. Which is worse - to get denied out of hand by a church for having a blog or to have it “discovered” three months after your family moves to be closer to your pastorage, and then get the can?
As a parting thought, disclosing someone’s identity should always be their choice. It isn’t too late for you to ask your friend to change the link. Yeah, the cached page will show up for a few that really know how to snoop. But it might ease your mind a bit. Friends, I am led to believe, do these sorts of things for friends.
And, by the way, if no one has said it lately - thanks for having such a lovely cyber-home for the rest of us to track mud and sunshine through.