February 11, 2008
We Hear You
There’s an interesting conversation between Steve Corey and Anonymous on the February 6th blog. In one post Anonymous said, “I hope that someday I will have the courage not to be Anonymous, but to be a stronger voice for the Lord…” Let me assure you, we’ve all been anonymous at one time or other. In the church, leaders cleverly and sometimes boastfully, tell us that all comments made by Anonymous are disregarded. You’ve got to admit it’s an effective way to stop people from speaking their opinion. Trust me it’s OK to be anonymous. Personally I’d rather hear the opinions of Anonymous than guess at what the silent minority is trying to say.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Gail;
-----We are all rather anonymous to one another. Sure, we know quite a few names. But unless you were Lloyd McMillan, you don’t know every name in the church. How many do you think we know? I would be surprised if anyone could name half the people in their church, unless it were a smaller one. I doubt if I could name thirty people in my church. Does that mean the rest of those I can not name don’t count as people? If their way of knowing things and expressing what they think does not count, then how is it that they count? And just because they are willing to write upon their communication a handful of letters that forms a word by which they are linguistically identified, does that mean they are any better known? Of course not, it is by reading what they have to say that they become better known.
-----I always sign my name to my communications, and often I sign it boldly. I want people to know I am doing the writing. I gladly will take responsibility for it because I try to be responsible with it. I think the leaders at your church are the same way. In fact, I think their positions of responsibility call them to identify themselves. By my experience, after the initial jitters of signing your name to your communication pass, a certain pride takes its place. Then if one is not careful, that pride begins to outgrow its britches until it becomes arrogance. Then from that arrogance comes the haughty looking, right down the entire length of the nose, at those who wish to write in anonymity.
-----What makes someone’s communication important is that that someone is important. Before we start trying to identify the status levels in the church to determine who is and who is not important, we need to acknowledge the status levels Jesus acknowledged. He first acknowledged the one He termed “whosoever.” Paul refers to that level often as either “one another,” or just “others.” Everyone in His church belongs to this first status level. Everyone in it is important enough to have cost the blood of God’s Son. And everyone of them has position within it to speak directly with the Father. That thought would give me chills if I were in a position of authority and were having enough arrogance to refuse an other’s anonymously signed comments.
-----But there is also a higher status level in the church, so to speak. Christ recognized it and so did Paul and the other authors of the New Testament. It is the level of authority and responsibility, the level of leadership, the greater position. This is the level that Christ, et all said were to be the servants of all the others. Now, servants must consider the needs of those they serve. And to consider the needs, they will of course have to listen. Then besides the arrogance thing, the only other possible reason for trashing a communication is because it does not request what the servants favor. I can personally assure you of the probability of this. For many of my communications, although boldly signed, seemed to receive no meaningful response.
-----So there is nothing less spoken by the signature of “Anonymous” than by the signature of a full name. In fact, I think there is maybe more said by signing, “Anonymous.” You see, when I reveal my name in my communications, all the others who read it think of it as being just from me. But when Anonymous communicates, all anyone can know is that it is an other who speaks. And others are those whom we are called to serve. Maybe rather than signing Anonymous, just sign it, An Other.
Thanks for pointing out the trade of correspondence after your Feb 6th blog. I went back & read most of them ( I wore out on Steve's second one & gave up). There was really a lot of info there & was very thought provoking. We have a Sat. night service, which I think is contemporary, & then we have four Sunday morning services with one of the 9:30 services being contemporary. Our Sr. pastor preaches all five of those services plus most Sunday eve services. They are close to being the same sermon. When our new sanctuary is finished & we move into it in Oct., the goal is to at least cut out one of the Sunday AM services. We have two mtgs. this next Sunday afternoon & part of it is to give input on the order of services, etc. when we do move into the new sanctuary. Probably there will be a printed questionnaire for everyone to have a chance to vote on their preference. The best guess right now is 8:00 traditional, 9:30 contemporary, 11:00 traditional, but who knows.
Post a Comment