Over nine years ago, in the midst of the rapid emergence of blogging, I started this blog as a way to engage in an increasing online dialogue that was taking place in the Church of God over issues related to our identity and future. Over the years I posted over 300 times, covering a wide range of issues and often with healthy feedback through comments and other forms of engagement. A few of my posts were even quite controversial, raising the ire of some individuals who felt threatened by my observations.
Those of you who have been following me know that I have been less than prolific in the last few years. In fact, this will be only my fifth post in 2014. Life has been extremely busy with my work as a Regional Pastor and recent doctoral studies, so blogging has taken a back seat. In addition, the proliferation of social media has changed the venue for online discussions, and in general blogging has declined significantly, except for a select few, especially those that are part of larger media machines.
I share all these reflections because it has come to my attention that someone else has started a new blog with the same creative name. Certainly I have no trademark, and due to my relative lack of activity it should be no surprise that someone else with more time and passion is going to the blogosphere to express their views on the Church of God. My biggest concern is that people might think that the new blog is my work. It isn't.
The copycat ChogBlog is a serious venture, with a design that mimics the Church of God national site and with a real domain name (www.chogblog.com). In fact, at first I thought it was a product of Church of God Ministries. Upon closer examination, however, I discovered that it is the work of one or more individuals who obviously come from a conservative arm of our movement that resists our current trajectory and wants to return us to some romanticized view of our past. For example, a recent post is entitled, "Have the congregations of the Church of God, Anderson ceded their autonomy to a de-facto hierarchy?"
I don't begrudge someone for wanting to express their deeply held convictions and ideas about the Church of God. Yes, I am annoyed that they "stole" my clever name without asking permission, but I suppose they saw an opportunity in my inaction. What really concerns me, however, is the fact that the author(s) of this new ChogBlog are completely anonymous. In other words, they are wanting to disseminate their views across the movement but lack the courage to identify themselves. This is what really bugs me about many of these well-intentioned Church of God traditionalists - they are unwilling to truly engage in the issues through dialogue. They are more interested in just a one-way conversation. Their deliberate cowardice is even seen in how they registered their domain name. They paid extra to have their ownership information hidden. In my opinion, all this secretiveness is unhealthy, unbiblical and makes their efforts lack credibility.
What does this mean for the authentic, original ChogBlog? I don't know. This might be a good time to end this venture and allow these new bloggers to hide within the confines of their online home. Or, I could change the name and initiate a new effort to engage the Church of God through this medium. I'm just not sure I have the energy to do the latter at this time.
In any case, I want to thank the many of you who have followed me all these years and have contributed to the conversations that have taken place both online and offline. For me it has been cathartic, and hopefully it has made a valuable contribution to our movement. The Church of God is changing (for the better I believe) and perhaps my blogging isn't needed at this point. In any case, I will still be around to continue these discussions in other forums.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Lloyd, I have always appreciated your perspective on CHOG issues. Thanks for this post as well. I think you are right on the money in terms of the problems of anonymous posting related to CHOG issues.
Your words seemed to indicate a divide, either real or perceived; "conservative" vs. (what seems to be your intent "liberal?") Is it healthy to divide the Church of God along those lines? As far as the trajectory you reference, I'd like to hear more of your thoughts on that. Thanks.
"however, I discovered that it is the work of one or more individuals who obviously come from a conservative arm of our movement that resists our current trajectory and wants to return us to some romanticized view of our past."
Could you please explain what you mean by a romantacized view of our past? What is the current trajectory that this "conservative arm" is resisting? If you are labeling some conservative and some Church of God traditionalists, can you tell me what label you would apply to yourself?
"This is what really bugs me about many of these well-intentioned Church of God traditionalists - they are unwilling to truly engage in the issues through dialogue. They are more interested in just a one-way conversation."
It is interesting to me that you first call people "Church of God traditionalists" and then say they are interested only in one way conversation. There are people who have responded to some of your posts in disagreement. Many left with no response from you. One-way conversation?
I don't know if it was intended, but your words come across in a terribly demeaning way.
Anonymous and Anonymous (perhaps you are even the same person?),
First, in light of my original post I have just implemented what I should have done years ago. I have eliminated the option for individuals to comment anonymously. There is no room for drive-by commenting where people are not identified.
Over the years I have encouraged healthy dialogue on this blog, and have interacted with many people on issues over which we don't agree. I will not, however, enter into prolonged engagement with someone who hides behind anonymity. The Body of Christ requires more. I put myself out there clearly identified, and I expect those who want to interact to do likewise.
On numerous occasions I have had people contact me directly over concerns I have written on this blog. I have high regard for them taking the time to convey their thoughts and concerns. We have had some great discussions and fellowship despite not necessarily seeing eye to eye on everything. In any case, we practiced Christian unity and discovered that we have far more in common than not. But, this type of two-way interaction is not fully possible when people refuse to identify themselves.
My intent is certainly not to be demeaning. I respect the views of others (even if I may disagree) and understand that diversity of thought and perspective within the Church of God is both real and good. When I talk about "conservative", the opposite in this context is not "liberal". It is about attitude. As I stated in my post, all this secrecy and anonymity is simply not healthy, and that is what I want to see change.
Lloyd, I quite appreciate your concern on the issue of anonymity of commentators. I, however, am of the opinion that the issues raised in the comments, which were anonymously made, need to be addressed because the curiosity of your readers has been aroused in this matter. Thanks.
I've appreciated your work here Lloyd. Take a break, reboot, but please keep posting, even if it is infrequent.
Happy Thanksgiving, Brother.
Jerry
I agree with David and Jerry, keep the perspective coming even if it's sporatic. Eric, I wouldn't be surprised if Lloyd may wating to comment until Anonymous 1 & 2 reveal themselves. Also, it may be that he's gotten busy again.
Lloyd, I'm interested to raise the same questions as the "anonymous" commenters that you discount:
What do you mean by romanticized view of our past? What is the current trajectory that this supposed 'conservative arm' is resisting?
If you are using labels such as LIberal vs. Conservative (theology I assume) how do you label yourself?
Thanks.
Lloyd,
I am also interested in your answers to the questions that Jim Leslie has posed to you.
I am concerned about what I am seeing as a "current trajectory" towards "liberal" views, particularly regarding homosexuality in the congregations. My own being one of them. Our preacher thinks it didn't "feel right" to remove a c gay man (there is proof, and he did admit it to the preacher after I confronted the man in private regarding how he needed to resign from the Bd of Elders should he decide to continue his lifestyle) from his "minor" duties in the church. The preacher has even had the man offer up the benedictory prayer. I understand several on the Bd have attempted to discuss the issue and hold the preacher accountable, only to be shot down. Our church is dying because of the overwhelming 'dictatorship' at the top! Many have been slandered publically, and most have left.
above comment editing needed.....c gay man (confessed to a few when pinned down, but trying desperately to stay in the proverbial closet for the most part). The man has been an ordained chog minister.
Deb, It appears rather than answer the questions, Lloyd has decided to close the blog. (reference the most recent post.)
Is there another chog blog where I can pose my above question/comment and get some feedback? Thanks Jim!
Post a Comment