Anonymity

What started me thinking was this. An anonymous blogger and Twitter/X poster known as The Church Mouse (@thechurchmouse ) posted a thread about the process to elect a new Bishop of Coventry. Using publicly available documents he (we know Mouse is male but that's all) suggested that one parish had been less than clear in getting two people with similar divisive views (vicar and PCC member) onto the 14 member Vacancy in See Committee.

A friend replied 'Oh the irony ... an anonymous mouse complaining people aren't being open and transparent.'

I felt a bit busted. Then cross. Then thoughtful.

There is a strong tradition of anonymity in public writing. The commenter and I are both Christians and have given our lives to public ministry based on a book that is less than clear about its sources and authorship in many cases.

Newspaper leader writers do not give their names to their pieces. It is not that they are a secret but that the view in a leader is that of the paper not the person.

I read along piece about the history of anonymity in early 20th century writing:

Anon is Not Dead: Towards a History of Anonymous Authorship in Early-Twentieth-Century Britain

Reasons for choosing anonymity included those we have discussed as well as a desire to avoid fame and a lack of need for remuneration. It emphasises the long history of anonymity and pseudonymity.

There was a tradition of the preface to Crockford's Clerical Directory being written anonymously but in 1987 a furore arose over that year's long essay. John Habgood, then Archbishop of York, took very public umbrage to the piece and, unusually, this led to a media frenzy to discover who had written it. Afraid of being discovered the author, Gareth Bennet, took his own life. Coincidentally, one of the matters of which he was critical was the working of the Crown Appointments Commission.

Recently The Secret Barrister and The Secret Footballer, to name but two, have been able to give inside information on their professions whilst staying anonymous.

On the one hand this allows them to be kept safe. Or keep their jobs. On the other it looks like they are hiding something.

In my years in ministry I never allowed an anonymous letter to change my mind or views, but I did dwell on and review the things they wrote about when I received them.

There is an easy, lazy response available in rhetoric, often used in courts where juries don't understand the methodology and also in political debate. It goes like this:

Court
Barrister: You are an expert?
Expert: I have these qualifications...
Barrister: Wasn't your opinion found wanting in the case of...
Expert: I have been used on many occasions and found helpful
Barrister: Answer yes or no please...

The idea of the expert being wrong has been put in the jury's head with the expert seeming reluctant to admit it.


Politics
Candidate 1: As Winston Churchill so rightly said...
Candidate 2: I don't think you are in the same league as Winston Churchill

It doesn't matter what the quote is. The idea of the candidate comparing themselves as an equal to a great and respected orator has been put in the audience's head.

So I have a problem with arguing with the anonymity but not the substance. It feels a bit like a gnat has been strained and a camel swallowed. On the other hand we have to trust Mouse when he says 'I’m not standing for election and making important decisions...' without evidence, apart from ten years plus of his, relatively consistent, views.

There's the rub. A one off anonymous tweet is hard to assess. Axes are probably being ground. But a long-running, obviously informed anonymous commentator seeking clarity. I get that. If you want to ignore everything Mouse says because you think he's a coward or hypocrite that is your prerogative. But I don't think it's wise.

It is hard not to engage with press interest in a leaked document even if you think it shouldn't have been leaked. Mouse is not a whistle-blower although he has singled out an individual from a position of anonymity (I've chosen not to because the individual is a friend, albeit one I have often disagreed with).

There is a long and glorious history of anonymous writing in this country. Long may it continue.