Identity Theft

"Concern trolling" predates the Internet. Consider, for example, the "lifelong" letter to the editor. I'm sure if we dug through 19th-century newspaper archives, we'd find letters to the editor that begin, "As a lifelong member of the Whig Party ..." and go on from there to express concern about and disapproval of all things Whiggish.

This bit of duplicitous dirty-trickery probably dates back to Roman times. It wouldn't surprise me if archaeologists found the first-century equivalent of a letter to the editor written by a Sadducee that began, "As a lifelong Pharisee ..."

Wikipedia's definition of a "concern troll" is, delightfully and predictably, tagged as "disputed," but I find it useful:

A concern troll is a pseudonym created by a user whose point of view is opposed to the one that the user's sockpuppet claims to hold. The concern troll posts in Web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed "concerns." The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group.

The concern troll's disingenuous claim of belonging attacks essential matters of identity. The CT's dubious assertion of membership is not motivated by a desire to belong to the group, or by a genuine respect for what that group is or what it stands for. The CT, instead, is posing as a member in order to change the identity and the definition of the group, and thereby to undermine it.

It's a common tactic, but an effective and corrosive one, which is why the whiff of concern-trollery raises red flags and unlikely claims of membership or identity tend to be viewed with extreme suspicion.

Consider, for example, the case of the wonderful Anne Lamott, author of the spiritual memoirs Traveling Mercies and Grace. Lamott is as Jesus-y an evangelical Christian as you'll ever meet. It's impossible to read those books without acknowledging that her life is shaped and guided by what we evangelical types call a "personal relationship with Jesus." Yet many evangelicals would view her impish impiousness and, even more so, her progressive politics, as wholly alien to evangelical Christianity. There's a sense, in other words, in which she clearly seems to be an evangelical Christian and a sense in which she clearly seems to be something else.

The question "is Anne Lamott an evangelical?" is, at least partly, a matter of semantics, since it necessarily raises the follow-up question of how we define "evangelical" (a notoriously difficult and slippery question). But it doesn't feel like a matter of mere semantics for anyone involved. Lamott says she is, and this claim is, for her, an important aspect of her identity. Others who find her politics literally anathema tend to view her claim with suspicion, fearing that it may be the deceptive tactic of the concern troll and a threat to an important aspect of their identity.

I can appreciate both points of view. I can certainly relate to Lamott. I've had a long and public lover's quarrel with my own evangelical Christian heritage and I know what it is like to have one's claims of identity questioned and challenged, to be told that one doesn't really belong. But I've also had enough experience with the bogus claims of concern trolls who have sought to undermine other aspects of identity that are important to me -- from modern-day Dixie-crats to the sham environmentalism of Bjorn Lomborg and his ilk -- that I understand the gatekeepers' suspicions as well.

All of the above is a long preface to my thanks for the many thoughtful and honest points of view expressed in comments to the previous post regarding the dispute over Mormonism's relationship to Christianity. The Mormon choice to identify as "Christian" does not seem to me a likely or an easy fit, but it also does not seem to me to have anything to do with the malicious dishonesty of the concern troll. It strikes me, rather, as being motivated by a desire to claim a share of the cultural acceptance and legitimacy that Christianity enjoys here in America. As such, even if one views this claim as mostly vicarious, it pays a compliment of sorts to Christianity. It would be churlish of me, as a non-Mormon Christian, to respond to that compliment with a blanket rejection.

So while I remain a bit unsettled by and about this claim, I think it's helpful to recognize the role semantics plays in this question as well. As the back and forth in comments to previous post demonstrates, there are senses in which the claim can be viewed as accurate and senses in which it can be viewed as inaccurate.

That being the case, and me being in the unfortunate position of Not Knowing Everything, it's probably best to conclude without a conclusion and move on to other topics.

How's that for anticlimactic?

Comments

[Tentacle of Sullenness]

As a lifelong tentacle, I object to A-Diz attempting to ratio my appearances in either comment or post

[Ayn Rand]

As a concerned lifelong libertarian, I have concerns about the above poster. . . . . .

[Jesurgislac]

As a concerned lifelong sockpuppet, I must take exception with both of the above posters....

[Seminarian]

As a lifelong sockpuppet, I have concern with the above's false self-identification as a sockpuppet.

[I Montoya]

As a lifelong Inigo, I have concerns about your father-killing policies. Prepare to die.

[Robb]

As a lifelong procrastinator, I have concerns about my ability to be prepared for anything, much less death.

[C. Rugen]

As a lifelong 10-fingered individual, I have concerns about the level of Montoya-related activity on this blog.

[Filbert]

Oh, if only I had a tentacle to toss in the pot... Or a sixth finger...

A social group's self-definition is for that group to argue about and set - it's subject to debate and pushing and pulling and sometimes outside interference, sure, but in the end it's a group's job to define its own limits. I think most of us will agree there. The difference with the concern troll -- and it's a good example -- is that the CT is not who s/he claims to be - it's a sockpuppet. . That's what makes concern trolling different than what Anne Lamott is doing: there's a dishonesty there. No surprise that this dishonesty thrives on the anonymous Series of Tubes.

I'd like to say this is a bright-line distinction - if you're being honest, you're not a concern troll and can be a legitimate part of group identity debate. If you're not, to troll-land with you! If only. Of course that won't work. People don't know their own motives at times, and cynical leaders can manipulate gullible followers. I still think the line should be drawn around honesty, but it's got to be a deeper, fuller idea of honesty, not just 'do you believe what you're saying'? I think Fred's post was getting at that, but can I ask him to poke a little farther?

He writes:
The Mormon choice to identify as "Christian" ... strikes me, rather, as being motivated by a desire to claim a share of the cultural acceptance and legitimacy that Christianity enjoys here in America. As such, even if one views this claim as mostly vicarious, it pays a compliment of sorts to Christianity. It would be churlish of me, as a non-Mormon Christian, to respond to that compliment with a blanket rejection.

That's not what I would call honesty (and, also, I don't think it's much of a compliment to American Christianity). Mormons don't say, "We're Christians because we want to be as socially acceptable." They say, "We're Christians because we believe in Jesus Christ, His divinity and salvific work, the Old and New Testaments, and so on, like other Christians do." The first is simply not a theologically acceptable reason to be a Christian (even if it's a common one). Do they secretly really mean the first when they say the second? I don't know, and frankly, I'd doubt if most Mormons themselves could say for sure.

Pardon me for bringing it back again to Messianic Jews, but I think the analogy helps. (It's how I think about it, anyway.) Being a practicing Jew in this world isn't easy, and perhaps I should welcome anyone - Jesus-believing or not - who wants to take it up. But I don't think they're being honest - I think they're concern trolling. Even if individual Messianic Jews are sincere in their belief that their Christian beliefs require/allow Jewish observance, I think they're doing it to convert more Jews to Christianity by muddying the clear waters between the two faiths.

That's no more conclusive than Fred's (excellent) post, but I hope it can focus us back on the honesty question, which is, I think, the key one here.

[Ranjan]

Fred,

That's a wonderful sentiment. You have again educated me as to a better Christian view of things. This is why I keep coming back to your blog.

[Cowboy Diva]

If it's a question of honesty, then there should be facts against which we can compare a person's statements. Unfortunately, defining christian seems to be about as factual as defining the color blue. We all have an idea of blue; we can point it out to each other in the sky or in someone's eye, but when you get into shades of aquamarine and teal or indigo arguments happen.

Look.
What a person self-identifies as has no obvious direct bearing on my life unless and until they act on the self-identification, and often not even then. Even so, the conversation then revolves around actions being right or wrong, not values.
Self-identity is hard enough as it is; forcing my definitions of colors and values and timbres and tones on others does not help the situation or the discussion.
I remember the few L/D debates I did in high school how incredibly important it could be to be the side that defined the terms in the initial round; your opponent was stuck with your foundation like it or not.
Definitions of christianity should not be exclusive; definitions of christianity should be be inclusive.

[SMGT]

I visited Salt Lake City for the first time last summer. A friend and I were driving from North Carolina to California, staying with other friends along the way. In Salt Lake City we had dinner with a friend of his who attended BYU and had become engaged to another BYU student after he returned from his mission. As we talked it came out that I was actually about to start a year long mission of my own, this one with the Episcopal Church in Boston. Both my friend's friend and his wife-to-be were very supportive and interested in that.

Now, I know something about being an outsider. When I was 17, I got tossed out of my SBC church in North Carolina for asking too many questions. Two years later I (somehow) floated into the Episcopal Church, and have been hanging out there, getting food and shelter, ever sense. I've never quite given up being a Baptist, but at the same time, recognized all the good things about Anglicanism. It's an odd place to be, with the Episcopalians thinking you're an outsider for the Baptist thing, and the Baptists thinking you're an outsider for the Episcopal thing. While neither exactly accuses me of not being a Christian(most of the time), it seems to me that this is how it is:

You can't pretend that Episcopalians are Baptists or that Baptists are Episcopalians. There are differences. But at the same time, when Baptists do a Good Thing, awesome, and when Episcopalians do a good thing, awesome also.

I think that we have to recognize that first, Mormons are not just like the rest of us. As far as I can tell, Mormons are not Baptists, and Mormons are not Episcopalians. They are different, and it is silly to pretend otherwise.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME: They're trying the best they can. Is it worthwhile to line all te differences up and count the ways they're worse than somebody else? No. But is it worthwhile to remember that they have details that differ? Sure.

I believe that it is possible to maintain one's own identity without needing to destroy somebody else's.

Cool?

[Tokyo Montoya]

As a lifelong Montoya, I have serious concerns about the portrayal of my family on this blog...

[JoXn]

I have come around from my Nicene-creed based argument that Mormons are not Christian. But I think its perfectly legitimate, especially in a context where theological niceities are important, to add qualifiers and say (for instance) "Mormons are quite heterodox Christians. For instance, they have a radically different idea about what texts are inspired scripture; and they're not monotheists (much less trinitarian)."

[Toby]

Fred,

I'm repeating myself here, but I'd like to point out that while cultural acceptance might be one reason why Mormons insist that they are Christians, it is not the only, or even the main consideration for them. More importantly, they think they are true Christians--the only true Christians. The claim isn't "we're Christians, too", but, "we're Christians, and the rest of you aren't".

Not that there's anything wrong with that (apart from the fact that the claim itself is incorrect). But it places a limit on how content we can be with abstracting away from the dispute over the label "Christian". For various purposes, there's no problem at all with calling Mormons Christians. But once you get down to the religious nitty gritty (and that is after all where all the fun is), both Mormons and a good many non-Mormon Christians are going to want to dispute the claim to Christianity made by the other side.

[Toby]

Also, many curses upon Filbert for disrupting that very humourous trope. I feel it could have gone at least another half-dozen rounds before getting tired.

[Gloves of Sullenness]

As a lifelong boxing enthusiast, I wish to express my concern at the use of the metaphor another half-dozen rounds before getting tired.

As a concern troll, however, I wish to build bridges to allow every man and goat, no matter how gruff, to meet me for some bol-dee-rol and supper.

[ralph]

ah, more on monotheisem... But pertaining to Ursula and JoXn's comments on the centrality of monotheism..

I've just spent a year going overland across Asia, including several months in Pakistan and Iran. I love to talk religion, and found many, many people willing to discuss faith. not so much to convert, rather to have a dialog to enhance understanding.

within a week in Pakistan, it became clear to me that a major bone of contention for Muslims with the Christian faith was the doctrine of the trinity. How can we believe in one god, if we actually identify three discreet manifestations of the said god? One entity cannot simultaneously be both father and son - this is obviously a logical falicy. Ergo - there is something seriously wrong with the Christian belief system. Sure, it's the same *god* - the god of Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael, but Jesus is also considered a god, and hey - there is one god, the father, so how does the Jesus thing work?

the response i came to was that the use of labels - 'father', 'son' etc... were the problem. God the Father wasn't actually the 'father' of Jesus (hey, no intercourse, no physical care, these are the objective measures of fatherhood, no?) rather they were labels we used to construct meaning. Jesus was God (it)self on earth in physical form, and the Holy Spirit was "god within". The HS was easy to describe, becuase of the almost universal concept of "god within", "buddha within", "allah within", "atman" for the hindu's.

So there is me trying to explain Christianity as a monotheistic religion, something i have no doubt it is, to people who sincerely saw it as otherwise. Yet in India, i had a conversation with several hindu's who argued that we worship separate gods, but these gods are simply manifestations of different attributes of the one, brahman. they are worshiped as discrete gods, but are all parts of the one god. does this make them monotheists?

You can see the parallels, no? and this isn't to engage in a heated debate over relative theology, but looking from the outside in at these different belief structures, you can see where people might find contention around claims that "you are a monotheist", "i am a polytheist" etc..

the point i'm trying to make here is that, across diverse faiths, things like the trinity (or whatever) in and of themselves are not the important things. they're simply the way we try to transmute our understanding of the divine into words, so we can explain it. the words are not the actual concept in and of itself. the tao that can be spoken is not the eternal tao. something like that.

while i understand that the words and mental delineations we make between groups are important for our mental compartmentalization, we still need to remember that they're artificial boundaries. You may or may not agree with how i describe the trinity - I mean, maybe you think Jesus was god's actual son. does this make me any less christian than you? doctrine is important, but at the base of it all is that connection/understanding/awareness of the divine that all seekers are after. the words on top? just window dressing.

[parodie]

It seems to me that the "Αre Mormons Christian?" question lines up surprisingly well with the questions Christ-followers asked themselves in the first century: "Αre Christ-followers jewish?" Furthermore, this debate is reflected in our scriptures - questions about whether Christians need to follow the whole jewish law, especially in matters like circumcision, were a huge issue. I can only imagine (because I have done zero research on this issue) that the Jews of the time were asking much the same questions - were these strange converts actually Jews?

Given our own faith's history of being derived from another faith, and of struggling for some time to understand whether we were in fact a different faith or the same faith with new beliefs, I think we can allow the Mormons some flexibility in identifying as Christian (or not). I would absolutely agree that any discussion of Mormons as Christian needs to be qualified ("Well, they do believe in Christ but they have many beliefs which are quite different from most of Christianity" or - what I have used before - "They believe in Christian scripture but have other scripture, and are thus as Christian as early Christianity was Jewish") but I'm happy to live & let live.

[Froborr]

Reading the comments here and thinking about Vendor's comments on the previous post, I've come to the conclusion that the reasons I gave for thinking Mormons are Christians aren't quite right, but that nonetheless Mormons are Christians.

Vendor is right. Words do have meanings, and when somebody misappropriates a word to label themselves that can often create confusion. Sometimes it's done specifically and maliciously with the intent of causing confusion (see "freedom" as used among far-right-wing fundamentalist Christians; also "Compassionate Conservatism"). However, I do not consider the use of "Christian" to describe Mormons to be a misappropriation of the label.

Quite simply, when somebody says "I'm a Christian" to me, I take that to mean that they worship Jesus Christ. Period, end of story. Anybody who worships Jesus Christ in any capacity is a Christian, including the Mormons, the Jews for Jesus, and possibly even the Church of the Subgenius, though I don't know enough about them to say for sure. Muslims are not Christians because, while they regard Jesus as a prophet, they don't worship anyone but God.*

Some people clearly believe that only certain worshippers of Jesus Christ should get to use the term Christians. I believe Fred has a term for these people, does he not? I utterly fail to see the distinction between saying "Only people who believe in the Rapture are Real True Christians," and "Only people who believe in a particular interpretation of the Trinity** are Real True Christians." The worship Christ? They're Christians. You might think they're the wrong kind of Christian. That's your prerogative. However, if I'm doing a census to see how many Christians there are in America, I'm going to count the Mormons.

My Christian roommate also just popped in with an excellent point: "Are Mormons expected to act the way Jesus told us to act? Sermon on the Mount and all that? Then yeah, they're Christians."

*Allah is nothing more nor less than Arabic for "The God". Arabic-speaking Jews and Christians also refer to God as Allah.

**Mormons do, in fact, believe in the Trinity. The elements of their Trinity are more separate than in the modern Catholic or Protestant version, though still well within the bounds of variety extant among first- and second-century Christians.

[ralph]

froborr -

allah is arabic for 'the god'

Allah is used a name for the god of Muslims, evidenced by the fact that Turkish, Farsi ++ have a different word for god, used to refer to 'the god' of all of us, Allah being used to refer specifically to god as worshiped by muslims.

anyway. just nit-picking :)

[A Kennedy]

Farsi ++

Object-oriented Persian?

[hapax]

I was wondering, where the #(*%$ is hapax?

A friend pointed me to this -- I am sorry. I didn't mean to cause concern. It being a penitential season, I've been experimenting with the ancient discipline of silence, aka "keeping my big yap shut."

[Duane]

As such, even if one views this claim as mostly vicarious, it pays a compliment of sorts to Christianity. It would be churlish of me, as a non-Mormon Christian, to respond to that compliment with a blanket rejection.

Very nice Fred. It won't be a surprise to any of us in the Telestial when you are exalted from the Celestial Kingdom to become Elohim Himself.

[dr ngo]

As someone who is not a Christian at all, I wish to reaffirm the truism that Anne Lamott can write like nobody's business. Artful, entertaining, and I come away with the sneaking suspicion that she is surreptitiously making me a better person, despite my disbelief.

If the evangelicals don't claim her, they're idiots.

(Don't say I never fed anyone a straight line!)

[Rob]

Quite simply, when somebody says "I'm a Christian" to me, I take that to mean that they worship Jesus Christ. Period, end of story.

I am still confused as to what more there is to it, and why this conversation has gone on so long. I also find Fred's diagnosis of the Mormon Christian identity shockingly close minded, possibly verging on bigoted. Nobody, as far as I can tell, has presented any evidence that Mormons do not, in fact, worship Jesus (And not some tentacle monster from space who also just happens to be named Jesus – it's clearly the same Jesus the rest of you believe in). All of the conversation has been about whether they worship Jesus in exactly the right way to be "Christian." Well, if they're not Christian, they're certainly Christian-ish.

[Johnny Pez]

As a lifelong member of the slacktivist community since last month, I have to say I'm rather concerned about Fred's concerns about concern trolls.

[Jesurgislac]

Also, many curses upon Filbert for disrupting that very humourous trope. I feel it could have gone at least another half-dozen rounds before getting tired.

Filbert is a nut.

Nobody, as far as I can tell, has presented any evidence that Mormons do not, in fact, worship Jesus (And not some tentacle monster from space who also just happens to be named Jesus – it's clearly the same Jesus the rest of you believe in)

As a lifelong Gen, I am rather concerned at the anti-Sime attitude expressed towards the idea of Jesus having tentacles.

[magistra]

I think one of the reasons that Protestants, in particular, feel that Mormons aren't Christians is the idea of additional revelations (i.e. the Book of Mormon). I mean by relevation a text that is claimed to be given to you by God and that you must accept in order to be of that faith. (I would therefore distinguish it from prophecies, papal claims of infallibility etc.) That seems to be the breakpoints between the monotheistic religions. If you feel that you need the New Testament as well as the old, you are no longer a Jew. If you feel that you need the Koran as well as (or as replacement for) the Bible, you are no longer a Christian. I think that it's on that sola scriptura basis that Protestants tend to distinguish between groups like Mormons and Christian Scientists, who wouldn't be counted as Christians and those like Catholics, who are not-quite-right Christians ;-). (As an Anglican myself, I'm aware of the problems of those who believe that Scripture alone is not enough without the Book of Common Prayer).

Sorry, I should have said, as a lifelong Anglican I believe...because it wouldn't be polite to do otherwise.

[MikhailBorg]

I think one of the reasons that Protestants, in particular, feel that Mormons aren't Christians is the idea of additional revelations (i.e. the Book of Mormon).

Of course, the content of what a modern Christian calls "the Bible" has been mutating (dare we say "evolving"?) for thousands of years, and is hardly agreed upon even now. Books have been added, deleted, lost, found, revealed, declared heresy, translated, mistranslated, 'adapted', buried under soft peat and recycled as firelighters.

Perhaps the Word of God cannot be written down without suffering immediate corruption. Kind of a Gospel's Incompleteness Theorem.

[cjmr]

Thanks, hapax.

[Vox Pops]

Well, speaking as a Conservative candidate, I just drone on and on and on never letting anyone else get a word in edgeways until I start foaming at the mouth and fall over backward.

[Tonio]

the idea of Jesus having tentacles.

There's an Anime version of the New Testament????

[Spalanzani]

Of course. It's called Evangelion.

[not someone else]

Of course. It's called Evangelion.

Amusing and true. Have an internet, on the house.

[indifferent children]

> (And not some tentacle monster from space who also just happens to be named Jesus – it's clearly the same Jesus the rest of you believe in)

As a lifelong Pastafarian (don't believe the vicious slander that our religion is only 6 years old), I object to naming any extraterristrial, betentacled gods, "Jesus". For too long Christians have been trying to co-opt the one-and-only FSM.

If you haven't been touched by His Noodly Appendage, then you aren't a Pastafarian; new revelations be damned!

RAmen.

[Ecks]

The children don't sound so indifferent anymore.

[Ursula L]

A few more thoughts on Hinduism, mono/polytheism, and the relationship of both to Christianity.

First, in my experience with Hindus, the concept of the gods being aspects/parts of the divine just isn't that important. The concept definitely is nowhere near as important as the concept of trinity in Christianity. The people who think a lot about this in Hinduism are the same sort of people who care deeply about the distinction of "begotten, not made" in Christianity.

Second, this isn't a concept I've heard brought up much when Hindus are discussing religion among themselves. It is a concept that is more likely to be brought out when Hindus are discussing religion with monotheists, or with people perceived as monotheists. I'm not sure if this is a matter of trying to fit with the larger culture, such as with Jews in the US placing greater emphasis on Hanukkah than they otherwise would, or if it is a matter of claiming monotheist status, similar to Romeny insisting that he's Christian just like the RTCs, or if it is a matter of working to fit the monotheist concept of the divine into the Hindu concept of different paths of religion all being valid.

Third, this is a concept which is quite subordinate to the distinctions between the gods. Hinduism is a religion where the difference between, say, Krishna and Rama, is considered significant. Different personalities, different powers, appropriate for worship in different situations. And both of those are incarnations of the same god, Vishnu. The differences just get greater, the more you think about the different gods. If you were to pray to Durga in a situation where worship of Ganesh was appropriate, you'd be seen as doing something wrong. Not morally wrong, but mistaken, like getting on an eastbound highway to travel west. By contrast, in Christianity, if a bunch of Christians get together and start taking turns praying out loud, no one would really notice if one person started their prayer with "Heavenly father..." while the next started with "Dear Jesus..."

Fourth, in the US, the understanding of Hinduism tends to be from the efforts of the Hare Krishna movement. This movement isn't really part of mainstream Hinduism. By the time most non-Indians in the US get the ideas of Hinduism, it's through considerable filtration, from people who have been raised Christian or nominally Christian in the typical US style, and who have been converted, often by people who are, themselves, converts who were converted by other converts.

To a certain extent, I find this outlook on gods quite useful. It solves a lot of different logical dilemmas. It is quite difficult to conceptualize that Fred, L&J, and Romney are all Christians worshiping the same god from a Christian/monotheist perspective. From a Hindu perspective, it makes sense - they're all Christian, they all worship god, but it is different gods.

As far as explaining the concept of trinity to strict monotheists in the Jewish or Muslim sense, the best description I've heard is that the Christian god has a multiple personality disorder.

[Mabus]

Interesting, Ursula. I find it fascinating, though I'm not sure what to say.

Re the last (very amusing) point: I tend to favor group mind concepts, myself. (We are the Borg...) But I'm neither entirely orthodox on the subject nor certain it would work better in the situation you describe.