I was up late last night, blogging. I had the post about 98% finished when Kelsey wandered out of the bedroom and down the hall. We started talking about family and life (these conversations are now scheduled for 1am) and I set the computer aside for a few minutes.
When our discussion was over, my eyes went back to the piece I was working on…and suddenly, I saw it a little differently.
Earlier that night, I’d read an interview of a major Christian leader who, in the course of the article, said something that I found borderline heretical. Maybe not even borderline. Maybe mainstream heretical. Whatever the case, he said something that set off an indignation within me. At the time, I’d have called it righteous indignation, but with some time having passed, I’m not so sure it would qualify. Whatever the case, I took umbrage with his comment and sat down to blog it out.
Understand that my post was not remotely inflammatory towards the brother. It clearly delineated between who he was and what he said. It was not slanderous or overly negative in the slightest. Nevertheless, I after letting it sit for 20 minutes and returning to it, I was nagged with the question “Why are you posting this?”.
Of course, I had my initial defense about the general poor condition of the western church, this being a prime example, and how I was drawing a line in the sand, challenging error and declaring truth. All which was correct….but didn’t answer the question.
“Why are you posting this?”
I finally had to admit to myself that, had I not read the quote, I would never thought of blogging. I was tweaked at what someone said – far more than I was inspired by the truth I was using to counteract his comment. While I might have been right in principle, I couldn’t escape the fact that I was writing this in reaction to the quote, not in proactive declaration of the truth.
I hit ‘delete’ and went to bed.
Life is to short and eternity to long to waste hard drive space on reactive thoughts and writing. How jacked up is the internet if a bald, 3 earringed man with a crazy large tribe of children and a fondness for explosions and motorcycles appoints himself the voice of balanced reason?
I don’t want to be known primarily for pointing out others’ errors. I want to generate ideas, emotions, even controversy…not sit up late at night responding to them. I want to be a man of action, not reaction.
I want to think about writing in a different way. This is not to say I won’t quote people I disagree with or even call them on the digital carpet from time to time…but I want those posts to be the rare exception, and I want to be burning with the truth, not a reaction to their error.
God help me if I’ve got to look for someone I disagree with just so I have something to say.
Filed under: Uncategorized |