Is it worth reading?

A man I highly respect once took me to task about writing a blog.  He didn't think that anything posted on line in such a forum would be worth his time in reading.  I thought it interesting as a viewpoint - it wasn't too long ago that people said the same things about newspapers.  The source of that sentiment is easy to find - after all, if the hurdle to publish your viewpoint is very low then people of every stripe can do it (hence there is no class qualification).  If the cost of doing so is also very low, (hence there is no financial qualification), then the question begs to be asked, "Is it worth my time to read"?  

The individualism that the answer to that question must be based on is fraught with difficulty, because all the onus is on the reader to distinguish worth from worthless.  Mark Twain pointed out that if you don't read the newspaper you will be uninformed, and if you do read the newspaper, you will be misinformed.  Of course, in Mark Twain's day the 'popular media' (epitomized by the newspaper) was largely pilloried by those who saw the irony of it's occasional errors - being as it is in the business of printing a record of the world's mistakes.   In our day it was Neal Reynolds who pointed out that the great crime of the popular media of our day  has shifted from libel (reporting mistruth) to hacking (reporting truth).  The question changes little, "Is it worth my time to know"?

Ultimately the answer to both questions is based on your own view of the reputation of the source.  Mr. Reynolds was speaking of (and against) the anonymity of undeclared sources in print.   From his viewpoint that print media is secular Scripture (a most interesting viewpoint and one worthy of thought), he adds, "Who would go to a church to hear a sermon from a masked preacher?  The irony is that the press replaced the preacher long ago, and now because it does not truly understand it's moral purpose, risks loosing it's own congregation."   A valid point, because if you have no credibility, you have nothing worthwhile to say, and what you then say, you say to the wind.

Credibility must be based on qualification.  That principle hasn't changed.  What has changed though, is the qualification itself.  Over the course of times past, and largely still, we see qualification in education and achievement.  That is, those who have been educated are worth listening to, and those who have achieved are worth listening to.  Or so we thought.  Ironically, it is the popular media's penchant for publishing truth that is eroding the value of both.  How many exposes of the err of 'professionals' does one need to see before one questions the value of said professionalism?   How many stories of achievement must be exposed as fraud before achievement itself is questioned? 

I certainly don't mean to hack away (pun fully intended) at education or achievement.  I simply want to point out that there is paradigm shift taking place in how we grant credibility to an individual and hence ethos to their argument.  The days of 'granted' credibility (automatic ethos based on what you've done) are over.  The days of earned credibility (ethos based on who you show yourself to be over time) are dawning.

It is our experience of someone, or the witness of a trusted member of our circle based on their experience, that will be the future basis of all credibility.  Education and past achievement will be seen as what they truly are - tools to build with and foundations only.  But with the technological tools to delve into a person's past and the capability to search out the truth about their achievements (ie; the electronic record), that is all they will be.  Ethos will lie in the skill of the builder, not in the quality of their tools, nor necessarily in the perceived quality of their foundation.   Tools must be used to witness skill, and foundations must be tested to confirm quality. 

In the past you may have seen yourself a consumer, but moving forward you must act yourself an inspector.  The difficulty for the individual remains, and arguably the repercussions of the choices you make even grows.  For, on what basis shall we then judge the tools well used?  On what basis shall we judge the foundation secure? 

The only answer one can universally apply is, 'the truth'.  That means that the demand for absolute truth will only grow, even as the world splinters into affinity camps based on perceived truth.  I'm not sure what that means for you.  Someone is going to make a lot of money developing tools to rapidly read, sort and analyze personal electronic history so that people can assess one another quickly.  Maybe that's you.  For me, as a preacher of The Truth, it means I already have job security.  

Inspiration

The other day I was asked an interesting question.  “What inspires you?”  Seems particular suitable to ask that at this time of year when you might still be in the planning stage(s), and particularly useful to ask if you don’t know what to plan and are in particular need of inspiration.

But what is inspiration anyway?  The word comes from Middle English, from the Latin “inspiratio”, referring to divine inspiration.   Now some I know will immediately argue with that – why would we immediately tie it to Divintity?   Yet we all know that we are finite creatures working within a defined frame of reference (the frame of reference being the sum total of all we know and all we’ve experienced).  The reason then we would call something an inspiration instead of a simple idea is that we innately understand that it is not the working out of an idea in our minds of ourselves, but the implantation of an idea into our minds, from an origin we cannot grasp.  Therein I think is the real key to inspiration.   – it is that which comes to us from beyond ourselves with an idea/motivation we didn’t previously have (and arguably could not have had, apart from the inspiration).

But, if we understand that inspiration comes from outside of ourselves, the argument then comes up – couldn’t inspiration come from just about anyone else?  Many great ideas are things that others have said to us – things we take, apply slightly differently and call our own.  If we look to them, then we must ask, “Where did that other person get that idea?  Perhaps they got that idea by thinking about an experience in their frame of reference.”  And now we are closer to the crux of the matter – because surely there is a difference between an IDEA and an inspiration. 

Everyone gets ideas, almost every day – though you might point out that only those who think get ideas – those who are consumed with doing ONLY are even void of that.  Nevertheless, I would make this distinction:  Ideas improve your own lot.  Inspiration improves the lot of all who encounter them.  The evidence (of one or the other) is in the outworking (or, ‘the proof is in the pudding’, as they say). If we use that definition, it means that a great number of ideas are not merely good ideas, but inspiration. 

That still doesn’t ascribe inspiration to the Lord only – it could be from anything beyond ourselves - an angel or a demon, say.   After all – many inspired ideas have turned out to be really terrible things.  If you know the history of warfare then you know what I speak of.   So we are driven to the most important question, “How can I ensure that I am getting inspiration from best possible source? 

Fortunately, that is actually the easiest thing to discern.  Who or what were you seeking when you got the inspiration?  If you were seeking God’s face (either as a part of your normal devotions to Him or in desperation from difficulty), then you most likely have divine inspiration.  God, who is beyond ALL (not just mankind, but all) and different then ALL (not just mankind, but all), always speaks INTO our context, but always speaks to us from OUTSIDE our context.  Hence, when He speaks, it is always inspiration to us. 

If you were seeking an answer from ANYWHERE, then you most likely have something else.  I hope that makes you think, and leads you to seek inspiration!