That Personal Touch
I know this will be a bit ironic, but hang with me. Several days ago, I was at Scot McKnight's website, Jesus Creed. I read a post I liked, and left a comment. Later that day, when I checked my email, I found a nice note from Scot thanking me for my contribution to his blog. I was touched. I have admired McKight's scholarly work for many years, and am glad to see him blogging. But with someone as busy as he is to send an email to someone who left one comment on their blog seems extraordinary to me. Thanks, Scot!
When I began blogging in 2004, the person most responsible for that was Hugh Hewitt. Now, I know some of the dozen people who read this blog may not like Hewitt, and disagree with his political positions, which is fine. And yet, back in 2004, after my mom's death, I emailed Hugh on a couple of issues. He emailed me back several times, encouraging me in my blogging efforts, and offering condolences for my loss of my mom. I was impressed. Here was a guy who has a nationally sydicated radio program, and he took the time to email little ol' me.For me, these personal touches inspire a certain degree of loyalty in me. I know, being "touched" by a few emails, a very impersonal electronic form of communication to be sure, seems a little odd. And yet, there it is. There is a desire in human beings for connection. And the Internet provides some of that. I worry about people who live on the internet, and do not interact with flesh and blood people in a flesh and blood way. It seems pretty tough to love your neighbor electronicly.
I have tried to continue the influence of Scot and Hugh by responding to all who comment on this blog, all five of you! I also try to respond to all my students' questions at APU. My class attendance is taken via 3x5 cards. On one side, the students put their name and date. The opposite side is for them to ask any question(s) they want, from "What is your favorite vacation spot?" to "What is the unforgivable sin?". From the mundane to the profound, I try to engage my students in electronic dialogue. I am nowhere near as influential as Scot or Hugh, but in my own way, I am trying to acknowledge each student and encourage them. It's that old Barnabas thing that I cannot seem to shake. Once again, thanks Scot and Hugh.
posted by Captain GoBart at 8:24 AM
2 Comments:
I'm glad you finally explained this. I've been wondering if any of the increasingly silly and dishonest things Hewitt or the Powerline guys have said in recent weeks would be enough to turn you away from them. I guess we haven't reached that point yet.
I too have been touched by personal kindness, including the kindness you've shown to me. Part of the value of that kindness is that I've seen you show that to a wide variety of people, including those who have been unkind or unfair to you, or who have disagreed with you.
I'm glad for you that Hewitt showed you kindness at a difficult time. But would he have shown you the same if you were on the other side? What Hewitt calls partisanship is really a systematic form of dishonesty in which the policies of the current Administration are always right and all criticisms of it are always wrong. He consistently and mendaciously misrepresents opposing viewpoints and frequently makes conclusions about people's motivation beyond what they have said and what he can know.
The fact that he does this in a "polite" manner makes it even worse.
On your broader point, "Well said".
We're in this together brother. Thanks.
Post a Comment
<< Home