Cutting Back On Reactive Blogging

When I read in yesterday’s news that Nancy Northup had said the Prenatal NonDiscrimination Act was “a cynical and offensive attempt to evoke race and sex discrimination when actually it’s about taking women’s rights away,” I reacted immediately. It was an outrageous statement that demanded an answer, so I sat down right away and wrote one.

After I published that post last night I realized there was something unhealthy in that. I’ve been blogging that way too much, and I’m going to correct that beginning today.

Here’s what’s wrong with it. It’s not that I think any more highly of Northup’s position than I did last night: it’s still outrageous and it still demands an answer—from someone. The problem for me is that it’s not good that I allow outrages, “demands,” and my own reactions to control my time. Even if blogging on that kind of thing seems good and almost necessary at the time, in the light of deeper priorities and needs (for myself, my family, and even for blogging) it distracts more than it contributes.

So I have to change direction. Here’s how it makes sense to me to think of it. There is reactive blogging, and there is non-reactive blogging, and the difference between them is a night’s sleep and at least a few minutes of prayer. (This is my own private definition, and if it doesn’t make sense to any other blogger, it doesn’t need to.) I’m committing now to severely limiting the number of blog posts I publish on the same day I begin work on them—no more than one or two per month—and I won’t publish anything without intentional prayer.

I’m hoping this will enhance the quality of my writing, as it will free from my own reactiveness and allow me to focus on more original and longer-term topics. I’m sure it will improve my personal and family life. So feel free to hold me to it.