Charles Spurgeon may be dead, but he writes enough blog posts to make a pyjama wearin’ blogger look computer illiterate.
That’s right, Charles Spurgeon blogs posthumously on a regular basis.
And that’s got me thinking about posthumous blogging in general. I’ve thought of several ups and several downs to posthumous blogging…
1. It’s not really blogging. The guy is dead so he can’t defend himself. He can’t clarify. He can’t qualify.
2. It’s gotta be edited. The guy who decides which writings to post gets to decide what the dead guy will say. In other words, the editor can write a whole article in between the lines via content, context, and timing.
3. Who wants to listen to a dead guy? Or maybe this is one of the ups…
1. Dead guys have some incredible stuff to say. For instance, I suspect Spurgeon has blessed and influenced more people since his death than he did during his life—and that’s saying something.
2. Dead guys can’t get into nearly as much trouble. Sure they can be wrong, but they can’t get involved in scandal or change directions. Dead guys have finished the race with a proven, genuine faith.
3. Dead guys are much more objective. No one can say they’re biased toward this camp or that. Of course their writings are coloured, but they’re generally coloured by things that are no longer controversial. Dead guys walk right into the most explosive of modern controversies blithe as a child—and often surprise us with profound truth.
Coming to InFocus
That’s part of why the new team is going to include a posthumous blogger. No, it won’t be Spurgeon—at least not this segment. Instead it’s a guy who was a kind of “young fundamentalist” before his time. A guy who’s death impacted the world deeply because of the life that had preceded it. A man who’s passion for the cross has spurred multiplied millions to greater fervency of love. A man who gave what he could not keep to gain what he could not lose.