I've entertained thoughts of starting a "Brief musings" series, but, (1) my musings rarely are, (2) they often start in the middle of cooking breakfast or whatever, then disappear as soon as the task is finished or (more often) I'm interrupted. If I try to record them, they're...lost. (I mean, if I muse them to completion, or semi-completion, then they're not so brief.) (3) If I do manage to record then, then I fear they make no sense to anyone but me. (And maybe not even me. Actually, I fear that for the longer stuff too) and (4) somehow the idea seems kind of...dumb.
We already have "daily meditations" and "nuggets for living" and that sort of thing, formulaic yet useful. They come in neat, attractive packaging, and you pretty much know what you're going to get. A nice, safe truth, no surprises: something that can be counted on to start your day off right or get you back on track or send you off to snoozeland, or whatever. (with perhaps the exception of challenging ones such as Oswald Chambers' My Utmost for His Highest)
But it's come to my attention that the things I come up with aren't usually like the things outlined above. Sometimes they are off-the-wall or just plain out of line, or, they might be off the beaten path, not what folks are expecting (and maybe not what I was expecting either). So I'm not sure that a "Brief musing" series, containing weird little tidbits that don't really hit the spot, wouldn't come across as just...dumb.
But I'm going to take the risk, this once, and tell you what I was thinking this morning regarding popularity. (Probably nothing earth-shattering and nothing you don't already know, but, well...okay, enough fingernail-chewing.)
pop·u·lar \ˈpä-pyə-lər\ (adjective) [Latin popularis, from populus the people, a people]
1: of or relating to the general public
2: suitable to the majority: as a: adapted to or indicative of the understanding and taste of the majority: a popular history of the war b: suited to the means of the majority : inexpensive: sold at popular prices
3: frequently encountered or widely accepted: a popular theory
4: commonly liked or approved: a very popular girl
(from Merriam-Webster's online)
There is one simple way to achieve popularity: give people (or someone, anyone) what they want. Or like. Not what they need, necessarily, but what they like. This is the basic truth exploited by marketers: you either try to take something you know (or think) people want and make it look as appealing to them as possible, or take something you want them to want and try to make it as appealing as possible, or take something you know (or think) they need and try to make it AAAP.
Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that I think it's bad to give people what they want, or like, as long as you're not giving it to them in order to get what you want, unless what both they and you want are things you both also need, or at least want legitimately and there's no harm in them having or you giving or having. (Got that?)
My question is, how far should we go in the "make it appealing" department? Certainly not so far as to out-and-out lie, but what about veiling the truth? "Enhancing" it? Sugar-coating it? Avoiding it? Making it appealing but not much else?
When it comes to trying to "sell" ideas, it seems that, no matter what, if someone doesn't like the content of what you say, they probably won't like the presentation either. (Not always, but generally.) Or, if they don't like the presentation, they'll be biased against the content. Conversely, if they do like the presentation, they may buy what you're selling hook, line, and sinker (regardless of what's on the hook).
I will illustrate this phenomenon using the example of what happens in human relationships: When you first meet a person who especially appeals to you and you hit it off, you usually really like that person. They may take on almost mythical proportions in your mind such that even the things they do that are annoying or maybe not so good, you overlook as if they are nothing. Conversely, if you are put off by someone, initially or even not initially, even the good and nice things they do don't seem to register.
(This ties in with the "thumbs-up/thumbs-down" phenomenon I spoke of in this post regarding political polls. And is another reason I'm convinced that people make decisions and form opinions primarily based upon what they want or like -- that is to say, emotional appeal -- even if those opinions or decisions are also based upon fact.)
The thing is, if you go for popularity, you may or may not get it, depending on how you "sell" yourself or your ideas. But "selling" also involves playing and being played. As Christians, are we ultimately trying to sell ourselves, our ideas, or even the gospel? Should we be trying to sell, or to play, or to simply present?
Surely our job is merely to present, which does mean having in mind those to whom we are presenting, not so as to "sell," but to get our message across. I think we need to be very careful what we use as "bait" in doing so. We are all vehicles -- witnesses -- of something; therefore what we present, whether popular or not, whether wanted and liked or not, ought be presented to the honor and glory of God (not our own); i.e., in an honorable way.
(Was that brief enough?)
