Skip to main content

My Ambiguous Wrestling With "Inspiration Porn"

"Inspiration porn" refers to material about people with disabilities where the primary focus is either on the "AB" caregivers and their emotional responses to us living our lives, or is some voyueristic exploitation of some struggle we have, to make "normals" feel good about themselves. I truly do understand why it's a problem, and why it can be demeaning. As one TED speaker put it in paraphrase, I'm not a hero for getting out of bed this morning.

On the other hand...

A cross is a cross. If someone says to me, "You inspire me," charity requires that my first instinct should be to take him or her at face value. Have you ever noticed all the dying and disabled kids who love sports teams? You might wonder why. The secret is this: Weakness, inability, and failure is a reminder of creatureliness and mortality. Athletic glory and victory is a reminder of the perfection of Heaven. If someone pays you this compliment, stand in awe. Yes, your words may teeter on the edge of the maudlin here, as you try to receive this, but do try. I'm telling you that this vale of tears is a little more bearable because of the glory of your body, and what you can do with it. It's a tough balance, but if you pay me respect, I don't mind if you draw a little inspiration from me. It's only fair.

I love Roger Federer. Every time I see his face, or get to see a match, I feel joy. As he has struggled in these later years to tell Father Time to sit down and shut up, I've loved him all the more. We all face these reminders of mortality; a disability allows you to face them more acutely.

If Roger Federer told me that I inspired him to dig a little deeper, to push harder, I would nod in respect. He's earned that right, by doing his job so well. And of course, it's not something that he couldn't or wouldn't say to any fan. I need a gracious humility, to receive that in the spirit in which it was intended.

I give people a wide latitude in this. Life is actually hard for all of us. Anything we can do to help each other, we should do. I guess if I could sense an attempt to put me in my place, or to brush me aside, is a different matter.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un