Oldlife.org 201: Wit and Sarcasm

The first installment in this series about this blog was to clarify what a blog is. One aspect that I did not mention was that the more successful blogs are provocative – that is, they agitate readers and that’s why people come back. The most successful blogger in the world arguably is Andrew Sullivan, the former editor of the New Republic, and his blog is hardly tepid.

This leads to the second point in need of clarification. Oldlife.org is the on-line presence of the Nicotine Theological Journal. Long before provocations started at this blog, the editors and authors of the NTJ were provoking readers and library patrons in hopes of thinking through the implications of Reformed faith and practice today, with a little levity and sarcasm thrown in. The editors’ inspiration was partly Andrew Sullivan whose time at the New Republic made it one of the most thoughtful, rancorous, and witty magazines on politics and culture at the time. But Sullivan was not the only inspiration. Other authors who wrote on serious matters with wit and sarcasm that provided models for the NTJ were Richard John Neuhaus, P. J. O’Rourke, Joseph Epstein, H. L. Mencken, and Calvin Trillin.

None of these sources, readers may object, are Reformed. Which raises the question whether Reformed authors may engage in wit and sarcasm when pursuing their convictions. Well, the answer is yes. If you spend much time in the polemical writings of the Old School and Princeton theologians, you will find a fair amount of wit and sarcasm. Here are a couple examples, the first from Charles Hodge after a seven-round dogma fight with Edwards Amasa Park (named for Jonathan Edwards – ahem) over theological method and the nature of Calvinism:

It is a common remark that a man never writes anything well for which he has “to read up.” Professor Park has evidently labored under this disadvantage. Old-school theology is a new field to him; and though he quotes freely authors of whom we, though natives, never heard, yet he is not at home, and unavoidably falls into the mistakes which foreigners cannot fail to commit in a strange land. He does not understand the language. He find out “five meanings of imputation!” It would be wearisome work to set such a stranger right at every step. We would fain part with our author on good terms. We admire his abilities, and are ready to defer to him in his own department. But when he undertakes to teach Old-school men Old-school theology it is very much like a Frenchman teaching an Englishman how to pronounce English. With the best intentions, the amiable Gaul would be sure to make sad work with the dental aspirations.

The second comes from Benjamin Warfield in one of the last pieces he ever wrote, an article objecting to the latest proposal (1920) to unite the largest Protestant denominations in the United States:

Now it is perfectly obvious that the proposed creed contains nothing which is not believed by evangelicals. and it is equally obvious that it contains nothing which is not believed by Sacerdotalists – by the adherents of the church of Rome for example. And it is equally obvious that it contains nothing which is not believed by Rationalists – by respectable Unitarians. That is as much as to say that the creed on the basis of which we are invited to form a union for evangelizing purposes contains nothing distinctively evangelical at all; nothing at all of that body of saving truth for the possession of which the church of Christ has striven and suffered through two thousand years. It contains only “a few starved and hunger-bitten” dogmas of purely general character – of infinite importance in the context of evangelical truth, but of themselves of no saving sufficiency. So far as the conservation and propagation of evangelical religion is concerned, we might as well for a union on our common acceptance of the law of gravitation and the rule of three.

By the way, these were a couple of quotes readily available from Hodge and Warfield. If you go farther into their works, along with those of Old Schoolers like Dabney and Thornwell you will find many more examples, sometimes of laugh out loud proportions.

One last source of inspiration for Oldlife.org and the NTJ is – duh – J. Gresham Machen. He did not show a lot of wit or sarcasm in his writings. But his polemics were nonetheless blunt, so much so that many who believed charity to be the only Christian virtue considered Machen mean and beyond the pale. But it is precisely Machen’s candor and warrior spirit that is worthy of emulation. The following is from a piece he wrote for an inter-faith gathering on the relations between Christians and Jews:

The fact is that in discussing matters about which there are differences of opinion, it is really more courteous to be frank – more courteous with that deeper courtesy which is based upon the Golden Rule. For my part, I am bound to say that the kind of discussion which is irritating to me is the discussion which begins by begging the question and then pretend to be in the interests of peace. I should be guilty of such a method if I should say to a Roman Catholic, for example, that we can come together with him because forms and ceremonies like the mass and membership in a certain definite organization are, of course, matters of secondary importance – if I should say to him that he can go on being a good Catholic and I can go on being a good Protestant and yet we can unite on common Christian basis. If I should talk in that way, I should show myself guilty of the crassest narrowness of mind, for I should be showing that I had never taken the slightest trouble to understand the Roman Catholic point of view. If I had taken that trouble, I should have come to see plainly that what I should be doing is not to seek common ground between the roman Catholic and myself but simply to ask the Roman Catholic to become a Protestant and give up everything that he holds most dear.

. . . So to my mind the most inauspicious beginning for any discussion is found when the speaker utters the familiar words: “I think, brethren, that we are all agreed about this . . .” – and then proceeds to trample ruthlessly upon the things that are dearest to my heart. Far more kindly is it if the speaker says at the start that he sees a miserable narrow-minded conservative in the audience whose views he intends to ridicule and refute. After such a speaker gets through, perhaps I may be allowed to say that I regard him as just as narrow-minded as he regards me, and then having both spoken our full mind we may part, certain not as brothers (it is ridiculous to degrade that word) but at least as friends.

None of this is to suggest that Oldlife.org pulls off the wit, sarcasm, polemics, or bluntness of the writers who have inspired this endeavor. It is only to point out that the tone and style of Oldlife.org is not over the top.

Advertisements

51 thoughts on “Oldlife.org 201: Wit and Sarcasm

  1. Not speaking for you, but here’s my temptation (TMI!). I prefer a more genteel conversation, not because it’s holier, but because it’s more incisive and efficient. Still, I can roll my own sarcasm when necessary.

    BUT

    When I’m dealing with sarcasm, I interpret it as a kind of contempt: “I, the sarcastic one, am better than you. I have no need to treat you with dignity, for you don’t deserve it.”

    And wouldn’t you know, my own flesh says, “That arrogant twit! Fire! Reload! Fire again!” It’s my own arrogance responding to the implied arrogance of the sarcastor.

    My observation is that I’m not the only one out there who responds that way.

    So the danger of sarcasm, perhaps, is that it tempts us into arrogance. Obviously, other styles have their own dangers, as Machen points out.

    I think Machen in the quoted para is pointing out that there are “genteel” ways of treating people without dignity also.

    Like

  2. The Apostle Paul, when arguing against those who would require circumcision in Gal 5, employs puns, wit, and sarcasm. He says that to accept circumcision is to sever yourself from Christ (this is a pun). He goes on to say that he wishes that those who were preaching circumcision would simply emasculate themselves. It’s as if he’s saying, “Don’t just stop at the foreskin, cut it all off!”

    So is Paul being arrogant? Mean? Unloving? Of course, if you answer yes to these questions, don’t forget that Paul is merely the human author. There is also a divine author of this passage who properly receives credit for these words as well. Does this mean that God himself employs wit and sarcasm in his arguments? He does. And there are MANY examples of this in the OT prophets.

    Like

  3. I hear the “but Paul did it!” response a lot, which is better than the “but Jesus did it!” response.

    But here’s the thing: Paul is sarcastic in a few phrases out of thirteen total epistles: Gal 3 and 5, 1 Cor 1.13, 2 Cor 10 – 12.

    In each case, he is writing to those with whom he has an existing relationship. Whereas, the online sarcasm I was referring to is frequent and relatively relationship-free.

    Wouldn’t you agree that those factors are crucial? “Paul did it sparingly, so I can do it frequently” is clearly a much weaker argument.

    Like

  4. Also, please don’t take what I said as a blanket condemnation. Sarcasm can be skillfully wielded. It’s just overdone on the ‘Net. Everyone’s a wit; everyone else is an idiot.

    Like

  5. Luther was the master “smack” talker- from his writing it seems he used it in daily in his battles with the Catholics and Anabaptists. But Calvinists often go squimish with Luther’s seeming lack of self-control at times.

    Like

  6. Well, yeah. Tell me that the Colloquy of Marburg was a good thing.

    Luther was a unique individual in God’s providence. He had to have backbone and wit to do what he did. His take-down of Erasmus is highly entertaining from that perspective.

    But those gifts came at a cost: the sundering of the Protestant church.

    There’s always a flip side …

    Like

  7. I think Machen in the quoted para is pointing out that there are “genteel” ways of treating people without dignity also.</i.

    I don't know, Jeff, it actually seems like he's saying he prefers Trent's anathema of Protestants to Vatican II's calling us "separated brethren." If so, I quite agree. I don't think it has to do with treating anyone with dignity as much as it is about making an honest effort to understand someone else's beliefs and how that squares up with your own. So, in that sense, as a Refoemd Protestant I feel much better understood by Trent than I do by Vatican II.

    Like

  8. I’m not sure Luther was using sarcasm at Marburg. Might have gone better if he had.

    If so, maybe the lesson was “sarcasm never works with a pietist” (not labeling you a pietist, Jeff, ’cause your argument is different than their offense).

    But I have a hunch that this is true… sarcasm usually offends those who wear their piety on their sleeve. Which may be why DGH favors it, and others who share his view of pietists.

    Like

  9. We’re talking about opposite sides of the same coin. (In other words, I agree with you and continue to maintain the original).

    On the one side, we’re talking about making an honest effort to be … honest. Trent is up-front and honest, if excessively rhetorical; Vatican II is squishy.

    On the back side, people who say, “I think, brethren, that we are all agreed about this . . .” – and then proceed to trample ruthlessly upon the things that are dearest to my heart.” are unkind because they pour contempt upon me (that is, Machen), dressed up in inclusivist language.

    Am I *not* a part of “all of us”? Or are you (that is, Machen’s person) so contemptuous of me that you don’t even bother to acknowledge my disagreement?

    The two go together: honesty : dignity :: flowery dishonesty : contempt. That’s why he calls it “kindness.” It’s not the kindness of a doctor’s diagnosis, but the kindness of an unforked tongue.

    Like

  10. Brian, interesting hypothesis re: pietism.

    (However, I know some non-pietists that don’t suffer sarcasm gladly.)

    You’re right about Luther — he wasn’t being sarcastic at Marburg; just offensive.

    Like

  11. Luther certainly had a razor tongue, but we must not forget Calvin. In his response to Albertus Pighius concerning the will, he wrote:

    “For in addition to having an innate fluency of speech, he [Pighius] constantly puts in a great deal of effort and study, so as both to conceal the matter in hand by his pompous speaking and to overwhelm his opponent by a long and dashing brandishing of words. Perhaps he even covets praise for this, since the best way to make an impression on the ignorant is to run wild with loud cries and long accumulation of words. For myself I would happily yield the prize to him in this matter, even without a struggle, since I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels.”

    Like

  12. Trent is up-front and honest, if excessively rhetorical…

    Jeff, would you also say that Paul in Galatians 1:8 is “excessively rhetorical”: “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.”

    But to be (ahem) honest, I guess I hesitate a bit with Machen’s suggestion that to call me to unity when we clearly and essentially disgaree is to treat me with contempt a little hyper and emotional. I’d rather his point that to do so is to not take “the slightest trouble to understand” me, for if you did you wouldn’t make such a crass effort to unify us. You’d actually anathemtize me.

    Like

  13. I’ll add my $.02. Sarcasm, ridicule, and bombastic tones are over-represented in the Reformed blogosphere. The strident tone, sarcasm and ridicule are the rule, not the exception. There is surely a place for sarcasm, strategically and sparingly used. But the Reformed blogs employ it as a steady diet. My strongly held conviction is that this tone, when used so frequently, ceases to be effective rhetorically. It doesn’t persuade; it only offends. It doesn’t convince; it only hardens opposition. It doesn’t make friends and converts; it only drives away those on the fence and friends alike. The majority of the Reformed world views this angry-Reformed rhetoric as a bunch of noisy pot-bangers not to be taken seriously.

    So, I have to wonder why so many bloggers continue using a technique that is not working for them, that marginalizes them, that drives people away, and that causes them to lose the respect and good opinion of others.

    This leaves to one side the issue of whether the unremitting drumbeat of constant sarcasm, ridicule, and other harsh rhetoric is consistent with Christian charity. On pure pragmatic grounds it fails.

    Like

  14. An ancient sage once spoke of “a fine line between genius and stupidity.” OK, it wasn’t an ancient sage but there’s a fine line between, on the one hand, effective sarcasm & mockery, and, on the other, ham-fisted insults. Given sufficient cleverness and/or humor, they can work. Mencken was a master of the genre, and O’Rourke can do it as well. Darryl, I’ve seen you do it well. But it’s not for everyone and, when it fails, it can fail miserably.

    Parenthetically, I think regulars in any given blog-community (did I really just say “blog-community”?) can give each other some slack in this regard.

    Like

  15. Samuel S., out of curiosity, if so many Reformed bloggers use a style you find distasteful and unpersuasive, why do you keep reading such that you know which way the trend in the blogosphere is going? Could it be that there is merely more sarcasm than you prefer, but on the whole it is not the only tone out there?

    Like

  16. 2Tim 2:22-26 (ESV)
    So flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart. Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

    I agree that Paul can be forceful in ways that seem to contradict his own teaching in this verse. I do notice that his vitriol is reserved for those false teachers who are deliberately and consistently denying the gospel fundamentally. With others he is patient and gentle.

    Satire seems to me more acceptable than sarcasm (which has a nasty edge). Jane Austen was willing to mock and parody vice but never virtue. A good distinction.

    Like

  17. Sebastian, It’s from “The Relations Between Christians and Jews,” and is reprinted in Machen’s Selected Shorter Writings or its predecessor, What is Christianity?

    Like

  18. I think we make ourselves more important than we think- God uses human frailty and His purposes come to pass in spite of us. Fallen man has a tendency to accept too much praise and too much blame. But I may still be confused about the Divine Decree/Providence/Sovereignty/etc. and human responsibilty issue.

    Like

  19. Zrim: Jeff, would you also say that Paul in Galatians 1:8 is “excessively rhetorical”: “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.”

    Clearly not. But Paul had his Gospel from direct revelation. Did Luther have his communion theology by direct revelation? Not so much. Yet he treated it with the same kind of urgency.

    DGH: I second Samuel’s point. Yes, there is more sarcasm than I prefer; yes, it’s not the only tone going on out there; and yes, the Reformed world would be better if some listened to John Thomson Paul.

    Imperative trumps illustration; 2 Tim 2 beats Gal 1.8.

    Like

  20. I am also of the persuasion that Luther was so assured of God’s ability to bring His purposes to pass despite himself that he was more bold with his tongue than most. He knew that God would use his accurate proclamation of His Word to fulfill His purposes and was not hung up about making mistakes with his tongue. That gave him much freedom and boldness.

    Like

  21. I would be more careful in blaming Luther at Marburg too. He was expressing his theological convictions and did not waver from them. Calvinists, Anabaptists and Catholics still think he was wrong but the Lutheran Church have adhered to those convictions since that time. He was doing was Machen stated is the more loving route to take.

    Like

  22. Jeff, my point was that Trent is not in fact rhetorically excessive. It rightly understands that if someone holds to another gospel he is to be accursed. And per Trent’s own construal of justification, we Prot’s hold to “another gospel.” And this underscores how well Trent understands sola fide. Vatican II doesn’t seem to get it.

    Like

  23. John: I would be more careful in blaming Luther at Marburg too. He was expressing his theological convictions and did not waver from them. Calvinists, Anabaptists and Catholics still think he was wrong but the Lutheran Church have adhered to those convictions since that time. He was doing was Machen stated is the more loving route to take.

    No, he had half of the equation. Being theologically convinced and stubborn is good and right; but overstepping the bounds of conviction is to raise one’s own opinion to divine levels.

    Luther needed to listen more at Marburg and to give the issue a rest and some time to sort itself out. He could have listened, for example, to Melancthon, who was favorably disposed to Calvin’s solution.

    The bottom line is that we as humans are given infallible Scripture on the one hand, and interpret it with fallible brains on the other. That means that convictions based on individual opinion need to be held loosely. In matters soteric, Luther confirmed his readings with the church fathers. In the the matter of communion, Luther and Zwingli were both in unmarked territory.

    Like

  24. Zrim, the “rhetorical” portion I was referring to is the deliberate overstatement of Protestant positions. Anathemetizing straw-men is silliness.

    Like

  25. I think sarcasm and “biting” comments are appropriate, but their effectiveness is largely based on who uses them and how. I’m not good at using sarcasm (and often wit) unless it comes from a place of anger or disdain, which tends to cloud my judgment anyway. So I refrain for the most part.

    One of the things I like about this blog is the cleverness, wit, and sarcasm, but done in a way (for the most part) that instructs and ultimately edifies. Does it go too far on here and other Reformed blogs? Yes, but for the most part I find it enjoyable and helpful.

    Like

  26. Jeff,

    You are assuming that the Calvinists were right. That still has not been solved- there are just as many problems with the Calvinist position as the Lutheran. Calvinists tried to solve the problem with logic- Lutherans explain it is still a paradox and mystery- is that solvable this side of the not yet?

    Like

  27. DGH,
    Yes, there is more sarcasm than I like, and it’s not the only tone. But’s the dominant tone in much of Reformed blogosphere.

    I’m curious as to why you approve of sarcasm, ridicule, and harsh rhetoric as a frequent rhetorical device? Do you find it effective in persuading? If so, on what evidence?

    My experience is that it’s seldom effective — other than to convince the already convinced. The strident Reformed bloggers do surround themselves with a coterie of faithful fans — you see the usual suspects commenting again and again. But I doubt that the harsh rhetoric reaches and pursuades more than this tiny handful. The evidence I’ve seen from my experience, at least, is that this technique more often is counter-productive. It offends and drives away more often than not. People who are offended also stop writing checks to support institutions employing the fire breathers. So it’s hard for me to see the upside of such rhetoric. Just sayin’….

    Like

  28. John Y: Jeff,

    You are assuming that the Calvinists were right.

    Yes and no. Yes, I do happen to believe that Calvinists are right on this.

    But even if not, Luther’s method is still open to criticism. Basically, he treated Marburg as a last stand rather than as the first of several possible dialogues.

    If Zwingli had shown himself an opponent of Reformation, that might have made sense; but they agreed on 14 of 15 articles. To my mind, that says, “Keep talking.”

    Like

  29. Jeff,

    Well, it could be argued that Luther turned out to be prophetic here. The issue is still not solved 500 years later and Luther probably saw it would be fruitless to continue the dialog.

    Like

  30. Samuel, I have symapthy for your points. But from where I sit the counter-productive stuff tends to lie more with the aggressive Reformed logicians than the staid Reformed confessionalists. But your comment also raises a point about the whiny culture of offense. Have you noticed, like me, it seems like most anymore say “I’m offended” when they really likely mean “I really disagree and can’t believe you have the audacity to be so vocal about your convictions which don’t coincide with mine”? Add to add insult to injury, real offense loses its meaning since everybody is offended all the time. It’s like claiming addiction when really you have self-control problems. It gives people with real behavior problems of addiction a black eye.

    Like

  31. John, possibly so. It could be that communion is intractable. But in my experience, many “intractable” problems can be resolved IF battle lines are not drawn. It’s funny how having an opponent robs us of rationality.

    Like

  32. Zrim: But your comment also raises a point about the whiny culture of offense. Have you noticed, like me, it seems like most anymore say “I’m offended”

    I realize you’re speaking generally, but I’d like to offer a different perspective on that. In my view, stating offense up front, and getting it out of the way, allows for conversation to reset and get back to the issue at hand.

    The reason I’m frank when I’ve been offended by various folk is not to get a sympathy vote, but to say “Hey, you’re crossing a line. Let’s reel it in.”

    In my view, it’s better to have several small offenses that are dealt with, than to harbor a grudge that leads to a big blow-up, or to total silence altogether.

    Continuing with that perspective:

    Zrim: …when they really likely mean “I really disagree and can’t believe you have the audacity to be so vocal about your convictions which don’t coincide with mine”?

    Sure, that can happen. But very often, there is text and subtext going on.

    Text: “Sending your child to public school is equivalent to idolatry.”

    Subtext: “You don’t care about your children.”

    The pushback is usually against the subtext, not the text itself. Especially because the subtext is (a) more ambiguous, and (b) closer to the heart.

    Like

  33. Jeff, well, I suppose I’d rather you say I’m crossing a line and might consider reeling it in if that’s what you and reserve claiming offense for when I’ve actually offended you. I am reminded of my point about the difference between bad judgment and sin (which I know you aren’t entirely convinced of): don’t tell me I’ve sinned when what I’ve done is show poor judgment. It over-realizes my infraction and diminishes someone else’s actual offense.

    And when someone suggests my schooling choice means I don’t care for my children I still don’t think I’ve been offended. I’ve been angered, but I have a hard time saying I’ve been personally offended. I’d rather say the speaker has been moronic. But if I haven’t gotten much sleep or love lately maybe I’ll reach for the O-word.

    Like

  34. Samuel S. I don’t think sarcasm persuades. What it does is blow off steam. Old Lifers see a lot of odd and annoying stuff out there, both inside and outside the church. Sometimes you just have to scream. Sometimes yelling alerts people in the middle to the problem.

    BTW, the Old School was effective through wit and sarcasm in preserving a commitment to the Reformed faith. I suspect that part of the problem for you is that you don’t like polemics either.

    Like

  35. Zrim: That makes sense, although “that’s offensive” carries (to me, at least) a connotation substantially less than sinning.

    My overall point is not so much about word choice as it is about approach: a certain amount of wearing the outer heart on the sleeve can promote better conversation. It conveys a sense of humanity.

    Like

  36. Jeff, maybe, but the Bible in various places seems to suggest that when I offend my brother it’s a sin. (See, I can use special revelation to make a general point.) So I think we have warrant for the idea that offense and sin are synonymous. And if that’s true, I think we should be as restrained and cautious about claiming it. Without such distinctions we get folks claiming wild things like contraception is sin.

    Re your point about wearing it on the sleeve, again maybe. But I have found that when someone claims I have offended him or her more often than not it’s a way to shut down conversation instead of nurture a better one. It’s manipulating and controlling. Not to bring it up again, but that’s what is behind something like my Bayly Blog ban, I think. It’s just a way to shut up strong opposition and hide behind a seemingly noble justification.

    P.S. Sorry to hear you’ll be absent this summer. Stay well.

    Like

  37. The fact is that in discussing matters about which there are differences of opinion, it is really more courteous to be frank – more courteous with that deeper courtesy which is based upon the Golden Rule. For my part, I am bound to say that the kind of discussion which is irritating to me is the discussion which begins by begging the question and then pretend to be in the interests of peace. I should be guilty of such a method if I should say to a Roman Catholic, for example, that we can come together with him because forms and ceremonies like the mass and membership in a certain definite organization are, of course, matters of secondary importance – if I should say to him that he can go on being a good Catholic and I can go on being a good Protestant and yet we can unite on common Christian basis. If I should talk in that way, I should show myself guilty of the crassest narrowness of mind, for I should be showing that I had never taken the slightest trouble to understand the Roman Catholic point of view. If I had taken that trouble, I should have come to see plainly that what I should be doing is not to seek common ground between the roman Catholic and myself but simply to ask the Roman Catholic to become a Protestant and give up everything that he holds most dear.

    . . . So to my mind the most inauspicious beginning for any discussion is found when the speaker utters the familiar words: “I think, brethren, that we are all agreed about this . . .” – and then proceeds to trample ruthlessly upon the things that are dearest to my heart. Far more kindly is it if the speaker says at the start that he sees a miserable narrow-minded conservative in the audience whose views he intends to ridicule and refute. After such a speaker gets through, perhaps I may be allowed to say that I regard him as just as narrow-minded as he regards me, and then having both spoken our full mind we may part, certain not as brothers (it is ridiculous to degrade that word) but at least as friends.

    Fantastic quote from this source. Any serious student of Machen needs to own the book at that link <——————–right there 15 words back.

    Thanks!

    Like

  38. “Irony itself is not the problem. The target of irony is, as is the psychological reason for doing it. Are you using irony as A) a necessary coping mechanism, or B) a way of avoiding decisions and confrontations and commitments? Are you using it as A) a way of speaking truth to power, or B) a way of feeling superior to those less fortunate?

    If your answer is B in either case, as I think it is with the usual hipster irony, then it is indeed something we ought to learn to live without — on pain of not growing up and not learning true humility.

    But one should not strive to be like a 4-year-old. The point is to be able to be (sometimes) as sincere as a 4-year-old even while knowing what a 4-year-old does not: that you might try and fail, that other people may not like you, that other people may not like your taste or your work, that you may get criticized. But you will get things done.

    http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2012/11/20/the-specific-problem-of-hipster-irony/

    Like

  39. I can’t thank who I want DG and you can not thank who you want?

    Matt 6:1 amen, yet also 1 Cor 4:5… that Lord, He’s always challenging us with difficult things… including pretty much reserving heart judgment for Himself

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.