Another thing to remember is that disagreement is not the same as "snark."

A recent post on Daily Episcopalian ("Credo") elicited a discussion about the appropriateness of what I (and some others) viewed as celebration of an atheistic worldview. Others thought the post was fine and appreciated the Cafe's willingness to post such material.

I am of the opinion that none (or very little) of that discussion became "snarky" in any way. There was some defensiveness to be sure, but people with well-thought-out positions that they whole-heartedly believe in should be able to state their case (pro or anti) in clear language without worrying that saying "I think you're wrong" when you think some one is wrong will be construed as being "snarky," "negative," "combative," or anything else other than a statement and explanation of one's viewpoint.

Another example is the snark-filled discussions about liturgy aesthetics. On the one hand, yes- there is A LOT of snark and sarcasm out there: parodies of folk songs ("gather us in, the old and the tired..."), websites devoted to poor haberdashery, animated gifs...
But on the other hand, if you really believe that (for example) it is inappropriate to program some particular piece of music at liturgy, then you aren't being snarky or negative to simply say so and explain why.

The paradox of the Big Tent is that we even have to welcome in people who would prefer a much smaller tent. If they're willing to put up with being here in the first place, we should be willing to put up with their disagreements.

And Jesus said, "To what then will I compare the people of this generation, and what are they like? They are like children sitting in the marketplace and calling to one another, 'We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we wailed, and you did not weep.' For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, 'He has a demon'; the Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, 'Look, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' Nevertheless, wisdom is vindicated by all her children." (Luke 7:31-35)

Jesus used a sharp wit to point out the hypocrisy of his detractors and the inconsistencies in their position. We tend to forget he even resorted to name calling - does "You brood of vipers" sound familiar?

I'm not sure if clergy are any more or less adept at snark than our congregants ... but we do follow a Savior who seems to be quite adept at it!

" O you dear idiots of Galatia ...who has been casting a spell over you?" -Gal. 3:1 (J.B. Philips)

"Woman, what concern is that to you and to me?" -Jn.2:4

"Let the children be fed first, for it is not fair to take the children's food and feed it to the dogs." -Mk.7:27

Besides, sarcasm may be distinguished from political sardonicism.

To beg the question does not mean "to raise the question."

How is that for snark ;)

Bill Fleener, Jr.

My favorite Biblical snark is Nathaniel's response to Philip upon hearing that he found the Messiah in Nazareth.

"Nathaniel said to him, ‘Can anything good come out of Nazareth?’ Philip said to him, ‘Come and see.’" John 1:46

http://bible.cc/1_kings/18-27.htm

John, that page is a fascinating glimpse into how culture plays into translation. Notice that only a few of the translations include the notion that the god in question might be "relieving himself."

Just as all that glistens is not gold, all that's cutting is not snark. The comments that sparked Bishop Mathes' article were written in response to an article about a policy put in place by Bishop Little, of Northern Indiana. Some of those comments were snark, while some others were more snarl than snark.

I didn't read Bishop Mathes' article as an indictment of snark in particular, but of hostile and angry language in general. He probably would include snark under that category, though.

Since snark (except in the Dodgsonian sense) is a fairly new term, there isn't a hard and fast definition of what it entails. Maybe in order to discuss it it would be helpful to define our terms first.

Re Bill Dilworth "Some of those comments were snark, while some others were more snarl than snark..'

And some perhaps were righteous indignation?

For more interesting translation work, try http://bible.cc/ezekiel/23-20.htm
A couple of translations give the full, obscene meaning of Ezekiel's denunciation of the harlot Israel, but lots of them fudge. (Does this show up in the lectionary, I wonder?)

@Rod Gillis - "And some perhaps were righteous indignation?"

Undoubtedly, which may or may not be a good thing.

"There is perhaps no phenomenon which contains so much destructive feeling as "moral indignation," which permits envy or hate to be acted out under the guise of virtue." -- Erich Fromm

"Righteous indignation: Your own wrath as opposed to the shocking bad temper of others." -- Elbert Hubbard

Re Bill Dilworth's 2nd post, agreed Bill the hinge upon which action turns is on the "may or may not". The challenge is attempting to discern the
difference.Confrontation is sometimes constructive in both counseling and politics.

Sometimes the pointed and "snarky" rejoinder is the one democratic tool left in disarming linguistic smoothing techniques and the public relations turn of phrase one so often finds in church statements these days.

As for quotes, here's one I like, and find applicable to our current problems.

"But despite these notable exceptions I must honestly reiterate that I have been disappointed with the church.I do not say that as one of the negative critics who can always find something wrong with the church. I say it as a minister of the Gospel who loves the church.."
--Martin Luther King, 1963
(Letter from Birmingham city Jail)

In snark we trust.

Seriously, IMHO, snark is wonderful when directed at institutions, public figures, and social injustice. Where would we be without snarky comments about discrimination, for instance?

When directed at specific, private individuals, snark can be ugly and abusive.

Anyone want to post something about +++Williams and his political acumen (or lack thereof) so I can have a mini-snarkfest?

Eric Bonetti

I love snark. But I have a love-hate relationship with church related snark online.

The internet is a forum where most of the eyes and ears lurking around are not people of our faith, let alone Episcopalians. The words we post, we give freely to the world and they see it and it defines us to them. Period.

So I worry about the flood of snarky Episcopal content, which tends to be hypercritical insider-speak. I worry about the whole clot of tweets and blogs and comments that exist for Episcopalians to eviscerate Episcopal this or that.

How is it welcoming? How does it present us to a world that tends to think all Christians are petty bickering bigots? Don't get me wrong, as an insider I devour things like @churchsnobTEC, but I'm horrified at what that name alone must project to outsiders. And twitter is the equivalent of intercom announcements at the mall.

In an idealistic world we'd all take a moment before posting any church commentary - snarky or not - to remember that we are each the spokesperson for our faith and there are things more important to get across on the www than our opinions or an incendiary humor: love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. (Galatians 5:22-23)

But I don't think that means we can't also be opinionated and funny.

Ruth Meteer

Of course, my indignation, like my anger, is always righteous. And therefore my snarkiness and disdain are justified. But, I wonder if snarkiness isn’t a species of the deadly sin of malice, a deadly sin like the others to which we have grown accustomed to indulging.

Our Lord famously warns:
"You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, 'You shall not murder'; and 'whoever murders shall be liable to judgment.' But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, 'You fool,' you will be liable to the hell of fire" (Matthew 5:21 – 22).

There is this from Paul:
“For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ If, however, you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another" (Galatians 5:14 -15).

And this from this Sunday’s epistle:
“If any think they are religious, and do not bridle their tongues but deceive their hearts, their religion is worthless” (James 1:26). He goes even further, “For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by humankind, but no human being can tame the tongue--a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With it we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who are made in the likeness of God. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brethren, this ought not to be so. (James 3:7 – 10)

And from the first epistle attributed to Peter:
“But in your hearts sanctify Christ as Lord. Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and reverence. Keep your conscience clear, so that, when you are maligned, those who abuse you for your good conduct in Christ may be put to shame"
(1 Peter 3:15 – 16).

And from the early church:
"At times we not only condemn but bring our neighbor into contempt. For it is one thing to condemn, and another to bring into contempt. To bring into contempt means when a person not only condemns but also despises another, scorns him and turns away from him as from an abomination. This is worse than condemnation and much more pernicious." (Dorotheos of Gaza, Directions on Spiritual Training)

Might Christians be called to a different kind of word care? And wouldn't that be counter-cultural?

Matt Gunter

"Our Lord famously warns..."

Accusations of "Argument from authority!" in 3...2...1...