What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.


What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Sentiment vs. Sainthood

The aftermath of the recent jihad murders in Orlando, like the aftermath of every other mass shooting (and for that matter every celebrity death) has been marked by a vast tide of undirected emotion and sentiment. In addition to the inevitable debates (over gun control, for example), the world of social media is awash in calls to one another to pray for Orlando and expressions of emotion over the shooting.

There are worse things than soppy sentimentalism. Cruelty and hard-heartedness, for example. But I want to be one voice stating that sentiment for the sake of sentiment has its drawbacks and that American culture is in grave danger of thinking just the opposite--namely, that sentiment for the sake of sentiment is inherently virtuous.

It's possible that part of the confusion arises from the fact that sentimentalism can be a counterfeit of saintliness. Here's what I mean: We know that Jesus took upon himself all the sins and sorrows of the world. Catholics, in particular, have a theological idea of sharing in the sufferings of Jesus. Protestants, too, often talk about bearing one another's burdens, which is fully biblical. One imagines the old monk or nun, or the prayer warrior, praying quietly and earnestly, for hours, for strangers, for the sins of the world, for evil-doers and victims, his prayers ranging over all the world, suffering with those people, offering up prayers for "all sorts and conditions of men." It is a legitimately attractive picture.

I think that people, Christians in particular, may have the false idea that, by calling upon their friends to "Pray for _____[fill in location of most recent tragedy]," and also by encouraging in themselves a lot of emotion about whatever tragedy is big in the news cycle right now, they are imitating that saint. The idea is to be selfless, to go beyond one's own concerns, to enter into the sufferings of others, yes, even others whom one doesn't know.

But in my opinion this is an illusion. Here are some thoughts on the distinction between sentimentalism and sainthood:

1) Sainthood is self-effacing. Sentimentalism is dramatic, public, and self-indulgent. The saint who prays in his cell doesn't tell the whole world that he's praying or what he's praying for. He doesn't advertise on his Facebook status that he broke down in tears while going about his daily task when the thought of _______ came to him. He doesn't pressure other people to join any prayer bandwagon. He just quietly gets on with it.

2) Sainthood is precise. Sentimentalism is vague. A saint knows exactly what he's praying for. He isn't "sending good thoughts." He doesn't send prayers (or thoughts) to a city. (Because we actually send prayers to God. Or, if you're a Catholic or high Anglican, to God via the saints. But not to places.) A saint prays for specific, holy things. Those things might include comfort or salvation for large numbers of people, even people whose names he doesn't know. But a saint's prayers cannot be captured by slogans. How many people out there saying, "Pray for Orlando" have little or no idea what, precisely, they are supposed to be asking for, and for whom? It's a catch-phrase, meant to express a feeling of solidarity.

3) Saints never willfully drum up emotion as an end in itself, in themselves or others. Sentimentalists make a habit of it.

4) Saints have their own priorities in prayer. Sentimentalists are at the beck and call of the news cycle. That's not to say a saint would never pray about something that is big in the news cycle. Maybe he would. If so, it would be as part of a disciplined prayer life with other priorities at least equal in importance. But maybe he wouldn't. Maybe instead that day he would be praying for a child dying of cancer, for Christians being tortured for their faith, for a man struggling with doubts, for children being raised in spiritual darkness, for women (or even a particular woman) being tempted to abortion, or for any of the infinite number of other matters of eternal importance.

A sentimentalist, in contrast, weeps when social media says, "Weep!" and prays when social media says, "Pray!" It's difficult to believe that, in so doing, he is obeying the Spirit of the Lord.

One might ask what harm is done by national sentimentalism. At least it draws people together. It springs from good intentions, from a natural desire to be kind and to care about others. To be sure, there are worse harms. But I think there is enough harm that it is worth speaking out about. Here are just a few of the harms:

--National sentimentalism is closely tied to virtue signaling, bandwagoning, and social bullying. I'm on a Facebook group consisting of professing Christians. One member posted to the group a day or two after the shooting complaining angrily that there had been no "statement" posted to that particular group about the shooting. Several people quickly assured him that they had expressed the proper sentiments on their personal pages. Nobody told him to go jump in the lake. Even I didn't, because I didn't need the drama in my life, and it wasn't worth my time. But the reason that kind of bullying gets off the ground is because of the sentimentalist assumption that everybody has to say something everywhere. Everybody has to express a certain feeling. The whole nation is in mourning, don't you know, and we all have to make our gesture of joining in, and if you don't, you're a bad person. This is simply not a healthy state of affairs.

I want to emphasize that I think this sort of interpersonal pressure to say something is a bad thing regardless of how sympathetic the victims are. I think this about the Sandy Hook massacre, too, or the Paris massacre. I'm making no statement just here about homosexuality. What I am saying is that sentimentalism makes people ripe to be manipulated into talking in a certain way because that's what everybody else is doing, and that is bad in and of itself.

--Nationwide sentimentalism makes it difficult to be cool-headed in judging proposed policies. Note that I'm not talking, here, about which proposed policies. I mean this generalization to apply to any proposed policies. Policy should be discussed and enacted with cool heads, not in a rush of national emotion.

--Nationwide sentimentalism encourages people to force themselves to feel certain emotions. This is always bad. I cannot think of a single exception to the rule: Never try to force yourself to feel an emotion. Emotion is not inherently virtuous and should not be forced. By treating emotion as equivalent to virtue, sentimentalism tells people in the imperative mood to feel an emotion. This is not good for either the mind or the heart.

--National sentimentalism can make it harder to see the pain and suffering of those immediately around us whose sufferings aren't national news. We each only have so much time and emotional energy, and so much time spent in prayer. We need to spend it deliberately and wisely.

I won't go so far as to say, "Don't pray for Orlando!" Of course not. But if you do pray, pray for people, not for an abstract city. Pray for definite, holy things. Pray as part of a well-rounded prayer life and relationship with God. Don't gin up emotions. Don't tell everybody on Facebook about your feelings or about how intensely you are praying. Don't tell other people that they have to pray for Orlando. Maybe they have something else at least as urgent that they are called upon to pray for instead. And don't, for goodness' sake, pray just because someone says, "Pray for Orlando!"

Comments (11)

Let me be the first to say, Very well said, Lydia!

One reason I personally choose not to "do" Facebook is the excessive sentimentalism on display every single time something like the recent Orlando event happens. And of course there is all manner of SJW-ing constantly on these forums. Sometimes over the trivialist of matters, and very often before anyone bothers to confirm a story they're all tied up in knots about. In short, it just ain't my bag. But knowing that doesn't prevent certain individuals from sending facebook screenshots to my cell phone. Like the story recently out of Owasso, Oklahoma. As the story went, a man went to pick up his seven year-old daughter from school. When she got into their car, her father noticed she was sad. Inquiring of her why she was sad, she told him the story of another little girl who had chosen chicken nuggets for lunch, but when the meal was added to her account, it was discovered there was no money in the account so they denied her the chicken nuggets meal, and substituted a grilled cheese sandwich instead. When the friend's father got the details of the story from his daughter, he said that even though he normally does not go off on rants, he immediately knew that this incident rose to the level that *had to* post it on facebook. And he had a lot of choice words for the state of Oklahoma, for the lunch room staff and everyone else involved. By the time one of my siblings noticed it and thought it vitally important to send to my cell phone, accusations were being made against the girl's parents for being "deadbeats," "scum," probable "drug addicts" and all sorts of things like that. And all based on the infallible testimony of a seven year-old little girl.

But anyway, just wanted to commend you for a good and timely post.

Thanks, Terry.

Wow, the little girl's parents couldn't just have been, y'know, poor?

Your feelings (and that kind of escalation) are my reasons for not doing Twitter, which adds another whole level of crazy.

This post was the best commentary I've read following the Orlando shooting and one of the best posts I've ever read by Lydia.

"I cannot think of a single exception to the rule: Never try to force yourself to feel an emotion."

People in the performing arts often need to force themselves to feel an emotion in order to deliver a convincing performance. I'm not sure this is a counterexample. But if it is, I doubt it rebuts your general point of your post, which I wholeheartedly agree with.

Great post. I think sentimentalism also detracts from actual good works being done. As noted, it's easy to feel as though one has done some concrete good by being sentimental. While not put in so many words it leads to this sort of thing "feed the starving always, use food when necessary."

OT: Sorry for hijacking this thread, but this is too interesting:


Reporter decides to investigate the provenance of the "Jesus' Wife" fragment. It seems that a really shady but clever Egyptology dropout who shoots porn videos with his wife was the man who got the fragment into King's hands. He himself is unwilling to provide any evidence about the provenance of the fragment...

Sentimentalism is also tied at the hip with virtue-signaling.

Lydia says she cannot think of a single exception to the rule: Never try to force yourself to feel a particular emotion. I'm not so sure. In any situation some emotions (e.g., benevolence, defiance) are better than others (e.g., envy, fear). We associate the better emotions with a higher and nobler character, which we should strive to make our own. The mistake lies in passively trying to feel, e.g., benevolent, which is putting the cart before the horse. What you ought to do is make it a habit to act as a benevolent person would act. If you succeed in that, then you'll also feel as a benevolent person would feel.

The outcome of any emotion is action: therefore, an emotion that does not lead to any desirable action is without positive value, except whatever pleasure having it may bring. Lydia doesn't say this in so many words but would surely agree.

What you ought to do is make it a habit to act as a benevolent person would act. If you succeed in that, then you'll also feel as a benevolent person would feel.

Maybe. Maybe not.

I certainly agree with putting good actions before noble feelings. But actually some of us have found that right actions do not inevitably compel the feelings that they were meant to bring about. One finds this in one's spiritual life, for example. Earnest prayer does not always compel feelings of love for God. Many other examples could be given.

Wow, the little girl's parents couldn't just have been, y'know, poor?


When I read some of the diaries from the puritan era, I sometimes encounter people; who wonder why their emotions don't match their intellectual understanding of the Bible and spiritual things. As I read accounts of revivals from the late 17th century to the mid 18th century; I encounter mysticism. Is pietism tied to sentimentallism?

Post a comment

Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.