How do we avoid “bashing”? That is, how do we speak frankly about past mistakes and present ills without coming across as someone who sees no value in a given institution?
Church bashing. America bashing. Whatever bashing comes to mind. I’m trying to learn how to critique constructively rather than criticize destructively.
As I’ve pointed out before, there were always be some who prefer a Photoshopped version of history, that edited version where everything our group did was right and everything others did was wrong. Some will go the other way, validating what others have done without valuing anything that we have done in the past.
So where’s the line? How do we avoid the extremes? I’d appreciate any insights you have to give.
Not sure how helpful this is, but i think we have to offer these kinds of criticisms with some delicacy simply because it can lead to a lot of pride. Suddenly our sins and failures seem smaller or just out of view, and our criticisms can take on a tinge of self-righteousness.
It’s probably always important to ask when we want to criticize anyone/anything: What’s my motive? What do i hope my words will accomplish? What attitude do these words reflect? What do these words reveal about what i tend to emphasize?
–guy
I endorse Guy’s comment. This is what Paul had in view, I believe, in Galatians 6:1. We restore with gentleness (the living – and treat the dead with the respect they deserve), always considering ourselves lest we be tempted.
I would also add that we must have some understanding of the times in which the ones we critique lived and the intervening history that makes us want to critique them.
For example, to reject Thomas Jefferson because he was a slave owner who did not live up to the words he wrote in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal” does not allow him to be a man of his times. In reality, though he was a man of the 18th century, he strove mightily in the cause of freedom throughout his life. Let’s not reject him out of hand because the blinders of his cultural heritage kept him from seeing some issues that we see clearly. He also saw some other things clearly that most of us do not see at all.
A similar situation exists in the religious realm. For example, Alexander Campbell and Barton W. Stone made great strides based on great principles. Did they always follow their stated principles correctly? We may not think they did – but that does not invalidate the work they did in articulating those principles and applying them to the best of their ability.
Jerry
Jerry,
i think i understand, but not entirely sure. If racism or nationalism was at one time more acceptable socially, that warrants less criticism or means it was less of a problem? What i was really thinking when i read your comment was about Foy Wallace’s defense of segregation and WWII.
–guy
Jerry,
i re-read. i take it you’re saying that historical hindsight can make some men’s sins seem particularly heinous. But even if that’s true–even if they did certain things that are blameworthy or bad or whatever, that doesn’t erase the particular praiseworthy qualities we should recognize in them. And we shouldn’t think that honoring the good in them necessarily endorses the bad things we now see clearly in hindsight.
Is that what you meant? That’s sounds quite right, i think.
–guy
To move forward, that is beyond the present circumstances, people must be able to critique the present and past. However, critique alone does not move us forward. We must also offer a better alternative to what it is we are criticizing. That’s more difficult to do than simply being a critic. Though there are times when we need to pause at the criticism so that others cannot evade it’s reality, without offering any better alternative we will eventually just sound like just another noisy basher or hater…sort or like so much of the current political blurbs we hear today.
Grace and Peace,
Rex
Guy,
I concur with your 10:16 am analysis of what I said. I do not mean to say that practicing slavery was ever right. Yet we need to look beyond the fact that a particular man was a slave owner in evaluating his entire life and contribution. After all, Jefferson’s concept that “all men are created equal” was radical for his time – and not one that he necessarily lived up to himself. We need not reject his contribution because he imperfectly implemented it.
As far as Foy Wallace goes, I know little about his defense of segregation. I see a vast difference, though, in defending an evil system and in imperfect self-implementation of a principle that would destroy that system by the one who articulated it.
Jerry
I appreciate the good discussion, gentlemen. This is helpful.