The Five Points of Criticism
4 comments | Permalink
Mark Dever has an insightful (and to me, convicting) post on how to give godly criticism. Summary: it should be done . . .
(HT: Andy Naselli)
- “Directly, not indirectly”
- “Seriously, not humorously”
- “As if it’s important, not casually”
- “Privately, not publicly”
- “Out of love for them, not to express your feeling or frustration”
(HT: Andy Naselli)
posted by JT at Thursday, December 06, 2007
4 Comments:
I appreciate Dever's wisdom regarding this matter. It is certainly something we all (myself included) would do well to heed.
My only observation is regarding his fourth point, "Privately, not publicly." It seems that there are important exceptions to the rule as evidenced by poor Peter's experiences with Jesus and Paul. In both cases Peter had sinned publicly by (a) opposing Jesus' purpose and (b) by being hypocritical regarding the Gentiles; in both cases he was publicly rebuked - uh, I mean, criticized.
I conclude from these narratives that a public sin warrants - or necessitates - public criticism. Much care and grace needs to accompany it, of course, and we must ever be wary of speaking without first praying and thinking, but there are times that call for public rebuke.
Hi Justin,
I am a first year seminarian at Princeton Theological Seminary and I wanted to let you know that I look forward to read your blog each day, as it provides helpful conservative resources to off-set the more leftist agenda here. Your posts and links provide much needed refreshment for a student who occasionally is both wary and weary in his enivornment.
Great points. If these are listed in order of importance, #5 should be first, in boldface, underlined, etc.
There is, as usual, much wisdom in what Dever says. I do struggle some with #2, because humor does sometimes seem to be a very effective communication tool. I just read a post by Steve Camp where he asks us not to use sarcastic humor to combat theological error. Again, as usual, Steve imparts much wisdom, but when I linked to the negative example he gave (a critique of Rob Bell on Pyromaniacs) my thought was. "Yes, a bit sharp, but maybe effective, plus some of it was just plain funny." I think one reason I like to read Spurgeon and Luther is because of their humor and occasional sarcasm. I also believe Jesus used "sarcastic humor" with the Pharisees and other opponents. What do you all think? Is my enjoyment and occasional use of sarcastic humor wrong?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home