In the vocabulary of a child the word let means permit: Let me go with you. In the vocabulary of a tennis player it means hinder: That is a let ball. Those who know tennis immediately understand that the ball was hindered by touching the net edge rather than going over it without impediment – same word, two meanings. Those who are pedestrian in their language often understand the word criticism as faultfinding. It is related to gossip, to maligning, to jealousy, to one-ups-man-ship conduct. To the truly sophisticated researcher or objective person it is evaluation for right and wrong, for true and false, for better and poorer. The ultimate end of criticism (evaluation) is to learn what is true or false, what works or doesn’t work, what is simple or complex – and the like. Out of criticism (evaluation and value determination, largely related to comparison or contrast), comes critique, and understanding. If the process serves it leads onward to other discoveries improving the human situation. Criticism is vital to education and action. Critique is best when it includes both the affirmative observations, and the areas needing adjustment. It is possible to be critical (evaluative) and find nothing wrong. Verbalizing about something well-formed is criticism. Critics in the arts do not perform their assignments if they do not point out both positives and negatives (analysis).
In the Bible the process is vital, and is begun with self-criticism. The Apostle Paul related criticism as a qualification for Communion – found in the First Corinthians Epistle. Other passages might be cited for purpose. When the self-process is used genuinely, the person is spared some tensions that may arise in evaluations from others. I was contracted to evaluate the director’s job performance of a military hospital installation. The director, I found, was well liked by the employees, did his job well, and met the expectations outlined for him. But, he was so unsure of himself that he believed that my critique would find his administration and leadership faulty. After my review I was invited to meet him alone in his office where he revealed he had taken medication before the oral review so to survive the evaluation, and that he expected to get a good night’s sleep, tonight, the first in three days. He had the resources to evaluate self but needed some guidance in planning and communicating the process. He admitted that he felt threatened two hours earlier, but now felt like a new man. He could now return to his assignment with refreshed vigor and confidence. What he dreaded from me, he found not at all. He became even better with confidence.
Not only is it important to examine self, but to recognize the difference between true evaluation and nonsense, or partial truth, or prejudice, or negativity. For example, some persons who do not qualify to critique a situation, movement, personnel, may proceed to advance their inadequately formed views through various means in the management of language and resources. They may be clever, use humor, play to prejudice, or some other ruse, like rumor. The church and Christians are sometimes singled out by a reporter who has not done the homework, to find what is truth and falsity in a faith context that has existed for centuries and commendable to history. In ridicule a recent author referred to matters sacred to a massive number of Christians. Missionaries were noted as nerds and buttinskys. The first convert in Hawaii was a fanatic, who drank of the Jesus juice. The miracles of Jesus were tricks. Jonathan Edwards preached a slasher sermon. The attitude of derision carried through in faulting the sons of churchly New Englanders. The book reviewer of the Wall Street Journal noted that the author Sarah Vowell in Unfamiliar Fishes: tells us that men and women of faith are provincial yahoos who deserve our ridicule. Some persons will believe that author’s poverty of thought or truth and believe her critique. Our response is in truth and forgiveness for lack of objectivity. The critique failed in several ways. The first was in her paucity of knowledge about those missionaries. The second was that even if there was failure in the first efforts, one is objective in description, not in the put down mode. Her prejudice was showing. The third was that, in her negative perception, we needed some help from the opinions of others who were supportive, unsure, or negative about the effort. I was moved by the tears of my six-years old daughter in response to Michener’s, Hawaii, (film) when the missionaries bent on their divine purpose were ridiculed by carnal seamen ravishing women. She said: The missionaries were only trying to help. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020