Responding To Critics: Honest Answers To Honest Questions
Previous Post – Can We Choose To Whom We Are Called?
I recently read about an exchange between an emerging church leader and one of its critics. The more I read, the more upset I became at how this EC leader was treated during and following this public exchange. The treatment was neither fair nor accurate, but was presented with an almost arrogant confidence and self-declared authority. (I will not name who I am specifically speaking about, as I do not feel it is beneficial for anymore attention to be given to such a poor example of a critic, despite how much attention they seem to get.)
Now, I am more than aware within the emerging church discussion (in which I place myself without reservation), many are equally as unfair in their treatment of critics and/or the established church. Grace and humility must be a mutual commitment from both sides of the discussion. Further, I deeply believe that the emerging church needs to honestly face the critics and examine the critiques, as there is much truth and wisdom to be found there. There are excellent examples of gracious dialogue (and even debate) that is beneficial for all.
However, when we come across the critics who seem determined to be unmoved in their rejection and/or condemnation of the emerging church I am not convinced that we are wise to engage them in conversation, at least not in the public forum. I am not suggesting that we ignore them completely, nor am I denying that there can be at times a fine line between those who fairly critique and those who are senselessly attacking. This is not simple matter.
When we realize that a person is not truly asking honest questions seeking honest answers- when they demonstrate that they will not be happy with anything less than open admission of sin and an acknowledgment of their position as the right position- I believe that we can do more harm than good by continuing to engage them on these issues. This is especially true in public forums, be it on blogs, radio or conferences.
Too often, in genuine and empassioned attempts to respond to the harshest critiques, we simply add fuel to the destructive fire that many of such situations present. This danger is very real and can as easily harm those who are within the emerging church as those outside it. This is especially true to those Christians with less maturity and experience who could end up mimicking our example. And this says nothing of the example it can set to those outside of the Church who might be watchng- and be sure, that are watching.
Honest questions, even where there is some deep differences in belief, deserve honest answers. By “answers”, I am not suggesting that, for example, should critics ask us to present a unifying theology or doctrinal statement, that we attempt to do so, but rather that we must endeavour to understand and be understood as best we can. We must listen and share with open hearts and minds, both each others wisdom and the leading and conviction of the Holy Spirit.
What do you think? Is this fair? Do the harshest critiques who are not open to being convinced deserve the attention so many of us give in response? Have you seen good examples of how best to deal with such issues?
I could only think of one example…
“He was oppressed and afflicted yet he did not open his mouth…”
I think you’re right on Jamie. 2 Timothy encourages us to not “have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments because you know they produce quarrels…” and again in Titus to “avoid foolish controversies…”
I think the young Christian leaders could do well to just take St. Paul’s advise to the emerging church of his day…”Don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity…”
Jamie, I agree wholeheartedly.
Chris, I could think of another verse – Matthew 7:6.
But seriously, I think your last paragraph is key. If we are really concerned with being missional, what are we doing nattering at each other about this or that doctrinal point? Where is the mission in that? Perhaps some emergent “leaders” attract fire because they are now part of the machine from which they jumped. What I mean is that they are more involved in radio and TV spots, lecturing, writing and selling books and so on than in doing the things that brought them the attention in the first place, which were presumably church plants and mission.
Or something. What do I know? I am just an interested layperson in the middle of Missouri.
I think we need to listen to our critics, even if they don’t listen in return. For instance, some atheist thinkers and writers have no patience for what Christians or the Church is saying. This doesn’t mean that what they have to say is invalid. Why, I even ask myself some pretty serious questions <A HREF=”http://nakedpastor.com/archives/1016″>here</A>. Good post!
Chris,
Well said. May we have the wisdom and the humility to walk it out.
Peace,
Jamie
Jim,
I think that some EC leaders have done what you are saying, though most out of a well intentioned desire to give an answer. I don’t think there is anything necessarily wrong with being involved with media interviews and the like, but just a need to be more careful on which ones are accepted. Thanks!
Peace,
Jamie
nakedpastor,
I agree, which is why felt it was important that the title of the post affirmed that we cannot and should not ignore our critics. We need them as much as they need us. It is those few who will only sow seeds of discord that public engagement may not be wise. Thanks!
Peace,
Jamie
I think we need to distinguish between critics and those who choose to slander and defame others in the name of being critical. Critics should be received well and respectfully engaged. The others – I think they do not deserve the time and attention of a response.
I think that there is a sense in which engaging such foolishness only serves to legitimize it. It lends credibility to those who do not have credibility by virtue of their own conduct. To extend the passage in Titus that the first commenter quoted:<blockquote>Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him. You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.</blockquote>I think it’s past time that we stopped having anything to do with those who are interested in nothing more than slandering those with whom they disagree.
I think the other element to be observed here is what are non-believers thinking when they see this kind of slander between Christians? yes, they are listening.
I remember when I first started visiting Christian bulletin boards back in the mid-late 90s. I couldn’t believe what I was reading… these were public BBs.
slandering in a public arena portrays an enterprise that nobody wants to be a part of… we have enough of that in the outside world.
vapor
ScottB,
I think you are right, so let’s pray for the wisdom on the who and the how of that journey.
Peace,
Jamie
sacred vapor,
I agree, which is why I mention them in the post. Thanks for the affirmation.
Peace,
Jamie
oh, I missed that in your initial post… just re-read it. thanks for pointing that out.
sv,
No worries. It was easy to miss, as I didn’t develop it as much as it deserved. Thanks for reaffirming it.
Peace,
Jamie
Jamie,
I agree that there are times when it’s best to walk away…this holds true for critics in many other areas of life as well!
Jamie:
In your invitation to comment you characterize these kinds of critics as “not open to being convinced.” I see two problems with this. First, it is not our place to convince people. Humility demands that we honestly communicate what we think, what we believe and what we feel. If others become “convinced” to agree we can take some legitimate satisfaction from that. If they are not convinced it is not necessarily a reflection on them, nor on us, nor on the message we communicate (although it might be any of these things).
Second, I would suggest that one of the greatest differences between the emerging church, postmodern worldview and the established church, modern worldview is how we understand “knowing.” The modern understanding of “knowing” does not lend itself to “being convinced” of ideas contrary to what it already understands as truth. My point here is that engaging such a worldview is enevitably doomed to be a frustrating experience.
But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to do so anyway. Backing away from a conversation because the other does not seem to be listening is a sign of immaturity.
I am reminded of a spiritual mentor of mine who constantly reminded me to “seek first to understand, then to be understood.”
Kievas,
Very true indeed.
Peace,
Jamie
Ron,
I am not sure I fully understand your comment, so forgive me if I misrepresent. I do not think my invitation to comment contains what you suggest, at least not to the degree to you express. Sure, our aim is not simply to convince people, but true dialogue must contain (from both sides) a willingness or openness to the possibility of change. If this doesn’t exist, it is not true dialogue.
On your second point, I agree that epistemology present challenges in these dialogues, but I would argue that the emerging church conversation is not so centrally a postmodern one. Yes, it is a significant stream (to borrow from Scot McKnight’s brilliant summation), but only one of many. Therefore, saying these attempts are “doomed” over states it in my mind.
Your closing statement is excellent and, I hope, is something that is expressed in my post. Thanks for weighing in.
Peace,
Jamie
i never realized how fragile i am and how personal i take comments until i came ‘under fire’ by those critics who are close to me. it’s disheartening to be called a ‘heretic’. but what’s worse is that often in responding to critics, i ABSOLUTELY FEEL like it’s a waste of time. i FEEL like i’m wasting my time because i FEEL like i’m not being listened to. i FEEL like time could be spent investing in the broken, as opposed to convincing believers that i’m not a heretic. i’m not sure God cares what people think of me. but i do… and this is why criticism can hurt. lots of ‘feeling’ in this comment. lots of ‘I’s in this comment. i’ve a long way to go.
brad
Brad,
That is very true. I think in our rationalistic Western context, we tend to devalue the “feeling” side of things, which is not fair. Our emotions are as important, essential and authoritative as other aspects of our being. Pride can complicate things, as you suggest, but fighting pride should not result in ignoring our feelings and the genuine harm that can be sustained (and inflicted) as a result. Thanks!
Peace,
Jamie
smile, take heart Jamie, one of the blessings of the emerging conversation has been for me the realisation that I am a heretic and even when i thought i had complete and full command of the doctrines of my faith they were also riddled with heresies as well.
At least the credal tradition of the faith allows us to agree at a macro level, even if we bicker about things like truth which are usually a result of our belief system rather than anything from the bible.
Personally I think most of us should avoid this sort of arguement, criticism tends to bring out the worst in us and provokes anger, fear and usually a volley in riposte. It’s not constructive for us or anyone else to engage in that sort of debate.
I’m reminded of how the pharisees et al used that most successful of ego smoking tactics with Jesus’ “by whose authority do you do this” – which is often the line of criticism which the emerging church receives – who are you people, what is your authority and did we say you could do this?
I think of how it is so easy of course to point fingers back with howls of protest everytime someone issues a statement say on women that many in the emerging church don’t agree with and the countless blog posts that i read bashing other christians.
My suggestion is that where we can affirm we should affirm, where are are attacked by all means defend yourself if you can do so articulately and charitably. Where we disagree with the theology of others let us not fall into the same trap and take pot shots – we might not like many of our church brothers and sisters but we are called to love them and to start taking that seriously.
Paul,
Very well said. You also reminded me of how Jesus, discerning the intentions of His attackers, would respond very differently. A lesson could be learned there, no? Thanks!
Peace,
Jamie
i think Jamie discernment is a gift we need more than ever, that and maybe following Jesus lead in asking motive revealing Qs… of course that is easier said then done, particularly with my ongoing need to be right and to demostrate my rightness…
Well said, Paul.
Peace,
Jamie