Everybody hates a critic…this is an age-old quote and it captures how people feel about critics. They may be film critics, book critics, music critics, and especially life critics. I really don’t think everybody hates a critic though…not really…not in the original sense that the word criticism has. The bible of the english language (as far as I am concerned) the Oxford dictionary defines criticism in two ways:

 

criticism

  • noun 1 expression of disapproval; finding fault. 2 the critical assessment of literary or artistic works.

This is very helpful because it captures both senses of the word as I have seen it. The first sense, that of disapproval or finding fault is really what people hate and I think rightly so. The second sense of the word is the more accurate or at least the more appropriate in terms of how criticism should be employed – that of a critical assessment, not only of literary or artistic works – but rather of all things.

A critical assessment is meant as a constructive assessment. It’s very impetus and energy comes from good intentions – the intent to help the author or director or musician or finally friend overcome that which needs to be overcome. By its very nature a critical assessment involves/requires some knowledge of that which is being aassessed. It requires a certain intimacy of the one being critiqued as well as the work. It is not a gut emotional response to the artist/person or work involved.

When a criticism is leveled in the first sense it is almost always based upon intuition, gut feeling, or emotional response. It is an opinion which can be easily manipulated by strong willed people around the critic.  It is leveled quickly and without a lot of detailed thought or knowledge about the object being criticized. This is the form of criticism that people hate because it is an inappropriate criticism that comes out of selfishness rather than selflessness.

Don’t get me wrong one need not be a subject matter expert to offer criticsim in the classical (or correct) sense. For example one need not be a carpenter or woodworker to offer critique of a poorly made chair. However one must be capable of stating what they feel is wrong with said chair. A carpenter is likely to receive criticism such as "the problem with this chair is that it is five inches too short for my frame and only has three legs". The carpenter is disinclined to be charitable to criticism such as "this chair is a piece of crap, take it back and do it again". When asked why be the patient carpenter or "what exactly needs to be done" the unjust critic simply responds – "i hate it, that’s what’s wrong with it…stop asking questions and keep making new chairs until I tell you when you have made the one I like". One could just as well place a blindfolded archer into a room, spin them around and tell them to hit a target.

The poor critic, the one who does not offer helpful insight into the criticism but simply tears down or unhelpfully points out what must not be done wthout offering any helpful direction is simply a cynic. A good critic may be a skeptic (one who asks questions of all things) but never a cynic. The cynic is one who has already pre-judged and there is no critical assessment in them. One should remember that cynicism has never changed the world for the better and it never will.

The critic who offers critical assessment out of a genuine desire to see improvement, wholeness or even to offer informed praise is very much like a prophet. The prophets from a scriptural perspective were those who were (willingly or unwilling) given insight from God into the need for Israel to change. The good prophets (Elijah, Samuel etc) were offering a critical assessment of Israel. Telling them where they were wrong, why they were wrong and what they needed to do (generally turn back to God). The bad prophets (yes there were bad prophets) were usually not given a specific name but usually lumped together as a group and refered to as those prophets who would only offer words that Israel wanted to hear – not necessarily needed to hear. God speaks very poorly of those prophets. Job fits into the category of a poor prophet not because he does not fulfill his obligations to deliver God’s message to Ninevah (he does eventually) but rather because of his attitude in the delivery. Job is a cynic. Job is not happy that Israel must tolerate the presence of Ninevah because God has decided to give them a chance. Job would rather see Ninevah wiped from the face of the earth.

The good prophet, like the good critic, critically assesses the needs of the people of God from a Godly perspective with a keen ear toward His word and away from their own personal gut feelings and desires. They deliver that message into the lives of the people with a heart motivated by good intent even when in their very core they may feel uneasy about what God is asking they have come to recognize His voice and know in the end that it is good.