A Critical Look at Criticism

Why do we criticize? We see someone who is rude or espouses a view that we find distasteful, and then we criticize. Perhaps quietly under our breath, perhaps at the top of our lungs, or perhaps from our keyboards. To to their face, or behind their back, or publicly. Someone unethical, and we criticize - or they do something quite neutral, but we already don’t care for that person’s views, and we criticize the neutral thing they did.

We could do a lot of other things. We could ignore them. We could engage in a friendly debate without offering criticisms. We could look for the positives and downplay the negatives. We could even just be bothered, not really ignoring them, but offering no criticisms, either (“I really can’t agree, but you’re welcome to your opinion”).

But sometimes we criticize instead. We tear down, mock, highlight the negative (and ignore the positive), cry out “see?!?!”, and take the least flattering snapshot to turn into a derogatory meme. Why do we choose that response? We can do it out of unconscious habit or by plotting, but why do we choose a path of tearing down?

I can’t speak for you, so I’ll speak for me. Perhaps you have similar reasons.

I criticize rather than self-examine. What a great excuse to ignore my own bad ways for one more day! If I can criticize others enough, then I don’t need all that humility stuff needed to focus on becoming a better person. Besides, even a mediocre person looks pretty good when constantly compared to those who are criticized enough.

I criticize rather than truly help. This is a second way that criticizing is a convenient excuse! In order to truly help someone, I cannot be in a posture of criticizing. I can condescendingly offer “help” to one I criticize, but I can’t truly help in that way. Criticizing, then, becomes a substitute for rolling up my sleeves, getting over myself, and truly helping someone.

I criticize rather than offer grace. Let’s face it - offering grace is costly. Criticizing is a low-cost endeavor (pay no attention to the high cost of the damage done). Offering grace means that some wrongs won’t be righted, some illogical things will never be straightened, people who offend won’t always get retribution, and my thoughts won’t get the attention I think they deserve.

I criticize in order to get someone’s favor. Sometimes, criticizing is just to get a laugh from others, which is one way of granting favor. More sinister is criticizing in order to be favored by those on the “right side.” I want to be accepted by Group A, so I find ways to criticize Group B. Boy, I really like being accepted by Group A, so Group B can just twist in the wind.

That’s my list. Don't criticize. I don’t know what your list is, but I’m sure it’s clever.

Your Agenda

The word agenda is a plural word from Latin that means "things to be done." Let's poke around this word a little.

First, "things to be done" implies that they are things that are presently undone. But more than just undone, they are things that should be done (in the opinion of the agenda maker). Think of the agenda for a meeting - it's a list of things that aren't yet done (otherwise they wouldn't be on the agenda!) but they are things that should be done (otherwise they wouldn't be on the agenda!). The agenda helps those in the meeting "stay on task," rather than rabbit trailing onto something else. Agendas can be good things.

Second, my agenda is my personal plan. It's the list of things that I think should be done. These can be things that I will get done or someone else, but I still want to see them get done. Royals in the playoffs is on my agenda, Chiefs winning a playoff game is on my agenda, bicycling regularly is on my agenda. Again, there's nothing wrong with having an agenda, and in fact, having an agenda is necessary. What would we accomplish if we didn't have some form of agenda?

Some people can be described as "agenda-driven," which usually carries a negative connotation. Sure, it could just mean someone who has a plan and is diligent about accomplishing it, but more often it refers to someone who will bowl over others in pursuit of that agenda and ignore anything not on the agenda.

Then of course there is also the "hidden agenda," where someone has an undisclosed plan, but acts as if his or her plan was something else. For example, a young suitor who opens the door for a woman not because he wants to be polite, but because he wants to be noticed by the woman's daughter.

The downside of agenda is when one's agenda prevents him or her from valuing good things that don't happen to promote the agenda. It happens in every corner of life, such as in theology. A man has a certain set of theological beliefs about secondary matters, but holds those beliefs firmly. Whenever a point is made from Scripture that challenges that agenda, rather than a thoughtful reconsideration of his beliefs, he ignores or attacks that point in order to preserve his theological agenda. Another example is politics. A woman has a particular political agenda, but when someone of a different political stripe raises a valuable point, rather than politely comparing values over coffee, unclever labels are flung at each other and then comes the highly effective "unfriending." Agendas like these often are some form of an -ism. -Isms are not a set of goals, in most cases, but agendas (a specific set of plans to accomplish goals). The political left (-ism) and political right (-ism) could have the same goal of job growth, but vastly different agendas to achieve it.

Relationships are frequently sacrificed to maintain one's agenda. When "staying on task" becomes more important than "staying on what matters," agendas have gone from helpful to combative. They are no longer "things to be done," but rather "things that I've made more important than they ought to be." What's the Latin word for that? (inflatius?)

One night, you decide that you want to go out for a nice Italian dinner (your goal). So, you choose a place you read about called Mezzano's. You check on line, and send the address to your smartphone to map out your path (your agenda). As you are following the nice direction lady living inside your phone, your spouse texts a friend about your plans and the friend says that you really should try Meglioni's because the gnocchi is so much better there. Your goal has not been challenged, but your agenda has. Now you have a choice:

1. Keep to my map and go to Mezzano's ("average") to accomplish my agenda.
2. Map a new route to Meglioni's ("better") to accomplish my goal. Rerouting!

It seems like a pretty easy choice for many of us. Good gnocchi is good gnocchi, and that's my goal. But when it comes to our theology, our politics, and our other -isms, rerouting is all but easy, and often because we've confused our agenda with our goal. Goals are the what: things like justice, freedom, rights, transformed lives, generosity, unconditional love, alleviation of poverty, etc. Agendas are more about the how. When we confuse the how with the what, we've lost sight of the goal.

When your agenda is challenged ("try a different restaurant"), it's easy to react as if your goals are being challenged ("eat Greek food"). When this happens, ask what is really being challenged - my goal or my agenda? If your goals are not being challenged, perhaps your agenda needs to be realigned to better achieve those goals. A challenge like that is a good thing!

But if your goal is what truly is being challenged, you're now faced with one of two possibilities: A) your goals need to improve, or B) you need to stand firm (even if your agenda needs to change).

In order to sort this out, however, we've got to understand the difference between our goals and our agendas. If we get those confused, we'll end up eating mediocre gnocchi for the rest of our lives.

Control vs. Influence

If only I could finally, truly, completely learn the difference between control and influence. I know the difference well enough to describe it. But I'm pretty sure I haven't learned the difference.

Both control and influence are about bringing about desired outcomes, but are different paths to get there ... and for different motives. Control grabs the steering wheel, but soon realizes that real control comes only when you also make the pistons to move and the plugs to spark and the shaft to crank and the smoke to exhaust; influence pulls the reins to convince the horse to turn. Control demands; influence gives a convincing argument. Control seeks compliance; influence seeks concordance. Being controlled is enjoyed by the unstable; being influenced is enjoyed by the informed. Control must; influence ought. Control is about the controller; influence is about the influenced.

Think about your greatest frustrations, your greatest fears, and your greatest anxieties. How many of them are fueled by a sense of not being in control? How many of them are you trying to resolve through forms of control? We like control because we think that if we have it, we can virtually guarantee the outcomes we want. We think influence is too soft, too unpredictable, too likely to end in an outcome other than our preference. And yet, we suffer much less anxiety over a lack of influence than over a lack of control.

We define success by the outcomes (with good reason), and so we control. We less frequently define success by whether or not another person is better off because we influenced them. In fact, we sometimes never get to see the outcome of influence, but control gives direct and immediate feedback, so that's what we pick.

We love sports (playing and watching) because when our team wins, we feel more in control. I was emotionally crestfallen when the Royals lost three 1-run games last week at a critical time of the season - the season is spinning out of control! We have the same reaction with games and contests - we don't raise our hands in victory because of influence, but that we have enough control over the game or the whole season. Losing stinks because it is lack of control over one's destiny.

We often try to control things at work because we think that's how to succeed. Few of us see influence as the measure of success at work. And our performance reviews (and raises) are tied more to how well we controlled things over the last year, not influenced them.

It becomes a true sickness when we try to control people rather than influence them. We manipulate, dictate, yell at, and refuse to listen to when we are trying to control another person. But we do it because we so want particular outcomes (often very good ones). Oh, that I would learn to influence well, and then let go. Oh, that I would count that as a successful encounter with another person.

When we try to control God, we are blatant and blind fools. We refuse to cooperate until He does what we want. We try to use the right phrases in order to make Him respond in just the right way. I want a certain outcome, and He's got the power to make it happen, so how can I make Him come through for me? In other words, how can I be in control even of God?

The amazing thing is that God invites us to influence Him. I don't fully understand how a completely sovereign God can be influenced, but His invitations to do so are plentiful, and the respected faithful ones of history sure seemed to think that the invitations are genuine. Not manipulate in a particularly clever way, but influence - have a voice in the matter, be listened to, contribute to the outcome, or even be a reason for God to do something different than He would have otherwise. He allows that. He invites that.

When I learn the difference between these two, I'm sure I'll be a happier, more influential man.

Adulting

Our education system is designed to develop people who can personally contribute to society, whether that contribution is manual labor, office work, retail, raising a family, educating others, enhancing society through the arts, running a business, and so on. It's not just to produce workers for jobs, but that each one who is able becomes capable of adding to society in a real way.

If we broke the process down to 5 basic steps, it might look like this:

1. Tools. The earliest stages of education are the acquisition of the basic tools of learning: letters, numbers, learning habits, and motor skills, for example. The goal here is to learn how to use the tools, but the tools are not usually being used for anything that contributes significantly to society or solves a social ill.
2. Exercises. Now that we have the tools, we take on exercises in order to use the tools. These are usually non-real problems - just exercises on a page. The solution for each question is already well-known, and you'll be graded by those already-known answers. In this stage, we are learning how to solve problems, but we're not faced with real ones. If we get the answer wrong, no one will lose a finger.
3. Word problems. We eventually graduate from exercises to word problems, which are real-world problems - things that could exist. But still these problems are already solved. We're not creating a new solution that will actually help someone. It is a realistic simulation, and we are preparing for that day when we'll be doing the same actions for problems not yet solved.
4. Thesis / project. This stage ventures into the territory of solving problems that have not yet been solved. No one has pre-worked this particular scenario, and our answers will be a new contribution, no matter how small. But this is a controlled environment and the risk is still pretty low. If we get the wrong answer, it's easily fixed.
5. Work. Now, we're doing what we've been building up to through the previous stages. These are new, real problems. But they also carry real consequences. Someone could lose a finger if we get these wrong. But now ... finally ... we're really contributing to the Common Good.

If we stop at Stage 1, no "work" gets done (other than learning itself).

If we stop at Stage 2, no useful work gets done.

If we stop at Stage 3, we feel accomplished, but the Common Good is still not yet served.

If we stop at Stage 4, perhaps others can learn from our labor, but we're still not directly doing "work."

Our goal is Stage 5. The other stages make little sense until we get to this stage. None of the previous stages are a destination for all who are able. (Note that good teachers are in Stage 5, not 4, but what is produced is the student, not the problems they solve.)

In today's terms, we call it adulting.

Now, make the following associations and then reread the 5 stages and the "if we stop at" statements:

1. Tools = Bible & prayer.
2. Exercises = Bible studies, Sunday school.
3. Word problems = theology, sermons, in-depth studies.
4. Thesis / project = church programs.
5. Work = walking daily as a disciplemaking follower of Jesus.

Too many Christians stop at Stage 3, and we too often settle for Stage 4. None of those stages are a destination - our goal is Stage 5.

In today's terms, we call it adulting.

Beyond Tolerance

On this side, there are those who cry for "Tolerance!" These are often those who live in some way that departs from a particular standard (a Biblical standard, a rigid religious standard, a self-righteous standard, a societal norm, etc.). They feel judged, and understandably don't want to be judged. They don't subscribe to that particular standard and are asking to not be held to that standard.

On the opposite side, there are those who see the word "tolerance" as a code word for "condone me with all of my sins." There are some things that are right and some things that are wrong, and whoever is wrong should not be condoned in their wrong-ness. Often, but certainly not always, these folks identify themselves as Christians.

So, let me focus in on the Christian response, without comment on how the rest of the world ought to respond.

Calmer Christians will add a caveat saying, "Of course, we ought to accept everyone as they are, but in no way condone any form of sin." That's rational and consistent. But I don't think it goes far enough. Nor do I think those who call for tolerance are going far enough, either!

Now it's beginning to sound like I'm about to skip merrily down the lane of full-on tolerance of anything and everything. Not at all. Here's my key issue - those who live in each of the far corners of this topic have a binary view of this issue. It's either tolerance of everything or horrible judgmentalism. You're either advocating everything or condemning others, with no other way to look at it. If those are the only two options, then we are stuck in an ugly dispute with no real resolution.

Jesus, the one who Christians are supposed to follow, did not teach us to be tolerant. But neither did He teach us to be judgmental. In other words, He didn't teach either of the binary choices, so there must be something else. Not a midpoint between the two, but something completely other.

In Luke 15, the Pharisees posed this issue with Jesus. He was hanging around sinners, and the religious leaders called Him on it because He sure looked like He was condoning their sin. But He wasn't judging these sinners, and He certainly wasn't condoning their sin. And yet He still loved spending time with them. He responded to the Pharisees with a triplet of parables teaching about the joy of finding what was lost - that was how He explained why He would hang around such "awful" sinners.

Jesus was practicing something far beyond tolerance. In some ways, He went much further than what those who want tolerance are asking for! He loved them. He spent time with them. He wanted them to be found, and so He sought them out. They were, in a sense, His goal. Tolerance is just putting up with something, but Jesus went far beyond merely putting up with sinners.

People get caught up in the question, "Should we be tolerant?", and I think that's not even the right question, because Jesus didn't act based on a tolerance scale. The questions He evokes are: Who should we love? Who should we spend time with? Who should we seek? Will our joy be in staying clear of what's lost or finding what's lost?

Don't get caught up in the tolerance debate, follower of Christ. Instead, follow Christ in this.

When you can't see eye to eye ...

The only thing wrong with people having a different opinion is that they don't have my opinion. Why can't we have the kind of variety that agrees entirely with me? Or why can't people come around to my way after I explain to them how logical my way is? (I don't argue with people ... I just give the more reasons to agree with me!)

When we are at loggerheads with one another, and it's clear that no one is going to budge, how do we find ways to communicate and cooperate? If the difference is over something minor (who's your favorite Royals player?), it's not usually that hard to enjoy one another's company. But when the difference is major (which way the TP roll goes, Marvel v. D.C., etc.), and the other one is just never going to come around, how do we keep from souring our relationships?

There are plenty of ways, books, and ideas, of course. Most of them are effective. The only problem is remembering to employ them in the heat of the battle. I offer the following ideas as one possible approach:

Identify the values that apply. Without judging, without comparing, without critiquing, list as many values that are in play with the issue at hand. For example,

• living within one's means
• truthfulness
• compassion
• building memories that last

Have each person contribute to the list, adding whatever seems relevant. By this, you will see what values the other is coming from, and often, that their values are valid and important. That helps you understand their view, their logic, and their conclusions. Perhaps there are ways to accommodate many of each other's values. This also helps you filter out what you're saying from stubbornness and what you're saying from your values.

Find as much common ground as you can. You'll have plenty of time to talk about where you differ. Start by talking about where you agree. It's amazing how effective this can be, whether the common area is big or small. I have found especially when talking to religious skeptics or politically enraged chatterboxes that identifying our common ground calms the discussion and opens up a more civil way to disagree. Be careful, you might end up appreciating the other person's perspective a little bit!

Don't dig in your heels until you're able to effectively state the other person's view. Way too often people dig in their heels to argue their opinion or their way before they even understand the other's point of view. That leads to either misrepresenting the other's view in order to maintain that dug in position, or realizing way too late that you're arguing the wrong fight. And then we usually just dig in further, because we're not humble enough to apologize. But if you wait until you can effectively restate the other's position so that they can say, "Yes, you understand what I'm saying, even if you don't agree," they will know that you're listening and that you respect them. You might even discover that you don't disagree as much as you thought.

One of the beautiful side effects of high school or college debate is that it trains you to argue both sides of an issue, regardless of what you actually believe. And to argue each side vigorously. That tempers dogmatism and requires you to consider respectable sources that don't echo your own view. In debate, you also need to identify the values that apply so that the conversation doesn't wander off into irrelevance. And there are even times when the best strategy is to find common ground on a specific issue (but usually for the purpose of finding a better area to clash, so don't take this analogy too far!).

Three simple things that we already know. We just don't remember them when the "other person" is being obstinate. But the more we practice these even with minor issues, the more habitual they become, and the better we will navigate potentially divisive conflict.

I don't always practice these, but when I do, the conversation is almost always dramatically better.

Your Voters' Guide

But not your normal voters' guide. I dare not.

Never before have I seen people in such inner turmoil about how to vote in the presidential election coming up in November. Without comment on any of the candidates, issues, concerns, or parties, it's safe to say that many are finding this the hardest voting decision they've had to make. Twin declarations of #NeverThisOne and #NeverThatOne in a two-party race cannot be reconciled. Then, some want to vote third party, but others protest that this is effectively voting for the major party candidate you are least like.

Some have the their minds made up and have no internal struggle. The data shows, however, that we have the greatest national dissatisfaction ever with this field of candidates.

I will not, however, give any advice on how to choose, except for these two often-overlooked attributes: wisdom and leadership style. These are biblical attributes of leaders in the Bible which we often ignore in favor of morals and policy (which are also valid voting issues). I urge you to consider wisdom and leadership style as foundational to how one will perform in office.

My voters' guide is not primarily about how to pick your candidate. My concern this year is greater. Not only have I never seen such internal struggle within people - neither have I seen such internal struggle within the Church. Because it so hard to decide, and there is so much at stake, the church is infighting like I've never seen before. Likely, there has been worse in our history, but not in my recollection.

Followers of Christ telling other followers of Christ, "How can you be a follower of Christ and vote for so-and-so?" The exact same phrase and attitude flying both left and right (and every other direction). Anger, damaged relationships, cold shoulders, questioning one's commitment to Jesus. This year's election runs the danger of creating new and deep schisms within the body of Christ.

I see a greater danger here than the "wrong person" getting elected. An irreparably damaged Church is far worse.

Let us disagree. That's fine. If you're struggling to support someone, and I'm struggling to support someone, shouldn't we expect us to have struggles between us? It is possible that there is no candidate that we can heartily endorse without major concerns, so let's not pretend like there is a single, cleanly righteous choice. You may conclude there is an obvious choice for you, but don't pretend like your candidate shouldn't give the Church grave concerns.

But please in this election season, remember that the Church has shown throughout history that we can be the Church effectively under any government and under any leader ... if we are not fighting among ourselves! But if we are fighting among ourselves, the greatest leader of the greatest government won't matter.