In
this chapter [Lamentations, Chapter 2], the poet indicts the false
prophets who did not expose the sins of Judah. Who are the false
prophets we tend to “give ear” to: Politicians? University profs?
Entertainers? Our peer group? Psychologists? “Health and wealth”
evangelists? (Serendipity Bible 10th anniversary edition, page 1148).
We
can contrast Dutch uncles with indulgent ones. Dutch uncles are
caustic and critical, indulgent uncles refuse to criticize. It can
be worthwhile to explore those conditions under which we find
criticism more acceptable than others. For this purpose I will expand
the idea of criticism to include faultfinding.
Several
years ago I went to a doctor for what I thought would be a routine
visit following a lab report of my blood analysis. The doctor
informed me that the analysis revealed certain proteins present in
the blood which could indicate bone marrow cancer. Of course, I did
not become incensed by his identification of a possible
physical malady. In fact, I found it hard to endure the wait until
definite conclusions could be reached following a bone marrow biopsy.
Even at the outset, I was pleased that my doctor was fully competent
and could identify a possible lethal condition. [The biopsy finding
was negative—no cancer.]
Now
contrast this to when I am subjected to faultfinding regarding my
character. Say, someone judges that I am lazy and confronts me with
this evaluation. My response would include a measure of resentment
totally lacking within the doctor’s visit. Why this different
response?
Character
evaluations heavily suggest a measure of freewill [and thus possible
blame] which is largely lacking in physical matters. I can resent
anyone criticizing my choices or intruding upon what I feel to be an
area of my own prerogative [between me and God]. Of course the world
of values is much more contentious than verifiable physical findings
in a lab.
Additionally,
my doctor reassured me with a hopeful prognosis. He said that if it
turns out I have cancer, the specialist he was sending me to was
exceptionally skilled and would handle proactively whatever he may
find—the odds were in my favor. This encouragement is quite
different from the faultfinder's condemnation that judges me
incorrigibly lazy and on the road to hell.
An
added factor is my perception of my doctor as a positive creator—a
regular Michelangelo of medicine. That is, he is not just a
destructive hacker always tearing me down, but a skilled artist
capable of helping me realize my sculptured best.
Finally,
there is the matter of privacy. The doctor did not parade my
physical vulnerabilities before everyone. He told me privately in
his office. Dutch uncles often do not show such sensitivity, but can
castigate loudly in front of others. The fact that I chose to share
my cancer anxiety with friends does not preclude my appreciation for
the dignity and respect shown to me by the doctor in his regard for
my privacy.
Now
prophets are known preeminently for being critical of a nation’s
character—by its very nature a public matter. Thus,
inevitably their criticism frequently is done publicly. Such public
critiques can be found by many to be greatly offensive when
prodigiously negative.
Thus,
prophets are most effective when they are not constantly hacking and
tearing down, but when they become skilled sculptors capable of
birthing hope and corrective good without sentimentality or
pandering. Such prophets do well to draw a large circle of
inclusiveness so that their criticism can be seen to have the
verisimilitude of privacy—efficaciously one-on-one within the close
kinship of the human family.
Print Page
