Thanks mdever ;-). No seriously Mark, this post was extremely helpful, especially since I struggle with making these tough words of love to people, i.e. fear of man and my own emotions getting involved. It's always incredible the timing of certain things needed come across my path. Praise God for His love and care in providing these good reminders, always for my good and His glory.

Thank you Mark. I appreciate your transparency and also, having experienced it, your deliberateness in giving criticism.
May I also add that part of being direct is avoiding the temptation to level criticism via e-mail. There is too much danger of confusion, and also it feeds our tendency to fear man. If it's an issue that needs to be addressed, face to face is always best when the situation allows.

Thanks for your thoughts on this matter. It is vitally important that we learn to entreat each other (1 Tim 5) to spur each other to holiness.
I have to disagree with the previous poster who spoke against email. I find that if I sit down and write I am forced to think more fully about what I am saying. I also tend to say it more directly and with less temptation to do the very things you brought out in the article. Also, by writing it gives the recipient time and space to receive and process the information without feeling like he/she must immediately respond.

Thanks Mark! This is humbling stuff.

In Christ,
Noah

Any chance we could get a post on "five points of receiving criticism"?

If I could also follow up on the issue of criticism by email - I agree with the concerns expressed about this mode of communication. The upsides are obvious: (1) You can be a bit more dispassionate if the person you're taking aim at is not physically, visibly in the firing line; (2) You don't have to deal with instant negative reaction or interruption; (3) You're less likely to 'wimp out' halfway through if said negative reaction materialises, and (4) as Jon pointed out, a written criticism may enable greater clarity because you can write and rewrite till it's word perfect.

On the DOWNside, though, (1) Email (or for that matter any written correspondence) by its very nature tends to be more impersonal - the dynamica of face-to-face interaction (tone of voice, facial expression etc that help give cues as to your intent) are lost; (2) If your meaning is *not* clear, the recipient can't seek instant clarification; (3) Writing rather than speaking directly can come across as cowardly - how often have I heard the comment 'He didn't have the guts to say it to my face'? In other words, in resorting to email you may be *succumbing* to, rather than *avoiding*, the temptation to fear man. (4) Emails are too often written in the heat of passion and sent in haste - a convenient way of getting things off MY chest, but at the cost of the recipient (who may then fire back an angry reply before *they've* had time to process). (5) Email is not a very secure form of communication. Your private criticism can end up being read (for example) by the the recipient's spouse/ children/ flatmate who share the same email account; mis-directed accidentally to someone else on your mailing list; or forwarded on to an uninvolved third party (without your permission) by the recipient (to demonstrate to said third party what an unreasonable so-and-so you are!).

I recognise all forms of communication have their limitations - and I agree with Jon that writing your thoughts out can lead to greater clarity on the issues. Moreover, it may not always be possible to make contact directly with the person concerned. I'd be inclined to argue, though, that email should be used sparingly when it comes to offering criticism - and even then, to read and re-read your missive *before* you send it, to be sure it says *exactly* what you mean and can't be easily misinterpreted.

Thanks again, Mark, for a helpful and stimulating post.

Gordon Coleman, Albion Park Presbyterian Church (NSW AUSTRALIA)

I think you should think more before you post! jk

Just seeing how many rules I could break in one sentence. Great post. I needed this.

I appreciate Dever's wisdom regarding this matter. It is certainly something we all (myself included) would do well to heed.

My only observation is regarding the fourth point, "Privately, not publicly." It seems that there are important exceptions to the rule as evidenced by poor Peter's experiences with Jesus and Paul. In both cases Peter had sinned publicly by (a) opposing Jesus' purpose and (b) by being hypocritical regarding the Gentiles; in both cases he was publicly rebuked - uh, I mean, criticized.

I conclude from these narratives that a public sin warrants - or necessitates - public criticism. Much care and grace needs to accompany it, of course, and we must ever be wary of speaking without first praying and thinking, but there are times that call for public rebuke.

Am I missing something? I am certainly open to the possibility of being wrong and to the need of being corrected.

After reading this post I've become convinced of all 5-points! Thanks for this solid, pastoral advice. My prayer is that I'll be able to humbly and consitently follow it.

Excellent advice that I pray I take to heart and implement and not just read and agree with and move on.

Thanks for this post, Mark. Sounds like lessons well learned through experience. We've just completed the initial training for becoming a Peacemaking Church (Peacemakers Ministries, International) and hope to see a "Peacemaking Team" implemented soon. Part of learning to glorify God, even in confronting someone lovingly, is to see that done in just the manner you prescribe. I'll be passing this outline onto my elders.

Just a thought on the above comment: "I conclude from these narratives that a public sin warrants - or necessitates - public criticism."

I believe this post is about practical critisism, ie sermon and service review, rather then sin.

With that distinction (as I think the article intended to convey), I doubt there would be any examples of needed public discipline. Hope that is helpful,
Chad Graham

All excellent points. I find that I have all the same temptations.

I would also add one more that is maybe stating the obvious: prayer. Not only is it vital for how the criticism will be received, but it also serves as a barometer for my motives. I find that if there is a large gap between the amount of time I think about the individual and their "issue", and how much time I spend in prayer for this individual (which oftentimes can be not at all), then it is likely that my motives are for my good and my glory rather than his good and God's glory.

I'm hesitant, of course, to offer up any comments that might be construed as criticism.

I think I would have rearranged the order, however.

I don't anticipate you were prioritizing these, but putting the love factor (#5) first sets the tone and would probably eliminate a lot of criticism that doesn't even need to be voiced.

Often we think we're doing someone a favor when we've been wronged, when we should probably just over look the offense (Prov 19:11) and not worry about "getting it off our chests".

Besides, why only 5 points? If you're gonna go that route, you might as well make it an acrostic.

;-)

Gunny Hartman, pastor (SBC)
www.ProvidenceChurch.info
The Lone Star State

Mark, these thoughts are outstanding! I need to grow in being faithful in giving criticism in a God glorifying way. I often find that I fall either on the fear of man side and don’t do it at all or I fall on the far other side and do it without love. Oh may God help me to grow in speaking the truth in love.

Thanks for the feedback on my comment. The key is to understand your own strengths and weaknesses. I tend to come off too strong and long-winded in person and I find I usually do much better when I write. Others might do better in person and come across mushy in an email. Also, it is never either or! We all need to strive to shore up our weaknesses and improve our strengths. This post was good because too many people do not exercise themselves to godliness in this matter.

Terrific post. Keen insight into the human condition, as usual. Convicting. I have very rarely received direct correction for my flaws, and I could use more, albeit according to the biblical precepts you've illumined above. I will attempt to practice these with others. There is a tension between giving criticism and overlooking transgressions; both are required of us in Scripture, but it is not always easy to know which to do. As we seek to follow scriptural teaching, though, the Spirit will guide, and the body will grow.

I agree with Mark's wisdom. I would only add that sometimes we make our interpersonal problems worse by being too serious about them. Humor can sometimes help us to admit to the truth – it can lower our defenses – but the humor must be tactful, clear in its intentions (not making them read between the lines), loving (vs. sarcastic), etc. For example, sitting down for a serious discussion about infrequent church attendance might be overwhelming, but ribbing him for missing my best-ever sermon might feel less intense. It might allow for a difficult thing to be talked about with smiles on. Of course this would not work in situations where seriousness is unavoidable such as sexual misconduct and so on.

Awesome stuff.