Reflections on Thank God for Bandit country (part 3)

[continued from here and here]

In receiving criticism

Anybody who is public or semi-public has the potential to, and probably will, receive criticism of various sorts; that is a given. Obviously some criticism would be nicer than others, but how exactly are we to handle such criticism? Are we to accept the criticism of others blindly, or ignore them altogether? What criteria should be used to evaluate any criticism?

Christians are to be people of truth, as God's Word is Truth (Jn. 17:17). Since this is so, the criteria for testing all criticism must be the Scriptures and what it teaches, not our subjective standards of our feelings or our cultural inclinations or even human consensus. All Christians therefore, including Dr. Trueman, are not infallible and may be wrong in certain matters, and it is therefore our duty to evaluate criticism according to Scripture. It may perhaps be the case that we are indeed wrong or we have overlooked certain things, and others who see it criticize us for our errors. Although it is the duty of Christian critics to be loving in their criticism, what we perceive to be (which may indeed be) unloving criticisms should not be discounted based upon our offence at their perceived hostility towards us and our positions. In other words, the sin of the critic (if true) does not excuse the receiver of the criticism from testing the criticism according to Scripture and change if necessary.

So we have evaluated the criticism, and it turns out to be erroneous. Worse still, the criticism is not real criticism but plain character assassination. In such cases, the wisdom of God in the book of Proverbs would aid us greatly in this endeavor. Prov. 17:10 says "A rebuke goes deeper into a man of understanding than a hundred blows into a fool." Prov. 26:4 also tell us not to answer fools in their foolish manner. Prov. 29:9 shows us the negative fruit of arguing with a fool. Trueman's advice in this case is the biblical advice: that of ignoring the person who so rants and attacks others without cause. Such people, if they truly assassinate characters of Christian figures without legitimate cause, are fools indeed and are to be treated as such.

That said, it is a sad fact that many Christian leaders I have encountered automatically ignore all criticism, even of legitimate biblical ones. Instead of following Scripture, such "leaders" through their arrogance are unteachable and continue on in their error. I have faced such leaders in the EFOS (Evangelical Fellowship of Singapore) committee in charge of the GDOP in 2006, which ignored my Bible-based criticism when they cannot substantiate their compromise according to the Scriptures. Such is simply not Christian behavior, and it dishonors Christ and His Word. The ultimate authority for all Christians, both "clergy" and "laity", are the Scriptures, NOT the dictates of the highest ecclesiastical body in the country or the world and most definitely not by committee majority vote! The Kingdom of God, in case we may have forgotten, is NOT a democracy but a monarchy. In a monarchy, the King sets ALL the laws and the people have no say in the matter except to receive it upon pain of punishment.

With regards to the spiritual dimension of blog attacks (in fact of any attacks) as highlighted by Trueman, such indeed should be the correct attitude of saints who are attacked by fools, regardless of whether the attack comes from some anonymous person or the "watchdogs of watchdogs". For nothing happens except by God's providence, and therefore such attacks are ordained for our good (Rom. 8:28). While what such people do are indeed wicked and sinful, yet God through these wicked men will bring us closer to Himself. Such attacks deflate our pride and drive us back to Christ, who alone is our righteousness. In Trueman's own words:

I want to thank my blog critics, the crass, the colourful, the profane, and the plain old crazy, for helping me to understand better my sin and my Saviour. You think I'm arrogant? You should talk to my wife: she could fill you in on just how arrogant I really am. You think I'm ruthless and cold? Believe me, you don't know where half of the bodies are buried. You think I'm a weak and spineless girlyman? Hey, you don't know nearly the extent of my cowardice. You think I'm an inveterate street fighter? Bring it on. If someone will hold my coat, why go out onto the street? We can finish this right here and right now. But you know what? My Saviour knows the full depth of all my sleaziness, my sin, and my moral insanity, and has covered by his blood all these crimes you allege against me. Indeed, he has covered many more and much worse; and your reminders of my sinfulness and my need of him are most gratefully received.

Those disturbed by web attacks on their good names should not be so. Believe me, you are much worse than they say, and God is much greater and more gracious than they imagine.

Those of us who receive criticism therefore should learn not to bothered about them much, although our flesh does desire to defend ourselves. For such attacks remind us of our own sinfulness, and draw us back to Christ our only righteousness.

In conclusion, there are various roles and responsibilities of both the critic and the criticized, which are established by Scripture. May we therefore follow the pattern of Scripture in such matters, and not like Challies embrace an incoherent position in a knee-jerk reaction to real and perceived evil in the blogosphere. Amen.