The Right to Criticize 9/22/40

Scripture: Luke 6: 37-45

When we speak of the "right to criticize" it is necessary to examine the meaning of words. What are these "rights" of which people speak? We speak appreciatively but sometimes glibly of our right to life, to liberty, and to the pursuit of happiness. We take freedom of conscience as a human right. We keep a watchful eye on the rights involved in the freedom of press, of speech, of assembly. What are these "rights" which we so often take for granted?

Evidently not every one is agreed on the subject of human rights. In some important parts of the world of today, freedom of speech is freedom only to say what officials approve. The same limitation is imposed upon press and assembly. Even conscience must get in line with officially approved ideas of right and wrong, and woe to those who won’t conform! A Christian leader in Japan makes a mistake in reading one word of an Imperial Rescript and is immediately forced, not only to resign his position, but to abandon all hope of further prominent usefulness in his profession. A Christian minister in Germany, himself a distinguished and loyal German, refuses to fall in line with a government which is regimenting all of the essence of Christ’s spirit out of the Confessional Church. He is arrested, tried as charged, and acquitted, then immediately seized and thrown into a concentration camp where he remains together with scores of other ministers so far as I know to this day. The so-called rights of non-conformists are not recognized in the totalitarian countries today.

Nevertheless, there are parts of the world where people may still hold up their heads and think and speak for their convictions. And God’s mercy has placed us who are here today on the soil of such a country.

The very fact that we are so fortunate ought to make us willing to know and exercise our rights with the utmost of intelligence.

Our concept of human rights springs from our Christian concept of man. Man did not "simply happen" and he is not pushed here and there, or nowhere, by a blind fate. Man was created by God, in His own image, and given the calling and dignity of such a high order of creation. Man is even given the power of choosing good or evil and the issues of his free choice may exalt his worth or degrade and destroy him. At man’s worst, he is an ungrateful, unseeing, degraded wretch. At his best, he is a Son of the Most High.

It is man’s right to seek truth; to seek it and live it and share it. This basic Christian concept is the foundation upon which our theory of government is built. With all of its flaws and its unwieldy cumbersomeness our government will stand unless we grossly abuse or neglect the rights given to us by God alone.

I think we have a solemn and important right to criticize. Again we need to define and explain a word. The word "criticize" has been much abused. Many of us are prone to think of criticism as adverse comment - a destructive attack on anything considered. To me, that is only half of the word, and the least important half. The more important half of criticism is constructive, helpful, stimulating comment. To criticize in a broad sense of the word, is to analyze, to examine for weaknesses and flaws and for points of strength; to recognize shortcomings and possibilities for improvement. The exercise of the critical faculty is of primary importance to any civilization which is to stand or forge ahead. It is absolutely necessary. And it is a God-given right which man can deny, but none except God annul.

Now we come to the question of how we are to exercise this right. Shall we hunt for the flaws in our Church, our family, our Lodge, our school, our government, and proclaim them on all occasions? Shall we tell everyone, who will listen, what we would do to improve things?

I think that there are some conditions to be observed in the exercise of our right to criticize.

One of these is a consideration of what we hope to accomplish by critical analysis. What is the objective? Is it fair? Would it clearly be an improvement for all those concerned? If I am irritated by the remark of a friend, shall I tell him "what is what" and set him in his place? Not if it is just a chance remark which (outside my own irritation) makes no real difference to anybody. If his remark is an oft-repeated fallacy or a mistaken judgment, however, true friendship demands that I take friendly but definite issue, does it not?

Another condition of true criticism is, I think, a quality of sympathy. I can hardly offer constructive suggestions to my friend, or to an official of my church or my government unless I am able to put myself, in imagination, in his place. This is a severe demand, for each man is assumed to know a great deal about his life and about his job. To assume that I know just as much, or more about it requires a great deal of experience and sympathetic understanding on my part. But it would be better to withhold criticism than to pick at another with no understanding.

All the world detests a hypocrite. And here lies one of the sternest rules of criticism. It must be offered humbly (!) recognizing that there are flaws in everyone, in every government, in every church, school, social club or Lodge. I should never dare to stand before you to preach the gospel this Sunday if it were assumed that I were myself perfect in it. Neither could I preach to you if I did not myself have the desire to live the gospel day by day. Living, for every preacher, every teacher, every constructive critic of any sort, involves a continuous effort to remove the beam from one’s own eye, so that, perchance, one may be ready to assist in removing the splinter from his neighbor’s eye.

I think that criticism must also be responsible! The criticism that means all sorts of effort, of readjustment, of change for the other fellow with no demands on self had often better not be expressed. The man who criticizes his government or his fraternity for its failure to do things as he thinks they should be done, and then refuses to stand for office or cast his vote for those whose policies he does approve, is hardly worth listening to.

Proper criticism, then, must be objective and fair, understanding and sympathetic, humble, and responsible.

Now let us, for a few moments, consider the place of the Christian Church in the world of today. Do we of the Christian church have a right, to be exercised, in criticizing the world of our day? We certainly have a gospel of hope, of love, of mercy, of salvation to share. Should we also be critical as church people?

There are those who insist that the church must "stick to religion" and keep out of politics, economic strife and social issues. "Let the church stick to the gospel," they say. But I raise the question which always persists: "Can any religion avoid these vital forces of living and still be a religion?" I don’t think it can. For religion is a way of life.

There is a certain antithesis between Church and State that is healthy and desirable. Of course when Church and State fall out altogether it is not well with the commonwealth. On the other had, when the Church and the State get along too well, there is something wrong with the Church! For the church through its tradition and its Christ has been given a high vision. It keeps that vision only by proclaiming it and bringing it to bear upon the common life. You see it is the Church’s business to interfere with the world! Stabbing awake the conscience that should govern you and me as individuals and as citizens of the commonwealth. The Church exists for the Glory of God, and the salvation, refinement and making-sacred of souls. It wants everybody and all of each individual to belong to God. It must struggle for a condition of society that will give the maximum of Christian opportunity for others to become Christian! It contains the strange paradox that we are each responsible for our own souls and for the souls of others.

The Church can not escape the right and the duty of criticism. Like the individual Christian, the local church must strive, in the light of what it believes to be God’s will, to analyze objectively and fairly our world, to condemn what is evil in purpose and in method, and to advocate and laud what is right. This it must do humbly, with sympathy and understanding; objectively and fairly; but as surely as an advocate, an attorney at the bar. And God only shall be the judge.

-------------

dates and places delivered:

Pilgrim Church, Honolulu, May 21, 1939 AM

Makawao Union church, August 27, 1939 AM

Wisconsin Rapids, September 22, 1940

{Attached by paper clip to my father’s usual handwritten manuscript of this sermon is a typed version, original and one carbon, and in addition a handwritten note sent to him the next day by George W. Mead, a parishioner who was chairman of the board and CEO of Consolidated Water Power and Paper Company, far and away the largest single employer in Wisconsin Rapids. Rather than paraphrase or comment on the letter, I reproduce it below verbatim. }

Mr. Kingdon:

I enjoyed reading your sermon - I had heard all of it pretty well - but wanted to think more about it.

Yes, you are correct in the main thesis. But what about the many and ordinary debated questions in a community: Labor unions and picketing (now fairly well settled by laws & courts); mixed marriages of whites and Negroes; growing public debt; WPA and PWA; school board rows; elections - all the rest of it? The Rich!

And just now, Peace at any price, or assistance to China (maybe war with Japan), help to England (maybe war with Germany)?

I do not think you are in danger of getting into trouble.

George W. Mead

Sept. 23/ 1940