When Criticized, Don't Defend. Clarify.

A (Modest) Rejoinder

I’ve been thinking a lot about how to respond to public criticism. Also, private criticism, but public criticism is more tricky. My inclination is this: just ignore it, and move on. In fact, years ago, I came under fire from a group of people who supported my college ministry in RUF. They made several false claims about my beliefs and motivations, and withdrew their support. Thankfully, this was not made public. However, the letter this group sent to me was very discouraging, because it was clear 1. The group didn’t understand my words 2. The group, although connected to me in many personal ways, never sought any clarification regarding some of their claims about me. Instead, they privately drew conclusions, “canceled” me, and compared me to the false teachers Paul warns about in the book of Galatians.

In response, I confess, I only had two instincts when it came to responding to this letter, neither of which, in retrospect, were very good. The first was to write a scathing response, picking apart every last word and claim of the letter sent to me. Good friends involved in the situation, thankfully, advised me against these early drafts. The second was simply to ignore it, and move on with my life and ministry. In the midst of this situation I stumbled across (I really can’t remember why) the Westminster Larger Catechism’s treatise on the 9th commandment. I know, scintillating, right?

Here’s what the catechism said. I’ve highlighted in bold some of the lines that struck me at the time:

Q. 144. What are the duties required in the ninth commandment?

A. The duties required in the ninth commandment are, the preserving and promoting of truth between man and man, and the good name of our neighbor, as well as our own; appearing and standing for the truth; and from the heart, sincerely, freely, clearly, and fully, speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice, and in all other things whatsoever; a charitable esteem of our neighbors; loving, desiring, and rejoicing in their good name; sorrowing for and covering of their infirmities; freely acknowledging of their gifts and graces, defending their innocency; a ready receiving of a good report, and unwillingness to admit of an evil report, concerning them; discouraging talebearers, flatterers, and slanderers; love and care of our own good name, and defending it when need requireth; keeping of lawful promises; studying and practicing of whatsoever things are true, honest, lovely, and of good report.

I don’t know if you caught that, but the Westminster divines felt that part of upholding the 9th commandment was defending our reputation. I suppose that’s true even when this defense is called “whining”, as has happened regularly on the X as Megan Basham’s many claims about people have surfaced and - as it seems to me - sometimes shown to be false based on the wider context (thought sometimes, the defenses seem a little limp to me, to be completely honest. Samuel James’ review, as someone not caught in the crosshairs, I thought was very good.)

I haven’t read Basham’s book, so I’m not going to defend or refute her claims. What has been of particular interest to me, probably based on the experience I described above, is the conversation folks have been having about how to respond to these kinds of things. Two particular replies stand out. The first is Patrick Miller’s article at Mere O (a fantastic site you should all pay money to subscribe to, if you’re able), which suggests that the best thing for local pastors to do in response to these big accusatory claims (at least of others) is simply move along with their work. He compares Basham’s book to the voices of Sanballat, lobbying false claims against Nehemiah as he attempted to rebuild the wall in Jerusalem, to which Nehemiah responds: “I am doing a great work and I cannot come down. Why should the work stop while I leave it and come down to you?” (Neh. 6:3).

That’s all well and fine, and I see Miller’s point: we can become overly anxious and emotionally wrapped up in conversations we don’t need to participate in, and these can, potentially, be a distraction from the good work we’re trying to do. That’s true. But I’d like to round out the story a bit, because the truth of the matter is…

…Nehemiah did come down from the wall, seemingly many times, to write replies to his accusers.

In the verse quoted above, Nehemiah does not come down from his work because he knows there is a violent trap set for him (see 6:2: “but they were scheming to harm me…”). So I’m not at all sure this metaphor quite works, unless you have a Basham sponsored biker gang outside your church doors ready to jump you. In fact, we see just the opposite sort of response from Nehemiah. He does indeed send a reply to Sanballat, albeit a short and sweet and perhaps even tweetable reply: ^“I sent him this reply: “Nothing like what you are saying is happening; you are just making it up out of your head.” (6:8). Apparently, this back and forth continues, and it’s fairly in depth, as Sanballat’s fellow slanderer, Tobiah, continues to send letters accusing Nehemiah, and Nehemiah continues to reply:

“Also, in those days the nobles of Judah were sending many letters to Tobiah, and replies from Tobiah kept coming to them…Moreover, they kept reporting to me his good deeds and then telling him what I said. And Tobiah sent letters to intimidate me.” (Nehemiah 6:17-19)

It’s a fairly messy business. But the point is, Nehemiah did keep calm and carry on, but he also did so while clarifying, again and again, the nature of his work…a bit like the kind of thing Paul seems to keep having to do, several centuries later. Neither Paul nor Nehamiah leave the work they’re doing and become consumed with the task of defending themselves. However, Paul clarifies himself in just about half his letters, and I’m not so sure he saw this as a distraction from the work he was trying to do. The accusations were, it seemed, at least for Paul, teaching opportunities. The point of all this being, clearly Paul and Nehemiah read the Westminster Larger Catechism and subscribed to it (haha just kidding don’t email me). Rather, the point is: I fear the “just keep building” response actually plays into the narrative of Basham…”the elite evangelicals won’t come off their high horse to even entertain our opinions! You see it?” This kind of reply fails to see the opportunity that accusations are, for those with ears to hear.

I saw a very similar dynamic in a second conversation about Basham’s book, this one a viralish tweet that was clearly subtweeting the whole Basham debacle:

Andrew Noble: “I remember one time @NeilShenvi disagreed publicly with @timkellernyc on something. Tim responded on Twitter saying something like, ‘I disagree but I appreciate the work you are doing.’ And it was all cordial and chill.”

This one caught my eye because it resonates with my personality. But what I found even more interesting, about a week later, was the actual reply of Keller’s to Neil Shenvi:

Tim Keller: Hi Neil - Yes, it sounds “odd” because I was talking only of the Frankfurt School, and mainly Horkheimer and Adorno, not even Marcuse. Sorry for the confusion, I appreciate your work as well.

The spirit of the reply is somewhat similar, but actually I found Tim’s actually reply more compelling. That’s because in the first version, it sounds like Tim just shrugs his shoulders and claps Shenvi on the back. The second reply took a bit more work: Keller, briefly, simply offers clarity on his original words. He doesn’t create a twitter thread outlining all the ways Shenvi has misquoted him. He also doesn’t shrug his shoulders. He uses it as an opportunity to teach.

He also does something I think we all can learn to do, especially when we’re accused by others in ways that misunderstand our message: we can acknowledge our weakness. Tim Keller was a brilliant communicator. Yet he also recognizes that he’s not a perfect communicator. He doesn’t back off of his original claims, yet he also recognizes that as a flawed vessel of the gospel, none of his words are capable of clearly and compellingly articulating Jesus in a way that perfectly honors Jesus: “Sorry for the confusion.” David Foster Wallace once wrote, “Good writing isn't a science. It's an art, and the horizon is infinite. You can always get better.” There’s something here recognizing that as communicators, our weakness is always before us. If people slander, lie and downright misrepresent us, we can’t control the narrative. We likely won’t change their minds. But what we can do, and what we ought to do, is use it as an opportunity to provide clarity. More clarity is always needed, because we are, as DFW notes, always infinite gradations from perfectly clear communication.

All this to say, what I should have done years ago (though we had just miscarried and were transitioning careers so I don’t think I was in a place to do this) was simply clarify some of the things I was and wasn’t saying. I didn’t need to pick apart the letter against me. I also didn’t need to have a high-handed attitude toward my accusers. But these accusations were, at the end of the day, a teaching opportunity. I could have - should have - clarified myself. This simple and humble recognition of weakness may not have done anything for those lobbying accusations. Then again, you never know.