It is a lot easier to criticize than to be criticized. Most of us think it is bad for people under us to criticize, but we think the people over us deserve a bit of it. In the local church, we see ourselves as Moses, and our critics as the grumbling people (Numbers 21). But when it comes to those in authority over us we see ourselves as the apostle Paul, and our leader as the apostle Peter who needs a good rebuke and correction (Galatians 2). We often see the critics under us as carnal and negative, while we pronounce our own criticism of those over us as information, correction, and expressing our personal opinion. Face it, when it comes to criticism, most of us are better at dishing it out than at taking it.

In fact, ministers sometimes call criticism 'sin.' It sure seems sinful. Perhaps we do this because we associate criticism with the people who seem so gifted at doing it. They seem... well... they seem so 'carnal.' We say to ourselves, 'consider the source' and dismiss whatever they said. We assume these critics are bad people with bad motives. Sometimes they are. Maybe often. So we dismiss whatever they say as 'stinkin' thinkin.' We reject the messenger and we also reject the message. And, this is how we cut ourselves off from an opportunity to grow. Refusing to hear criticism, (or hearing it only from those we like and respect) sets a time bomb ticking in our ministry. It may not go off for many years yet, but it will eventually go off. The point of this column is that we should at least hear our critics. Hearing our critics today just might save us tomorrow.

But, lay aside personal criticism for a while. Movements have critics too. It is even harder for a movement to hear its critics. Movements have a herd mentality -- 'if all these people think like me, we must be right.' In America 'might makes right.' The majority rules. If enough of us all head one way, we just assume that we are headed the right direction. (We forget that the Gadarene swine were also in good formation, had good unity, and were all headed the same way.)

Movements don't have to hear their critics, especially at the early stages. The Spirit is moving. Growth is explosive. Success is sure. People are being ministered to. It is so easy to say, 'This is of the Spirit, don't criticize.' Movements (in their early stages) can simply steamroller right over their critics. And they can get away with it... for a while. But this refusal to self-examine will eventually cause the movement to self-destruct.

Consider the movement I am in -- the 'holiness movement.' This movement was criticized in its early stages for several things, but the movement didn't need to listen. They could steamroller the critics. And they did. They were too successful to listen. People were getting saved by the tens of thousands. New churches sprouted up every week along with new colleges/Bible schools, para-church organizations, publishing houses, and even entire denominations. Gigantic gatherings of thousands of people flocked to camp meetings -- sometimes-larger gatherings than any secular gathering in the area. Camp meetings even started charging 'gate fees' to attendees and thousands coughed up the cash without complaint. The 'evangelists' were famous and powerful communicators. They held their audience 'in the palm of their hand.' When you have this much success you don't need to listen to your critics.

But there were critics anyway. For instance, in the holiness movement, from the start there was criticism of the movement's tendency toward emotionalism ('getting blessed,' or 'running the aisles', or 'shouting'). Some critics warned that there was too much emphasis on instantaneous sanctification and not enough on the gradual or progressive side. Others criticized the tendency toward legalism. But in the heady early days of a movement -- when thousands of people are caught up in t