Without Offense: The Art of Giving and Receiving Criticism by Dr. John L. Lund

I was talking to my friend Christy one day, about a book we both love: Bonds That Make Us Free by C. Terry Warner. I was wondering aloud about why Warner left much of the "how" out of his book and wrote that people had to find their own path. I liked that respect for our abilities, yet would appreciate some specific guidance in the area of working out differences constructively. Christy offered to lend me this book, because she feels it really goes a long way towards the "how."

Initially, I was disappointed as I scanned the first few chapters. Lund makes a strong case through scriptural references that advise that we are generally NOT to give criticism. He goes on to say that there is no such thing as "constructive" criticism, and compares criticism to unrighteous judgment.

Gradually, though, I began to understand and appreciate his point of view. Here's an excerpt from page 36:
Wisdom and common sense require that criticism be used sparingly. We should criticize so seldom that when we do, we will be heard. The frequently critical person is tuned out before the message is delivered. Nor is it justified to criticize  in the name of being honest. The so-called open, honest relationship, where both members feel free to express their concerns, often provides a forum for the more critical partner. Maybe the fundamental question that ought to be asked is not, "Is it honest?" but rather, "Is it edifying?" Will it ultimately be uplifting? Will it be good for the individual and the relationship? If a criticism does not qualify under the latter, it should not be spoken at all. 

On page 37, he describes the 24-hour challenge. That is, to try to live 24 hours without giving any criticism. I have tried this, and have had to start over multiple times! This little exercise really brought home to me how often and constantly I have critical thoughts and words.

Near the end of the book, Lund describes so-called toxic personalities and how to deal with them. This was perhaps my least favorite part of the book. It was almost like you're excused if you have to deal with a toxic personality...whereas Warner wouldn't go there at all. There may be times and people you leave, but you leave without anger, and with love. This toxic personality is no excuse, in my mind, but Lund still does caution us that even in those situations, our task is to love others. "People deserve to be loved because they are children of God. People should be loved even if their deeds cannot be."

Some of the "rules" of giving criticism make sense:
1. Think before you speak. Is the criticism within your stewardship, and would it be in the best interest of the other person to hear it? If not, don't say it. If it is, then proceed.
2. Ask for and receive permission before criticizing.
3. Be alone with the person at a mutually agreeable time and place.
4. Be in emotional control and logically explain the concern. No yelling, crying, swearing, or physical or emotional intimidation is allowed.
5. Do not attack the self-wroth of any human being. Focus on the issue or behavior. Be as specific as you can in separating self-wroth from the issue or behavior.
6. Affirm his or her worth to you.

I wouldn't say this book was one I appreciated very much. Parts made sense, but in general, I didn't find it too helpful. It seems like  too often the "acting out of love" was a strain or sacrifice, whereas Warner's idea is that being who WE need to be gives the other person a different person to react to...and there isn't sacrifice or martyrdom involved at all. We are just doing the right thing for the right reason. That approach makes more sense to me...