Father Lazarus Abboud
Critical thinking arouses fear and anxiety in some, and some express a desire not to carry out any critical work on any level, because they see criticism as an act of opposition, rejection, or disparagement. But not carrying out any critical work is in itself a matter that arouses great fears, because it necessarily means that freedom is not possible. For the formation of the Church is built upon the community of many gifts, diverse in color and approach, and built upon the freedom of the children of God, and not built upon the infallibility of the human body. And the rejection of criticism is one of the principal factors in the stagnation of thought, especially religious thought, and the rejection of the other and his opinion — indeed, not accepting him as a sharer in the edifice. Georges Khodr says: “The mind of a single man or of a single ruling group does not necessarily comprehend the truth, and this truth is drawn through consultation” (1)
What is criticism? What are its characteristics? And is there anyone above criticism?
Criticism is the study of a certain action, a certain text, or a certain field in order to expand and clarify one’s understanding of it. For example, Dr. Adeeb Saab entitles one of his books “A Critical Study in the Philosophy of Religion,” and Abdel Rahman Badawi entitles his book “The Criticism of History,” and there is an entire theological field called “biblical criticism,” which every student of theology at Balamand and other institutes studies. And it does not escape our minds that the very person of Christ has been studied and subjected to criticism.
And among the characteristics of critical thinking is that we do not accept a certain result except on the basis of the soundness of the process of inference that leads to it and the correctness of its steps, as Dr. Adeeb Saab says (2). The concept of critical thinking, as some explain it, indicates that it is the ability to use knowledge and data; it is a process of thinking about everything that is presented or happens, of ideas, problems, and scenes, analyzing them logically and realistically with detachment, and giving its result. Consequently, it is not necessarily a rejection of the work; rather, on the other hand, it is its affirmation, its confirmation, and the bearing of witness to its uprightness. For criticism is not a negative act but rather a work that protects the community as a whole and helps those in charge.
For critical thinking distinguished the great teachers, among them Socrates, Plato, and René Descartes. As for the Church, Saint John Chrysostom carried out a critical and reforming process for the Liturgy, and his Liturgy bears witness to him. As for the Holy Scripture, we see that the seven letters in the Book of Revelation are a criticism of the works of the angels of the seven churches, and the words of the Apostle Paul to Peter when he showed partiality toward the Jews.
And there is no doubt that the hidden and apparent prohibition of it is the refusal to allow the other to reach an evaluation of the soundness of a certain process. Consequently, criticism becomes a necessity, because we refuse that the shepherd should consider himself as standing in the place of God. We may obey if we see God permeating us through him, but that he should veil the divinity from us by an improper conduct, and that he should claim that the act he performs is divine — that is something we cannot endure, as Metropolitan Georges Khodr says (3). And this does not at all mean the rejection of the Church or of the ecclesiastical administration; rather, it means that everyone should be a sharer in the work, whoever he may be, from one side or another. For those in charge must accept criticism, since they realize that they are in need of others in order to do justice, as Metropolitan Georges Khodr also says, and that they listen to the other and work for his sake. Thus criticism forms for those in charge a sign that illumines places where a defect may have occurred, or at least sheds light on a certain conduct or a certain work that must be re-read, or in which one must take a step backward, or also confirms that the path is correct. For they do not work for themselves from the position of service but for the sake of the entire body of Christ.
Criticism is a necessity, nay, it is an urgent need, and it is what establishes the acceptance or rejection of a certain work. And since we have accepted in our theological studies the criticism of the Holy Scripture, that is, the stripping away of its sacredness and infallibility, and dealing with it as though it were an ordinary book whose author is purely human, and diving into its depths to understand it more — then how is it that we strip the Holy Scripture of its sacredness while clothing persons with the garment of infallibility, whatever their ecclesiastical and priestly ranks may be, when they are neither higher than the Holy Scripture nor more sacred than it?
References:
1. Georges Khodr, Sunday Talk, Man in His Destiny and His Morals, Part Three, An-Nour Publications, 1986, p. 93.
2. Adeeb Saab, Critical Studies in the Philosophy of Religion, Dar An-Nahar, first edition, 2015, p. 22.
3. Ibid., p. 225.