(Noah and his sons by Andrea Sacchi C17th)
There is an interesting story of only a dozen or so lines that quickly follows the flood story in Genesis.
Noah and his family come out of the ark, saved from the flood, they re-establish life on a pristine, cleansed planet.
Noah plants a vineyard and then gets drunk on the wine.
His middle son, Ham, comes inside his father’s tent and sees him naked, sprawled out on the floor.
He then goes and tells his elder and younger brother what he has seen.
The two siblings, by contrast show respect for their father by averting their eyes as they place a covering over his nakedness.
When Noah sobers up and realises what has happened he curses Ham and blesses Shem and Japheth and tells them that Ham and his descendants will always serve them – be their slaves.
At first glance this is a confusing story. What on earth is it about?
Well Noah represents the patriarchy – order. In archetypical imagery patriarchy is order, which can also become tyranny, Matriarchy is chaos and danger, but which is also the place where new information is found.
So what is this story representing? Ham the middle son sees the vulnerability – the weaknesses and failing of the structure and instead of respecting it for the good it has done – saving the world from destruction, saving his own and his wife’s life – he shows contempt. The biblical phraseology ‘saw his father’s nakedness’ text might even be hinting at sexual assault. Not only does he personally show contempt, but he then tells his brothers what he has done.
It seems very much like a will to power action, he is trying to take a position at the top of the hierarchy – but the story tells us you cannot do that by disrespecting the hierarchy.
You cannot rise to the top and to a position of influence within a structure by attacking the structure itself.
If you do behave like that you will undermine your ability to ever be in a position of leadership.
What do we learn from this?
We learn that criticism has to be expressed in a framework of gratitude in order to be healthy.
When you see the ‘nakedness’ of a person, or an institution – your criticism of that vulnerability is only positive when it is expressed in a framework of gratitude for the valuable and praiseworthy elements of the person or institution.
I knew someone who wold only ever let a person say something negative about a person or thing, after they had said something positive.
I think he was wrong.
I think you need to say at least two or three positive things and really establish a framework of gratitude before criticism is appropriate.
This is why encouragement is such an important part of human interaction. In our encouragement of others we establish a normalcy of appreciation and valuing. Once this is established then we earn the right to have our criticisms heard (which are existentially very painful, even if, or especially if, they are true).
So look for reasons to be grateful,
express that often,
criticise in a spirit of wanting the best for the thing you are criticising
and don’t disrespect the systems that have protected and enabled you to flourish as much as you have, just because you see they are imperfect.
 Genesis 9