Posted by Benjamin on: 05.12.2008 /
Today Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd (who has managed to pop up on my radar on multiple justice and compassion related issued over the last little while) expressed his regret for the disprespect and lack of honor accorded to returning Australian Vietnam War veterans. In February, Kevin officially apologized to the stolen generations of native Australians.
It reminded me of a recent post by Julie Clawson in which she asks “Should Christians apologize (for the behavior/words of other Christians?)”
By “apologize” in the title, I mean “express regret for” and also “Accept some responsibility for”
By “in-group” in mean “a social group towards which an individual feels loyalty and respect, usually due to membership in the group.”
I rather suspect such apologies can be powerful catalysts for healing and MTWABP, both on the personal and the group level.
So I’m wondering–do you have any stories you can share? Of giving or receiving such an apology personally? Or of giving or receiving such an apology in a larger group sense? I’d *love* to hear such stories.
Or … is there such an apology that you would *like* to be part of giving or receiving?
Leave a Reply
Comment by: David H
1 05/12/08 6:20 PM | Comment Link |As the first person responding here I almost hate immediately straying from your stated topic. But my mind works in strange ways. Your post immediately made me think about the times (a few recently) where people responded in discussions of apology that they weren’t going to do it because it wasn’t their fault. At least one of those statements was from a commenter to this blog. I tend to agree that apologies, even those corporate ones, can help MTWABP. I also innately believe that attention to hurt, often an apology precursor, is critical to following Jesus. So I wondered when I heard self-defined Christians insisting that they would not apologize for something that wasn’t their fault. What is the personal dynamic protected by not making such an admission? What are the inter-personal dynamics that may be affected by such a denial? Is there benefit to apology even if I am not directly responsible? When I refuse to make an apology am I in some way telling others I don’t believe they were a) wronged or b) deserve an apology? Does an apology have to be deserved for me to be justified in giving it?
I have some links and thoughts on those subject. But I tend to pontificate a lot. I apologize for that. Before I begin spouting I would like to know what others think.
Comment by: Benjamin
2 05/12/08 8:07 PM | Comment Link |David,
You address an important aspect of this whole question.
It seems to me that one can only be the apologizer from a place of a certain amount of safety/strength.
… Does that make any sense? To apologize is somehow to take on some of the hurt of the other–regardless of whether I am at fault? That seems pretty hard to do if my hurt tank is already overflowing.
It addresses the question of whether we bless/help the other from a place of strength, or a place of weakness. It seems to me that perhaps both are possible? Does it touch on trust? Sorry if I’m using too many question marks. But Jesus seems to get at this with the other cheek comment. So it touches on hope. Can I say to the one who has hit me “I’m sorry for that somehow hit you, which led to you hitting me. Here’s my other cheek–for a kiss, not for another hit.”?
That takes an inordinate amount of some sort of sense of safety from somewhere. If I’m feeling rather vulnerable, there’s just no way I can do that. Which leads to a sort of vicious cycle (see: Israel/Palestine, Sunni/Shia, …. etc.). Sometimes people are able to muster insane levels of hope in the middle of that cycle and keep asking for the kiss, despite repeated blows. See: MLK Jr, the Amish after that shooting not too long ago, etc.
Just some thoughts.
Comment by: David H
3 05/12/08 8:24 PM | Comment Link |I found the following (here) while thinking about this topic:
The compassion part struck me. But the whole thing made me ask: can I effectively take responsibility even if I am not directly at fault? Is taking such responsibility an apology of sorts. Is the act a way of saying: I’m sorry, even if the words are never spoken?
To me that seems the crux of what Jesus did on the cross. He made his life, which I am told was faultless, an apology to God for the faults of every other human being that ever lived. At least it seems to me that’s what he did.
Comment by: joe
4 05/13/08 2:50 AM | Comment Link |I might also be talking around the main issue, but here are a few random thoughts.
I’ve been told that Jews (and this might just be illustrating my ignorance of the breadth of Jewish thought) have a big problem with the notion of the Christian atonement in that they don’t believe someone can atone for something they are not responsible for (actually I’ve only just noticed a huge oxymoron there, but let us just ignore it for the time being..).
And it seems to me that there is a real point here. Whilst it can be legitimately argued that I have benefited from the sins of my forefathers, I’m not sure an apology for their actions is what is needed. I need to go beyond making fine sounding words which do little to really appreciate the hurt that has been caused and resolve to actually do something to remedy the situation. Most of the time we could do a little less with the fine sounding words and with a little more action.
On the other hand, in travels around the Middle East, I’ve frequently been asked to account for my country’s complicity in wars, empire building and activities which have directly or indirectly affected millions of lives.
In general, Palestinians are polite but argumentative. The men in particular like to smoke and argue for hours (which I consider is an attractive trait - but my wife doesn’t agree. I don’t think many Palestinian women do either), and as an unusual European visitor I am an easy target. It can be tiring to constantly have the same argument about the Iraq war, which I never supported and actively campaigned against.
Most of the time I agreed with them - and simply asked what they expected me to do as any kind of apology from me would be empty.
Comment by: Nancy
5 05/13/08 12:11 PM | Comment Link |This is an issue that I have struggled with also. In thinking about the earlier slave trade and the racism that followed emancipation, I used to believe that because my grandparents immigrated from Italy and Finland at the beginning of the 20th century, I did not have any reason to be included in any sort of apology or reparation. Now, though, I don’t believe the issue is so simple. As a citizen of this country, we have benefits and responsibilities. I believe that each of us must accept responsibility to work toward reconciliation. How we do that is open to interpretation.
For me, I have chosen to work in urban ministry - so that I can be with and learn from people of different backgrounds, races, languages, and world views than myself. When I first arrived at this largely African descent and Latino congregation, many people asked me “why are you here?” I think it was a legitimate question to ask of a white woman from the suburbs. My expressed desire to learn from them and to experience Christ through their eyes allowed me to begin to build trust. Since then I have experienced acceptance and love from this community. Working to build relationships across racial and cultural lines is, I believe, an important step toward reconciliation.
Does this touch on the need to apologize? Not formally, but it might be helpful to think of “apologizing” as being willing to humble ourselves so that we can take steps toward building relationship. While I cannot apologize on behalf of the United States, because I do not have that power or authority, I can choose to build relationships (and work for justice) with groups who have been mistreated or marginalized in the past (or present). It’s not always easy but it is rewarding.
Comment by: David H
6 05/13/08 2:43 PM | Comment Link |A guy named Aaron Lazare wrote a book in 2004 entitled On Apology (published by Oxford University Press). I read about it here. There is lots of interesting stuff about his concept of apology, but I was struck by the following.
What struck me most about this is that it focuses almost exclusively on the offended party. The last item is the only point that requires someone to admit that they are somehow responsible for the offense. Those who seem most reluctant to go along with corporate apologies seem to focus exclusively on personal responsibility. In other words: I didn’t violate the social contract, therefore I should not have to apologize.
Should it be enough to simply acknowledge that the contract has been violated, even if not specifically or consciously by me?
Lazare examines failed apologies in his book. This is an excerpt on that:
But it is the conclusion that hit home hardest, based on the refusals of apology I have recently heard.
Apology by the follower of Jesus does seem intrinsic to social ministry. To properly serve someone requires touching on all four points of Lazare’s model for effective apology. However, evangelism is just the opposite. The evangelist does not need to apologize, that is the requirement of the unsaved “sinners.” Could that possibly effect how Christians view corporate or even individual apologies?
Comment by: Benjamin
7 05/13/08 3:58 PM | Comment Link |Nancy
You seem to be going about creating the relational space/safety where, perhaps, apologies could be given/received … at all, and/or where they would have some real meaning beyond just words.
Are you familiar with civil rights activist John Perkins. He talks about how part of the deal with racial reconciliation is … moving into the neighborhood. Sounds like what you’ve done. I’d love to hear more about your story. Have you written about it anywhere? (Or would you be interested in doing so?)
Comment by: Benjamin
8 05/13/08 4:19 PM | Comment Link |David
Your whole comment (number 6) is … fascinating. Thank you for writing. Shortly after reading it I saw today’s apology from the Reverend John Hagee, in which he constantly makes the mistakes noted in Lazare’s book.
Does Lazare give any examples of good public apologies?
This kind of took my breath away with it’s … audacity. Evangelism as the opposite of apology. “You need to apologize” rather than “I need to apologize”.
I need to ponder this for a while. Wow.
Comment by: Randy
9 05/13/08 4:36 PM | Comment Link |Interesting:
Not sure if I agree with that, but it’s kind of a generalization anyway so I guess I don’t really have to. I get the point, I think.
But most evangelists really DO need to apologize, if not for their own behavior, then for the behavior of many of our family who have been rude, disrespectful and mean spirited in our Gospel presentations. And it turns out apologizing like this (for this) tends to create a more willing audience, so it is in fact a powerful relational communication tool as well as a healthy and honest admission.
It’s ironic, I suppose, that we call the effort to make our case for the faith “apologetics”. Probably go better if that case included an actual apology.
Comment by: Randy
10 05/13/08 4:44 PM | Comment Link |Oh…and I suppose this does affect how Christians view corporate or even individual apologies, although I’d have to say that this is a pretty broad sweep of the brush as well (there are so few things people who call themselves Christian seem to agree on anymore!).
Personal responsibility is a huge deal in the circles I travel in. Corporate apologies seem to lack that ingredient, often. And it seems like restitution should be the fifth element, imo, for the apology to have any weight to it.
Comment by: David H
11 05/13/08 4:56 PM | Comment Link |What I mean is that traditional evangelism (altar call kind) requires apology on the part of the unbeliever toward God. This is the first part of “The Sinner’s Prayer.”
The old school evangelist’s job is to elicit your apology to God. That apology is intrinsic to conversion.
I don’t intend to make a value judgement on that prayer, the need for conversion, or the type of evangelicalism in which I was raised. However, I am wondering if this mindset has created a sort of apologetic divide. When you are on the outside you must apologize to get in. Once in the need for any type of apology (except to God, e.g. forgive me for my sins, on a regular basis) is greatly diminished.
Comment by: Randy
12 05/13/08 6:59 PM | Comment Link |I see your point, David. And although I would also affirm the need for conversion, and honor my own evangelical roots, the “sinners prayer” is not sacred or biblical (in that it is not found in the bible), so I can live without it and I think people can come to faith in Jesus without it. (My favorite sinners prayer is from Ann Lamont…which I won’t quote here but it’s only four words and includes an “F” bomb).
One does need to admit one’s sin to God to “get in”, but I think this admission (combined with the enormous grace and forgiveness that comes by means of it) normally causes us to want to seek the forgiveness of others…and to forgive those who have offended us. This is what the bible seems to suggest, anyway. I agree that we don’t see as much of this reciprocal behavior as we should (and certainly I am not beyond petty grudges). I just think that those who have been forgiven much will tend to be gracious toward others. Jesus sort of demands it.
But I get the reality issue, too…believe me. Great insight.
Comment by: benjamin ady
13 05/13/08 9:09 PM | Comment Link |I’m wondering where the “in” to which you refer is?
And beyond that, I wonder what the “in” looks like which requires, for entry, an effective (per Lazare) apology to … those lower in the power structure than us?
I wonder which of the two “in”s is a more … attractive place?
The former “in” seems … somehow more related to the “it’ll be fixed someday, post this life” ideology, while the latter “in’ seems somehow more related to a “We best get about fixing it here” ideology.
Do we focus on kingdom of heaven there and later, or kingdom of heaven here and now? Or if we try to balance those two, to what extent does the (at least in my experience) church’s overemphasis on the former drown out our attempt?
Does the “If you’ve done it to one of the least of these my siblings, you’ve done it to me” count for apologies?
That is, does God count it as an apology toward him if we apologize to those lower in the power structure than us, but she *doesn’t* count it the other way?
Comment by: David H
14 05/13/08 10:24 PM | Comment Link |The IN is the “faithful” or the “righteous.” Praying the prayer, accepting Jesus, conversion puts you on the “good” side of the divide in the way I was taught.
A big part of it, I believe, is intent. Jesus chastised those who made public prayers and discounted the showy gifts and offerings. The action was perhaps correct: they were apologizing to God. But because of their heart, the act counted for nothing.
With the story of the sheep and the goats, Jesus appeared to count a charitable act toward someone is somehow equivalent to the sinners prayer. He doesn’t just say those people did the right thing. He calls them the righteous and welcomes them to eternal life.
I don’t know if apologies can flow up and down the power structure. I can’t say for sure that some count with God and others don’t. But it seems clear that if my “apology” is pitched more for the ear of those I want to impress, that it won’t impress God.
Comment by: David H
15 05/13/08 10:25 PM | Comment Link |One other interesting item on apology I found, from a Psychology Today article.
Comment by: Helen
16 05/14/08 7:31 AM | Comment Link |Interesting comments, everyone.
I’m thinking, in many situations people will want to see change - an apology is just empty words otherwise.
If we’re apologizing for someone else, are we also the ones who taken on the responsibility of being different from the behavior which necessitated the apology? I suppose we are, because what if the other person/people never change and never want to?
Everytime I try to treat someone respectfully maybe I am implicitly apologizing for other humans who were disrespectful. Because I take on a tiny part of the burden of undoing the damage those other humans did.
Comment by: Liz
17 05/14/08 12:09 PM | Comment Link |I always tell my kids that apology is pointless if they are using it as an excuse to do it again.
And funny you said that about the implication there. I just had blood drawn this am and I have to say the phlebotemist was almost painless. I actually had been planning on calling the lab and commending him. what I said to my daughter when I was planning on doing this, is people always are very vocal about complaining, but they never call when things are especially well. So I thought I would make a special effort to do so since I was impressed that this guy really seemed to have mastered the art of getting the blood out painlessly.
Comment by: Helen
18 05/14/08 2:51 PM | Comment Link |Liz that’s a great point that people are more likely to call to complain than call and say ‘thanks - you did a great job’. Did you call and commend the phlebotemist?
I’ve had a number of blood draws and IVs in the last year. I’ve noticed a variation in ability to do it with minimum of pain/first time. Most people take 3 attempts to successfully get an IV in me so I am VERY appreciative of the ones who can do it first time. I generally tell them at the time how appreciative I am.
Comment by: Byron Smith
19 05/14/08 5:35 PM | Comment Link |Jesus seems to link forgiveness of others with forgiveness by God (not least in the “our Father”). He also seems to imply in this prayer that requests for forgiveness are ongoing, not simply a one-off. He places reconciliation between people as a crucial factor in our relationship with God (e.g. Matthew 5.23-24). In a similar way, the apostles teach that confession is not simply to God, but is also to one another (e.g. James 5.16).
So although it may sometimes unhelpfully function in the manner described above, I think that an apology to God ought to increase (not decrease) the likelihood of apologies to one another, both personal and corporate.
On Christians and corporate apology, check out this thoughtful piece about Rudd’s apology to the Stolen Generations earlier this year.
Comment by: David H
20 05/14/08 6:26 PM | Comment Link |Going back to my original thought about the reluctance of some Christians to apologize when they are responsible, I have a couple more questions.
While there may be questionable benefit to the injured to have an apology from some who didn’t cause the harm, what harm is there for the for the person issuing the apology? What does it cost someone to apologize for something they didn’t do? Is there a benefit for the aggrieved to receive such an apology? Should Christians, as one of those I quoted above suggests, be more compelled to apologize than anyone else? Should Christians be the last people to deny an apology, corporate or personal, because the wrong committed isn’t their responsibility?
Helen makes a good point about saying sorry being linked to a change of behavior. Even if I am not directly responsible for the harm to someone, can I set an example for changed behavior with a real apology linked to a change in how I act toward those who have been harmed?
Comment by: Byron Smith
21 05/14/08 6:59 PM | Comment Link |In the case of the Australian Government’s apology to the Stolen Generations, there was a real fear amongst some in the community (and government) that acknowledging responsibility would mean also paying millions in compensation. Unfortunately, in issuing the apology, Kevin Rudd explicitly ruled out any financial restitution. Apologies can (and ought to be) costly - not necessarily in money (though not necessarily not in money), but at least in the change in behaviour mentioned by a few people.
For this reason, those who have begun to grasp how rich they are in God’s blessings and acceptance are set free to be the first to apologise and accept the cost of doing so. There is no longer any need to approach life with a grasping, miserly attitude if God has poured out the vast treasures of his love into our hearts. This, I take it, is part of the point of the parable of the unforgiving servant (Matt 18.21-35). This has application not only to forgiving those who wrong us, but also in not protecting ourselves from the costs of admitting our failures.
Thanks for this discussion, I have found the comments very stimulating.
Comment by: Nancy
22 05/14/08 8:53 PM | Comment Link |Benjamin,
I am not familiar with John Perkins, but maybe I’ll look him up. I think my story is still very much in the early chapters. Also, I have not yet moved into the neighborhood, as my current position (as intern) will end late August. My long term goal is to be involved in urban ministry - and to actually live in the neighborhood.
My living in the suburb and serving in the city has been beneficial in that it has given me many opportunities to address negative stereotypes that my friends and neighbors have. So far I haven’t written anything.
As for apologies, I think its also important to recognize that forgiveness does not always immediately follow an apology. One might offer an apology, but the receiver might not “be ready” to forgive. In this discussion of apologies from the “in-group” I can see how the inability of others to immediately accept apologies could lead to further problems. Part of an apology needs to include the realization that our apologies do not necessarily mean automatic forgiveness and reconciliation… and if we expect it we run the risk of causing further harm. One of my professors - David Augsburger, very much influeneced my thinking on this.
Building relationships - even by taking small steps if necessary is important.
Comment by: Benjamin
23 05/14/08 11:33 PM | Comment Link |Nancy,
I hear you about how forgiveness does not necessarily (or ever) follow an apology. I have a dear friend who continues to experience estrangement from a loved one after many years despite intense and ongoing evidence of enormous change in behavior as well as ongoing indication of both his willingness to reenter relationship as well as ongoing financial restitution.
Richard Twiss said something fairly striking about the question of Native Americans forgiving … European types. He said
“What if you stole my car 20 years ago. And you came to me, and said,
‘Wow, I feel really bad about stealing your car all those years ago. I’m sorry. Will you forgive me?’
‘Well, can I have the car back?’
‘Well, I’ve been driving that car for years. I’ve maintained it, poured tons of money into. It’s like part of my family. I can’t give it back.’”
Byron touched on this with the Australian apology.
Christian musician Rich Mullins, whose music I rather enormously like, (he’s dead now) used to assign all the profits from his CD sales to go to his church, and he went and spent years living in a native American community, trying to … learn, and become part, and love. I kind of respect that. He couldn’t give the car back, but … he sort of tried to.
Comment by: Nancy
24 05/15/08 8:04 AM | Comment Link |I saw a drama once, title “What About the Bike”. I think it was used in post-Apartheid Africa and it has a similar theme as the car story.
Just as Rich Mullins did, we can give dignity. When we go among others, we caanot go thinking hat we are superior in any way… financially being a big temptation.
We serve many homeless. Last January I took a group of students to view a drama performed by people who were either homeless or formerly homeless. After the performance, I asked them what advice they would give to future pastors. “Treat us as humans deserving the same respect that you expect to receive from others.”
That’s good advice for building relationships between all groups.