Apologies: When They Are Warranted and When They Aren’t

We are hearing a lot about apologies these days—calls for them, balks at them, praises and rejections of them. And that’s had me thinking a lot about apologies. As we looked at last time, it’s important to distinguish what we mean by the words we use, so before we get into the meat of this post, it will be helpful to define “apology.”

It seems to be a common belief that to apologize for something means merely saying, “I’m sorry.” A quick internet search will show the definition as being to “express regret for something that one has done wrong.” But as I learned from my parents growing up, a true apology is much more than saying “I’m sorry” or feeling bad for doing something wrong. To apologize, I was taught to say, “I did [this thing], and it was wrong because of [this reason]. I am sorry I did [that]. Will you please forgive me?” In other words, a full apology involves stating what you did that was wrong, showing that you understand why it was wrong, rejecting that wrong behavior, and asking for forgiveness.

Notice that inherent in this conception of an apology is the fact that the person apologizing has personally committed the offense. On a practical level, then, it is actually impossible to apologize for something someone else has done. We can express sadness over the actions of someone else and sympathy with those who were acted against; we can even work to combat the negative effects of someone else’s actions and to prevent such actions from happening again, but we are not able to literally apologize.

With this understanding of what constitutes an apology, we can move forward in looking at whether an apology is warranted in certain situations. The headliner in our current days is calls for people with light skin color to apologize to people of dark skin color because light-skinned ancestors enslaved dark-skinned ancestors in the United States. Based on the definition of an apology that hinges on personal responsibility for one’s own actions, we can see immediately that it is impossible for 21^st-century Americans of Anglo-European descent to apologize for things that their ancestors did to the ancestors of people of African descent. The ancestors are the only ones who can apologize for their actions, and they are dead.

This is (one reason) why I do not ask the people of Salisbury, North Carolina, to apologize for the imprisonment and mistreatment of my Union soldier great-great-great-grandfather Vasa in the Confederate prison camp that existed in their town. This is why I do not demand (or even ask or wish for) an apology from my Japanese friends for Pearl Harbor, nor do they demand one of me for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is why I do not need an apology from my British friends for their 17^th-century countrymen’s fighting against my ancestor Edward in the War for Independence, nor do they ask for one from me for the defeat their county suffered at the hands of mine.

“But slavery is different,” some might argue, “The effects of slavery are still being felt today.” I would not disagree that slavery’s nasty effects are still lurking among us, but I would also suggest that so are the effects of every other situation just mentioned. Families were forever changed by these events that altered the paths their descendants would take and have affected each of our lives today in ways some of which we can see and some of which we are unaware. So if 21^st-century individuals should (and were able to) apologize for slavery of Africans in the United States, there are a host of other groups that should be apologizing to a host of other people as well.

For the sake of discussion, though, let’s say for a moment that these apologies were possible. If apologies by descendants of offenders are warranted to descendants of the offended (and by offended I mean those who had a wrong act committed against them, not those whose feelings are bruised), it is still logically unworkable for this to take place. First, to know who should apologize and to whom, it would require every person to trace their entire ancestral tree to find every possible person who was an offender/offended. As someone who studies and practices genealogy, I can tell you this is possible in some cases but is extremely difficult and time consuming even in those cases where it is possible.  

The next problem arises when it is discovered (as is the case in many situations) that a single person is the descendant of both an offender and an offended. Taking slavery in the United States as an example, one person may be descended from both an enslaved person and an enslaver, either in the most well-known cases of white men impregnating black women they had enslaved or in lesser-well-known cases of black men enslaving other black men. Or one person may be a descendant of both an offender and an anti-offender, such as those who are descended from both an enslaver and an abolitionist. Using the Civil War as an example, there are countless dual-descendants like me who had ancestors on both sides of that bloody conflict. There are also many, like me, who have both Native American ancestors and colonizing ancestors.

Not only does this reality of mixed heritage—which is much more common than people seem to like to admit—make it difficult to identify who should apologize to whom, it reveals that pitting ancestral sides against each other literally pits individuals against themselves. We can see, then, that apologies from 21^st-century individuals to other 21^st-century individuals for actions in which they had no part are literally impossible, and even if possible, are unrealistic.

But—it does not then follow that 21^st-century individuals have nothing to apologize for.

Each of us alive today should be careful that we do not take the unreasonableness of unwarranted apologies and use it as an excuse to avoid examining our own hearts, minds, and behavior for wrong attitudes, thoughts, and actions. Just because we have not enslaved our fellow humans does not mean that we are automatically guiltless toward them, and we would do well to spend time before the Lord in humility, asking Him to shine His spotlight in our hearts and reveal to us anything we need to apologize for and repent of (i.e. forsake and turn the other way from).

For example, we need to ask ourselves: Do I think less of people because of the color of their skin? Do I think less of people because of the way they talk? Do I think less of people because of their level of education? Do I think less of people because of their beliefs? And do I treat them differently as a result? If the answer is yes to any of these questions, then repentance is in order.

Or to get a little more specific . . . As a person with light skin, do I assume when I hear about a certain crime that it was committed by a person with dark skin? Do I assume dark-skinned people all have the same political views? When I see negative behavior, do I think, “Well, of course they did that—they’re black”?  Do I think that dark skin is an indicator of a low work ethic? Do I think that dark-skinned people don’t value family? Do I think that a dark-skinned person must hate me because they’re “black” and I’m “white”? Do I think that people who live in poor communities, regardless of their skin color, are necessarily lazy and less intelligent? Do I think that people who have more wealth than I do, regardless of their skin color, are necessarily stodgy, conceited, out-of-touch, or corrupt?    

As I have been examining my own life, the Lord has shown me how often my first reaction to someone I do not know is to put them in a stereotyped box and then be pleasantly surprised if they show themselves to be different from those negative stereotypes, or similarly, to have low expectations of a person I do not know because of the color of their skin, the way they dress, or because of their socioeconomic status (either lower or higher than mine). This is wrong because it assumes the negative about a person and does not look for their individuality; it evaluates someone based on (often incorrect) generalizations rather than on a person’s unique merits; it defeats a person before they even have a chance to prove themselves; it places more value on a surface-level feature of a person than it does on their character and heart.

I have asked the Lord to forgive me for ever having this view of His image-bearing created beings and have begun to check myself as soon as negative assumptions pop into my head. In His grace, the Lord is helping me change, and I pray that we are all willing to admit where we are wrong, to see the ugliness inside of us (because we all have it), to truly apologize, and to submit to the Lord’s redeeming work in our lives.

For those of us who are followers of Jesus, let’s not let preoccupation with apologies we shouldn’t or can’t give blind us to the apologies we should and can. Let’s not try to avoid the refining work of the Holy Spirit in our lives as He sifts out the dross and makes us more pure that we may better bring Him glory and be more winsome in pointing others to the goodness of His forgiveness and grace. Regardless of the color of our skin, we all have this one thing in common. To paraphrase John Newton, former slave trader and author of the hymn “Amazing Grace,” we are great sinners, against God and against each other, but—praise God—in Christ we have a great Savior who redeems and restores us and makes us one. 

PC: Pam Galagan. Used with permission.

Words: How They Matter and How They Don’t

These past couple of weeks have brought a weight with them—a weight that many have already been feeling and that many are just beginning to feel for the first time. We have seen a man murdered by those who were sworn to protect their communities; we have seen other men murdered by opportunists who have taken advantage of communities at this time of deep pain. The brokenness of our world is apparent for all to see.

There are so many angles to the current issues that have been brought once again to the forefront in recent days that it is difficult to know where to begin. But in order for positive change to occur, begin we must. It is possible that I will write more posts on different aspects of the situation our country finds itself in, but to lay the foundation for any further topics, it seems that one theme must be addressed first that has arisen across the entire spectrum of responses to the injustices we have all witnessed.

In our world of social media where everyone has a platform from which to speak to hundreds, thousands, or even millions, it becomes dizzying to navigate the messages that are being sent. I have seen people be shamed for posting and others be shamed for not posting. I have seen criticisms of people’s silence yet also criticisms of the words people use when they choose not to be silent. I’ve seen people be applauded for asking how they can help and people criticized for asking rather than trying to figure it out on their own. In short, I have seen an obsession with words and a disregard for human beings. And this has been coming from all “sides” of the issues.

We know that words are powerful. Scripture contains numerous references to the importance of words and their capacity to do both good and harm. As just a couple of examples, we see in Proverbs 15:1 that “A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger” (ESV).  And James, speaking of the tongue, writes, “It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so” (James 3:8b-10, ESV). Words matter. They have the power to build up or to tear down. And choice of words matters. But are the words themselves all that should be considered?

I’d like to suggest that they are not, for one simple reason: two people can use the same words and mean very different things. To use a silly example, let’s say you were planning two trips, one to Vermont and one to Florida. Your friends in each place tell you to pack appropriately because “It’s been cold here lately.” If you’d never been to either place before and were basing your choice of clothes only on your friends’ words, you might pack similarly for both trips, not realizing that “cold” to a Vermonter is well below freezing, while “cold” to a Floridian is around 50 degrees Fahrenheit. To better understand how you should act in response to their statements, you might ask, “What do you consider cold?” or “What exactly is the temperature?”

As we apply this same idea to other situations, we find that we must look beyond the words a person says to the person speaking them and seek to understand the perspective and intent behind the words, looking at each speaker within the unique context that he or she is speaking from rather than lumping that speaker into a homogenous group with everyone else who uses the same words.

Perhaps the greatest example of this in our recent weeks is the argument between use of the phrases “Black lives matter” and “all lives matter.” I have seen people—and sadly even Christian people—criticize, even excoriate, others for using each of these phrases, and wrapped up in each criticism is an assumption about the other person’s intended meaning in using these specific words. For example, some look at anyone who says that “Black lives matter” as a full-on supporter of the BLM organization and all of its leftist (to be distinguished from liberal) political agendas. On the flip side, some look at anyone who says that “all lives matter” as an insensitive white supremacist who refuses to see the injustices that have been committed against people with dark skin much less feel badly about them.

What such a generalizing response to these words does is shut down conversation before it even begins. It lumps people into labels and inhibits asking questions because the answers are already assumed. This is not a problem if we think we have nothing to learn (which is a dangerous place to be, by the way). But it is a huge problem if we truly want to relate to others, to grow in knowledge, understanding, and wisdom. For followers of Jesus it is an even bigger problem, since we are called to become more like Him, which includes growing in humility and in the fruit of His Spirit.

So while words are important, they are not all-important. Studying communication in college, I learned that breakdowns in communication occur when what is sent is received differently than how it is meant. Successful communicators on the sending end are able to explain what they mean by the words they say to better ensure that they are understood correctly by the hearer. The message is the meaning, while the words are the vehicles used to transport the meaning to the receiver. What is important, then, for successful communication as a hearer, is to root out the meaning (i.e. intended definition) of the words being sent.

There is a counter argument circulating, however, against the idea that intended meaning of words is more relevant than how they are received. I have seen some assert that intent is irrelevant and impact (i.e. perception) is what matters. In other words, it doesn’t matter if someone means well in what they say; if the person hearing it feels badly as a result of what was said, then what was said is morally wrong. Or, to give an example, it doesn’t matter if the sender does not harbor hate or prejudice in his heart; if the receiver feels hated or discriminated against, it was wrong for the sender to say what he said.

In many ways this viewpoint is a reflection of the postmodern worldview that is so prevalent in our culture, the view that sees meaning as relative and something which is determined by the reader/receiver rather than by the author/sender. In this view, reality for receivers is determined solely by their subjective feelings rather than by a more objective understanding of the original message. Rather than responding to what was actually meant, then, the receivers respond to what they assume was meant. And this constitutes a textbook breakdown of communication.

Certainly as senders, we have the responsibility to choose our words wisely, i.e. to choose the vehicle that will best express our actual intent, and to be mindful of how our words will affect others. But sometimes senders don’t have access to the full range of vehicles that exist. Sometimes they are unaware that the vehicle they have chosen won’t get them where they want to go. So as hearers, we must show grace. We must give the benefit of the doubt. We must assume positive intent and become partners with the sender rather than adversaries as we work to communicate clearly for the betterment of both parties.

If we truly want to make a difference, if we truly want to be agents of positive change, if we truly want to build relationships, if we truly want to learn, then we must practice active listening, i.e. we must not assume we are receiving the accurate message and must ask for context and clarification. When someone says something that makes us feel offended or skeptical or hurt, instead of assuming negative intent, we should try responding with, “When you said such-and-such, this is what it sounded/felt like you meant:______.  Is that really what you meant?” And if we don’t have the opportunity to start that conversation, rather than assuming negative intent, let’s try assuming positive intent.

As with all of my posts, this one also serves as a reminder to myself; I am not exempt from my own critiques and challenges. Several years ago the Lord used a sister in Christ to teach me the importance of assuming the best of others, particularly when it comes to what they say and do (or don’t say and don’t do) and it is something I have been intentionally mindful of ever since, although it is a lesson I am still learning. Here is what I have found so far:

When we assume negative intent, we become offended and hurt; we think lowlier of the offender; we take the first step toward bitterness; we harm ourselves by nurturing negative feelings; we do not glorify Christ. When we assume positive intent, we turn the magnifying glass on ourselves; we discover why we react to certain things in certain ways and discover areas of our own lives that need to be brought under submission to God; we take the first step toward showing grace to others; we benefit ourselves through release of negative feelings; we glorify Christ.

I’ll close with a quotation I first heard in a family psychology class I took in college. It has stuck with me ever since I heard it, and it has served as an excellent guide as I interact with others. “Seek to understand, before you seek to be understood.” If we take the focus off of ourselves and our feelings and instead seek to serve others by striving to understand where they are coming from, I daresay we will find we have a lot more in common with each other than perhaps we originally thought. And maybe, just maybe, we can take steps toward each other and then move forward together rather than speaking past each other and moving nowhere.

PC: Pamela Hollis. Used with permission.