We see people, ranging from small children to national governments, called to apologize for some wrong they've committed. The expectation is that if a penitent says he's sorry, the offended party has to forgive him (or else sue him and use the confession as evidence, but we're not going to cover that here). We hear the insincere apology, which usually starts with "If I've offended anyone". Of course you've offended someone, else you wouldn't be called to apologize; that formula is just a way to say "I am required to do this, but I don't actually care about whether you were offended or not." I've certainly said "I'm sorry" about things for which I wasn't sorry at all, and which I meant to do again at the first opportunity. Should I be forgiven just on the strength of an insincere apology?
So what is necessary to see if an apology is sincere, and deserves absolution? As I see it, you need the following:
- Confession: admitting that you did it
- Contrition: being sorry for it
- Restitution: repairing the damage as best you can
- Repentance: not doing it again
Discussion?
Posts
6 comments:
No place for repentance
(part 1 of 3, lol)
Hey, Runehorn, sorry I keep making comments on your blog--I don't have a life, or at least not a very interesting one--and I really should try to not play WarCraft every Single minute when not sleeping or working. You can cut me off anytime, lol.
(I've written this comment 3x now and it said it couldn't be posted, which probably means it's too lengthy, so I'll break it down to three. Yikes? ... sorry)
I read your Absolution entry yesterday morning and have been thinking about it. Now it's Sunday, and what better day to ponder theology and look up Bible verses (even as I'm staying home from church again like a heathen)?
You no doubt know all about the two sons of Isaac: Esau and Jacob, always at odds. Esau born first, but just barely, as Jacob clung to his heel coming out, and Jacob (and their mother) always wishing it had been the other way because of the rights and privileges of a firstborn son.
Jacob makes a savory stew just in time for Esau's hungry and impulsive self to arrive from a hunting trip. When Esau wants some, Jacob says, "Trade me your birthright for it, and I'll give it to you" -- and Esau does just that. (Genesis has the full story.)
No place for repentance
(part 2 of 3)
The NT in Hebrews comments on it with "See that no one is sexually immoral, or is godless like Esau, who for a single meal sold his inheritance rights as the oldest son. Afterward, as you know, when he wanted to inherit this blessing, he was rejected. He could bring about no change of mind (in his father), though he sought the blessing with tears."
or--
"See to it that there be no immoral or godless person like Esau, who sold his own birthright for a single meal. For you know that even afterward, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought for it with tears."
And Eugene Peterson paraphrased, "Watch out for the Esau syndrome: trading away God's lifelong gift in order to satisfy a short-term appetite. You well know how Esau later regretted that impulsive act and wanted God's blessing--but by then it was too late, tears or no tears.
The mention of sexuality, seemingly unrelated, in this warning is of some interest and curiosity to me. And there another warning elsewhere that refers to a "seared conscience" no longer capable of truth or feeling.
You asked, "Should I be forgiven just on the strength of an insincere apology?" and then you listed four reasonable conditions for absolution.
I don't know if Esau's apology was sincere, contrite, or not. It sounds like it was, but it was rejected.
No place for repentance
(I'm done now, truly)
Under your step of Confession, I've been taught a sub-point of Agreement: Agreeing with God that the thing was a sin, that His command is just and justified and correct. That could be just mental assent. But it's right at the next step of Contrition where I get stuck. What if I somehow intellectually agree that something is a sin but I don't feel particularly sorry for it? Does that mean I don't even agree with God at all? How does one feel sorrier, or at least sorry enough, to move along to the next few steps?
A particular phrase above said Esau found no place of repentance. He couldn't find a spot to stand on? Couldn't find way to change the past or an opportunity to right the wrong?
(Hmm, now that I look at this again, he didn't really, explicitly offer an apology ... he simply longed for something else.)
Seems to me there is a preliminary step to the ones you listed, and that has to do with the Agreement of two minds: the sinner's and God's. One could pray to see the thing from God's perspective, to wait for a heart-change for that, then to offer Confession from what was a rebellious and wayward soul?
But I dunno. I'm no expert in repentance at all. I get/am stuck at Contrition.
I will take a thoroughly secular view.
You've taken a single perspective for your examination. The reality is there are (at least) two: That of the apologing person seeking forgiveness and absolution and that of the victim or offended party.
From the apologizing person you need:
1) Recognition of the wrong committed
2) Public or private admission of the wrong committed and the harm done
3) Regret and a sincere desire that the wrong had not occured
4) A desire to make right the wrong to whatever degree this is possible
5) A commitment to not repeating the wrong nor to similarly wronging others; A sign of having learned a lesson that can be taken forward to avoid future incidents of a similar sort
From the offended party you require:
1) An acceptance of the apology as sincere
2) A willingness and an ability to forgive
3) An agreement that any restitution is appropriate
4) A belief that the wrong will not be repeated and that the offender has learned from the situation
You can confess your wrong, regret it, attempt restitution, and never repeat the wrong, but if your victim has been deeply enough wronged, no absolution nor forgiveness may be forthcoming (a reality one must accept if the wrong is grave enough).
The onus does not lie on the offended party to forgive or grant absolution. The wrong may have been sufficient to leave an unbridgeable gap or unreconcilable wound.
I realize that someone has to determine whether the apology is sincere and the restitution adequate; I was looking only at the requirement placed on the one who committed the sin.
I really like your blog Lazerlight. No! I do not think you should be forgiven on the strength of an insincere apology. However who is to determined what is sincere and what is insincere?
There is no point in accepting an apology if you cannot trust that person to never commit the offence again, to you or to anyone else. Often people feel their apologies are sincere however do they really know the error of their ways or how severely they have affected their victims. Without true knowledge and understanding of this I find it hard to see any apology as sincere.
I also really enjoyed reading the comments from 'Availeth'regarding the story of Esau. As long as it was I am glad you took the time out to give such a detailed and thorough response I have truly learnt something from reading your comments and would be grateful if you had any advice for me. My blog link is http://nomorehomelessness.blogspot.com/ please check it out.
God Bless to you Lazerlight and to you Availeth.x
Post a Comment