We all know that proverb is more than a little “off.” I say “I’m sorry” more often now than ever in my life, I think. And I have my 4.5-year-old to remind me when an apology is needed. “Mommy, you yelled at Sugar, my dog. You need to say ‘I’m sorry.’”
I really don’t understand the reluctance to apologize. In Christ, it really seems to me that apologies are a win-win situation, reminding all of us that we fail but in Christ we are made whole. Maybe we women–the more social and more relationship-focused creatures–have an easier time apologizing than our counterparts.
Evidence has come to light in the last few weeks convincing me that my alma mater and my former employee, Bob Jones University, needs to clarify, apologize, and reconcile their past racist policies. As a believer, I’m surprised at the resistance. As a historian and rhetorical critic of the organization, I’m not that surprised at all.
Nonetheless, check out the new site and pass it along to any BJU grads or former students you may know at Please Reconcile. For the sake of the Gospel and the Body as a whole, reconciliation is necessary, I believe.
May 13, 2008 at 10:53 pm
There’s a balance to this. While the example you gave is one I would agree where a statement should be in order, it is well known that abuse victims tend to apologize and take the fall for everything.
Some need to learn to say sorry, and some need to learn to stop saying sorry so much.
May 14, 2008 at 9:51 pm
In my family of origin, apologies were endless. I mean, we apologized to the tune of abject humility with the whole 13 step (exaggeration intended) confess, repent, ask, forgiveness granted ordeal. Honestly, it was a bit much. You dread apologizing because is wasn’t a means of freeing your conscience, it was a burden you were forced to pick up while the person granting forgiveness got to sit smugly in their moral superiority. Not exactly conducive to familial harmony.
My husband’s family on the other hand, well, I would watch big time confrontations be glossed over, never to be mentioned again. It would just be a silent “I guess we’ll just have to disagree and forget it because when all’s said and done I love you more than I care about whatever issue it was”. Big time sins were never mentioned again, but then they didn’t really need to be because they were really never repeated. But then again, there are also many instances of little offenses clarified and forgiveness asked so that it doesn’t bother a person’s conscience anymore.
And while there are a lot of other factor’s to consider, on the whole, I would have to say that my husband’s family really has a higher rate of satisfaction in familial relationships.
As a wife and parent, I’m having a harder time apologizing than I thought I would. I’m not sure how much of that is a result of my personality or the connotations attached to it from my formative years. But then, I don’t think I have that many opportunities to do so; I’m not as prone to the “fly off the handle” type offenses. My husband on the other hand, can apologize without much anguish and move on, though I do wonder if what can possibly turn into an “easy fix” makes it easier to commit the offense in the first place.
Public recantations and apologies I think are a bit harder to come by. I do pray that BJU does the right thing and is able to provide people with an elevated perception and esteem for the Gospel and the college.
May 15, 2008 at 11:41 am
Sorry seems to be the hardest word. (I think that is the line of a song. Can’t say which one!)
When you love people you say sorry more than ever!
I’m with you, Alisa. Saying sorry to my husband and kids is harder than I thought, but I want to keep it up.
Many times we can’t guarantee we’ll never do something again, but I think that apologizing and really repenting from what you’ve done, as opposed to apologizing even when you don’t think you’ve made a mistake, or when you are justifying yourself for half an hour before apologizing, is a huge step in the right direction.
For example, there’s a difference between showing contempt towards one of your children and losing your temper. Showing contempt is a sign of lack of respect. A person can consciously work on their respect towards someone else. Getting wound up and yelling is a harder one to deal with, because a lot of things can make us get all wound up.
that doesn’t justify the action, by the way. But you can be truly sorry and still not be able to guarantee it won’t happen again.
May 16, 2008 at 12:07 am
Camille,
I am so proud of all those who came forward and signed their names to this document. As a parent who sent children to BJU, I have also found myself in the awkward position of defending the school and since I am a Yankee and have never understood their original teachings, I have had a hard time explaining anything,including the changes. Thanks to you and everyone else who is taking on this challenge. May the Lord bless your efforts.
May 19, 2008 at 4:13 am
Repentance is so powerful. . . It reminds us (and the world around us) of our desperate need for Christ.
At the foot of the cross we see starkly how we are all equal. Equal in need for Christ, equal in how undeserving we are of His grace.
May 20, 2008 at 3:20 pm
This topic hits one of my personal pet peeves. I think “apologies” are over-rated, mainly because we don’t understand the etymology of the word. For the most part, apologies are demanded by the “victims” in order to humiliate the perpetrator of the perceived slight or offense. TulipGirl’s use of the term repentance gets more to the actual need that we have. We should repent of any evil we have committed, whether by commission or omission.
An apology was originally a defense of one’s action. So when asked to give an apology the person would respond with, “I did this because…” and then would lay out the facts. If they had nothing to present that justified their actions, they responded with, “I’m sorry that I did this,” meaning that they recognized their error and repented of their deed. This isn’t even close to the way we define an apology today.
So then, what about BJU? My question is how would this desired “apology” help? It would not undo what was done. An official statement of repentance might be somewhat helpful, although Bob Jones University has already done this in action if not in an official statement.
I personally would not encourage BJU to apologize. I suspect that those who originally launched this idea have personal animosity toward BJU and want to see the University humiliated in the public eye-which already happened when the whole racial dating thing came out.
May 20, 2008 at 3:30 pm
“I suspect that those who originally launched this idea have personal animosity toward BJU and want to see the University humiliated in the public eye-which already happened when the whole racial dating thing came out.”
I didn’t launch the idea, but that sounds good to me — it wouldn’t hurt my feelings if they shut the place down completely, though others might feel differently.
IMO, anything which promotes and teaches racism while portraying itself as Christian deserves to be exposed and humiliated, and when that happens,as it did to BJU, if they do NOT repent publicly and admit that they were wrong, it’s a good bet that they still think that they were right.
May 20, 2008 at 3:41 pm
“anything which promotes and teaches racism while portraying itself as Christian deserves to be exposed and humiliated”
Yes, I agree. I don’t really like the way you’ve put “victims” in inverted commas Richard, as though people aren’t genuinely hurt by racist policies.
“Humiliate” is a relative term. If we are talking about meanings of words, I would say that an institution which believed in racist segregation NEEDED some humility. Humility is not a bad thing. There are sadly many people out there who could stand to learn that the colour of one’s skin does not set one apart.
May 20, 2008 at 5:57 pm
I think we are probably on the same side of the racism issue. As the father of a black child, I have seen racism up close and it is an ugly thing – especially within the walls of Christianity.
On another front, I am not fond of BJU. I reject strongly some of their theological stances, their moralistic attitudes, and their fundamentalist stanglehold over their students and faculty.
Be that as it may – they were following published policy in that case and they were following and enforcing the desires of one of the student’s parents. They enforced the parental consent dating policy in a single-sided way though, which bought their activity the false accusation of racism. I repeat: the FALSE accusation of racism.
A common theme among Christians is going off half-cocked, not knowing the full story. That is the case here. I’d recommend doing some research into the situation rather than listening to what the media reported 10 years ago. Bob Jones decried racism at the time. They explained why they had taken the course of action they did. They said that they thought it was probably not the best way to handle it and that they would not likely do it again in the future but that they still retained the right to set the rules of the University rather than to bow to the whims of the non-believing public. I whole-heartedly agree with them on that point. And while I would never send a child of mine to that school, it is their school and they can set any policy they want. Racist policy would be wrong and anti-Christian and would be a good reason to reject the school. It doesn’t appear to me that their policy was racist, although it sure looked that way in this instance. But the policy that prompted their action in this was a policy of making the kids seek parental approval for their dates. That’s not called racism.
May 20, 2008 at 6:05 pm
have you been to the website, Richard?
http://www.please-reconcile.org
May 20, 2008 at 6:15 pm
From the web site: We are troubled, though, by certain aspects of the school’s reputation regarding its attitude toward the topic of racial discrimination. The school is widely known as segregationist, bigoted, and racist.
The school’s reputation is a result of incorrect media reportage. What the school is known for is of no import to the actual truth.
Same paragraph continues: Some of us were not aware of this reputation while we attended the university and were baffled when we encountered negative perceptions from others after we graduated. Our ignorance may be to the University’s credit, since it suggests that the actual practices of the University have improved beyond the older perceptions that persist in the world at large.
It doesn’t suggest anything of the sort. It suggests that those who know nothing about the institution have less of an understanding of the institution than those who actually have a relationship with it.
No, I didn’t read the web site any further. Squishy post modern touchy-feely thinking doesn’t sit well with me. If you think the ongoing discussion that site will improve my opinion, I’ll give it another look.
May 20, 2008 at 6:20 pm
The founder of BJU, Bob Jones Sr., was a segregationist and a racist, and in a 1960 radio address, Jones declared that God had been the author of segregation and that opposition to segregation was opposition to God. He accepted contributions for his evangelistic campaigns from the Ku Klux Klan, and supported members of the Klan for political office.
From wikipedia:
BJU refused to enroll black students until 1971…. From 1971 to 1975, BJU admitted only married blacks, although the Internal Revenue Service had already determined in 1970 that “private schools with racially discriminatory admissions policies” were not entitled to federal tax exemption. Late in 1971, BJU filed suit to prevent the IRS from taking its tax exemption, but in 1974, in Bob Jones University v. Simon, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the University did not have standing to sue until the IRS actually assessed taxes. Four months later, on May 29, 1975, the University Board of Trustees authorized a change in policy to admit “students of any race,” a move that occurred shortly before the announcement of the Supreme Court decision….which prohibited racial exclusion in private schools.
“In May 1975, as it prepared to allow unmarried blacks to enroll, BJU adopted more detailed rules prohibiting interracial dating and marriage—threatening expulsion for any student who dated or married interracially, who advocated interracial marriage, who was “affiliated with any group or organization which holds as one of its goals or advocates interracial marriage,” or “who espouse, promote, or encourage others to violate the University’s dating rules and regulations.”
In a 2000 interview, the then-president, Bob Jones III, said that interracial dating had been prohibited since 1950s and that the policy had originated in a complaint by parents of a male Asian student who believed that their son had “nearly married” a white girl.
Frankly, Richard, I’d say that Bob Jones III was LYING about those policies.
Shame on him and on BJU.
May 20, 2008 at 7:26 pm
“If you think the ongoing discussion that site will improve my opinion, I’ll give it another look.”
I think you should, Richard, because I don’t think you’ve understood what it said?
“It suggests that those who know nothing about the institution have less of an understanding of the institution than those who actually have a relationship with it.”
I think you must have misread. The people behind that website HAVE a relationship with BJU. They went there. It even says so in the part you’ve quoted! “we attended the university”. And they have a big problem with BJU’s actions (and inaction).
This isn’t outsiders blindly criticising BJU. This is people like Camille, who went to BJU. The very first line of the website states: “We are Bob Jones University alumni and students who care deeply about our alma mater”.
I think, to be honest, that you are prejudging this campaign without looking into it. “Squishy post modern touchy-feely thinking”? You’re letting preexisting prejudices colour your view. You said as much in your first comment. That’s not a very sensible or fair way to approach this.
These are serious accusations. They deserve to be looked at. I wish the BJU alumni the best of success.
May 20, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Cynthia – I agree that BJ Sr. was a racist. That’s one of the many things I have not liked about BJU. And it quite likely means that the school was lying when they defended themselves against these accusations years ago. However, a reiteration of those old statements now could very well be a lie again. I still don’t see how it would accomplish anything.
Repentance is what is needed and repentance is a matter of the heart. Only God can know the truth.
To me it seems very similar to the Patriocentrists trying to force their moral standard on others. Whether or not I agree with them, I cannot condone their attempts to force others to their way of thinking. That is playing the Holy Spirit’s role and we should not attempt that. I didn’t work too well for Satan when he was in heaven and thought he could be God.
Christianity is a heart issue. We cannot force our personal standards on others. Not by the sword, not by boycotts, not by petitions. We must present scriptural arguments, pray, and leave the rest to the Holy Spirit, who alone can change the heart.
Demanding an apology will not prove constructive in any way. It is not biblical and is not an advisable way to handle this.
May 21, 2008 at 1:12 am
I understand your point better now, Richard, and I wholeheartedly agree with you. I don’t view it as a demand; rather, we are attempting to do what you said here:
“present scriptural arguments, pray, and leave the rest to the Holy Spirit, who alone can change the heart.”
We hope that the churches who blindly follow BJ’s lead might re-think their own racist positions–that would be a worthy secondary accomplishment.
May 21, 2008 at 1:51 am
Beth – if that is your intention, then may God bless your efforts. I, too, would like to see racial issues put behind us all and this would be a good start.
May 21, 2008 at 5:32 am
Reading the first section of that transcript with Larry King was enough to convince me; it was sickening, actually.
That was their reasoning??? That “blending” races would speed the “oneness” of the One World Order??? Oh, give me a break…
May 21, 2008 at 1:27 pm
“That was their reasoning??? That “blending” races would speed the “oneness” of the One World Order??? Oh, give me a break…”
You see similar excuses for the continuation of racism throughout the Pat movement. Here is an article I found at the kinist site, SpiritWaterBlood, published by Chalcedon.org and written by Reverend Joseph Morehouse III. If you read through the doublespeak at the article’s end, on page 30-31, you will see that while Rev. Morehouse is apparently all for “spiritual equality”, he is against any actual, practical equality of persons in this world, since in his mind, God created such inequality in the first place:
“First, the humanist goal for
mankind is the establishment
of a harmonious, (utopian),
society based on a commitment
to man’s reason rather than to
the Word of God, hence based
upon an idolatrous principle
of revolt against the Creator
of mankind. The humanist
assumes that American society
is founded on and centered
in the alleged commonness
of man’s reason. Everyone is
reasonable and therefore free
and equal to all other people
on that basis. A person can
be a free individual and at the
same time an equal member
of American society because
everyone without exception
is reasonable, (except Biblebelieving
Christians). Second,
humanistic norms and values
equate freedom, equality and
justice. Equality, along with
fraternity and liberty were
the great watchwords of the
French Revolution of the late
18th Century that sought to
destroy the last remnants of
a Christian moral order in
France and to replace that
order with a humanistic,
anti-christian order. It is this
humanistic idea of equality
and justice that remains the
basis of the appeal of the civil
rights movement,18 the women’s
liberation movement,19 and the homosexual movement.”
“Human
beings are equal in their
relation to God as His creations
subject to His Law, and so we
have dignity as persons. But
human beings are unlike in
their personal individuality and
in their functions and calling
in God’s creation. Nevertheless
individual differences between
individuals and races remain
important on this side of
eternity, since what God has
created differently in this
world cannot be irrelevant or
negligible.”
He also apparently believes that human beings have no intrinsic sense of right and wrong, and that non-Christians are incapable of either conscience or true reason, theefore any moral concepts introduced by nonChristians HAVE to be wrong:
“Without presupposing the
divine authority of the Bible,
the non-Christian has neither
the logical nor the ethical basis
for morality or knowledge.
He has no basis, apart from
Christ and the Bible, to declare
an action or attitude right
or wrong. In fact, he has no
basis for defining problems or
offering solutions and hope to
the crises of our culture. This
means that with reference
to racism, his analysis and
approach will be off mark and
counterproductive.22 Although
unbelievers often condemn
racism, they have no logical or
moral basis to do so.23″
I guess Morehouse forgot that ALL people, saved or not, are made in God’s image and thus are capable of reason and have a sense of right and wrong; it is a humbling fact that unbelievers can sometimes clearly see moral truths that believers obfuscate in their intellectual and spiritual pride and their scrambling to excuse sin.
It is true that 1Cr 2:14 the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned
But much of what we call morality in this world is plain decent behavior, which is apparent to anyone, even nonChristians or little children.
That’s why we have no real excuse for stealing, murder, racism, etc — deep in his heart of hearts, any normal human being, Christian or not, knows that these things are wrong. He has to be taught that sinful things are sometimes OK in various social situations, and figuring out which situations excuse sin and which do not has kept theologians busy for millenia.
Mat 21:31 Whether of them twain did the will of [his] father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.
May 21, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Interesting (and appalling) quotes, Cynthia. Once again it comes down to a balance. The non-believer may not have a basis for determining right from wrong because only an absolute standard of truth can form the basis for such a thing. Non-believers may, however, use the bible as their standard, or they may use other valid moral principles that, while outside the Bible, parallel biblical truths because proper reason has brought the recognition of what is good and right.
The Roman Catholic Church speaks often of “natural law,” the law that scripture says is “written in the heart of man.” These are natural moral inclinations (like recognizing that murder is wrong, recognizing that lying is wrong, recognizing a need for justice). I am not Roman Catholic, but I see this principle clearly in scripture.
When people try to exert power over others, they need to twist and warp that natural moral sense. I think this is the explanaton for the quotes you’ve presented.
May 21, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Oops, the following paragraph should not have been in italics, it was my observation, and not a part of the article:
(He also apparently believes that human beings have no intrinsic sense of right and wrong, and that non-Christians are incapable of either conscience or true reason, theefore any moral concepts introduced by nonChristians HAVE to be wrong:)
May 21, 2008 at 2:54 pm
I agree.
Traditional Christianity has always recognised the existance of “natural law”, though modernday heretics such as Morehouse teach otherwise.
Without “natural law”, any concept of secular law also becomes absurd, since without a conscience an unsaved man is no more accountable for his actions than an animal. Yet, this is not the case — some sort of idea of right and wrong has always existed in ALL human societies, even in thoroughly pagan ones.
As C.S. Lewis observes, “an odd individual may exist “here and there who didn’t
know it, just as you find a few people who are colour-blind or have no ear for tune. But taking the race as a whole,…. the human idea of Decent Behavior is obvious to every one.”
May 21, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Richard wrote: “On another front, I am not fond of BJU. I reject strongly some of their theological stances, their moralistic attitudes, and their fundamentalist stanglehold over their students and faculty.”
But don’t you know, Richard…times are ‘a changing at BJU! (LOL)
They just threw out the part of the dress code that demanded girls wear skirts/dresses to class. So my niece told me. Now I can rest assured that they no longer have a fundamentalist stanglehold over their students, including my niece and likely next year, her next youngest sister!
May 22, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Wow, Liz – that is a HUGE change from when I was in a different fundamentalist college. My college (Baptist Bible College, Clark Summit, PA) was considered way less stringent in their legalistic enforcement of rules than BJU and the girls were required to wear skirts or dresses, the guys were required to wear shirts and ties (oh yeah, pants too – no jeans), and we even were required to wear shoes on the weekends when walking to the swimming pool (a particularly tough requirements for this Virginia boy). I got my first demerit at that school for wearing tennis shoes to the cafeteria on a Saturday evening.
I’m glad to hear the times – they are a-changin’
May 22, 2008 at 2:46 pm
What IS it, exactly, that the fundies have against casual dress?
Growing up Catholic, we always wondered why they were so dressed up, when Jesus preached against fancy “raiment”, etc. People who overdressed were seen as showoffs.
Now that I’m not a Catholic (I’ve been Anglican for nearly 30 years) I still don’t understand it. Surely they realize that to people outside their religious culture, they come across as being either oddballs or elitists?
May 22, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Cynthia – I think the thought process behind it is a good one. They want to present their best to God. I suspect it was a reaction (as is everything in fundamentalism) to the casual attire encouraged by the Jesus People of the 60s – hippies for Jesus. The fundamentalists saw that form of dress in church as being disrespectful and thought it would be better to dress in a way that shows respect, the same way one would dress if visiting the president at the White House.
Of course, in standard Fundamental Baptist style, they demanded that everyone around them pluck out their eyes too … oops, got a little too biblical there. They demanded that everyone else wear what they thought was proper dress and vilified them if they chose to wear something different.
Satan is very good at playing with people’s heads – especially people who think they are religious as they follow Satan down his golden overlaid path to destruction.
May 22, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Cynthia, one of the things that struck me about many of dear niece’s BJU friends is that while they dressed “modestly” as per the code, they were the stereotypical southern belles in that they took hours with the hair and the makeup. A big change for dear niece who came from a country home where girls COULD wear jeans/pants (just not to church) and weren’t supposed to wear makeup or curl their hair.
May 26, 2008 at 2:41 am
bugo of
May 28, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Camille,
I am often horrified at how hard it is for me to apologize to my husband and children. There is this feeling in me that “I am the mother; I am ultimately right even when I am wrong.” But that whole line of thinking has warped so many families I’ve seen who assume that they have some god-given mantle of authority that means they are always right and they should make all the choices for their children (of any age). So I keep struggling, and forcing myself to say “I’m sorry.”
And I’m glad for the petition: even if BJU never changes it helps me understand that you (alums, even profs) weren’t all on the same racist page. I taught Irish Studies for a while and couldn’t believe Bob Sr. and some of the horrible statements he made about Irish Catholics and how willing he was to align himself with Ian Paisley who is a Protestant minister who has made horrible statements and supported terrorist acts against Catholics there. And then, of course, the racist policies and statements that have come to the forefront yet again.
June 5, 2008 at 9:56 pm
I am enjoying your blog and am singing, “AAAAAMEN!” LOL! (((((HUGS))))) samdi
June 14, 2008 at 8:44 am
Yes, go read the website more thoroughly, please! http://www.please-reconcile.org/
Oh, and girls still have to wear skirts to class/on front campus. Times aren’t changing that much.
They’re only newly allowed to wear pants off-campus.
November 13, 2008 at 5:26 pm
[...] True Womanhood [...]