Inkwell: Authors and Artists

    
Posting this here for people who don't have accounts on the well.

I have a couple of serious theological questions about apologies,
forgiveness, and Christianity that I am going to take to our local
Christian conference, <cross>.  I'm an atheist but have many Christian
friends, this idea that some things cannot be forgiven is an
interesting theological question, at least for me.

If you're the sort of person who finds this sort of discussion -- not
a yelling/screaming argument -- interesting, you might like joining
the well.
  

    
<cross> is a user. <cross.> is the conference.
  

    
[We also are a place that helps each other get things right!]
  

    
I agree that people are not fixed in stone. People change, ideally in
good ways. Sometimes people change deliberately, and sometimes in
response to events but without planning it that way. SOme people get
wiser with passing time, and some alas do not.

Same with relationships.
  

    
I recently had trouble with a long time close friend. After the
event, the next time we talked, I started with an apology to her.
I’ve learned the power of this through my involvement in AA. But she
didn’t apologize to me. The other day, I received a potted amaryllis
from her. I understand that she can’t say the words and this is her
way of apologizing. 
  

    
Not to diminish the importance and power of a sincere apology, but
there are times, circumstances and offenses for which an apology,
regardless of how fervently and expertly expressed, is simply an
inadequate remedy. I think broken promises fall into this category,
for which the only meaningful atonement is the prompt fulfillment
thereof. Thoughts? Can an effective amends consist solely of actions
rather than words?
  

    
If that's all they can do it's all they can do. Best to move on
while setting an appropriate boundary.
  

    
>>The other day, I received a potted amaryllis from her. I
understand that she can’t say the words and this is her way of
apologizing.

The potted amaryllis was in fact step 7, but was removed in the
final edit.

Jet, I love that you want to look at this in a theological light,
and would love even more your pursuing it as part of this
conversation. As you like, of course.

>>I think broken promises fall into this category, for which the
only meaningful atonement is the prompt fulfillment thereof.
Thoughts? Can an effective amends consist solely of actions rather
than words?<<

The words that stand out for me here are "meaningful" and
"atonement".  Atonement is accounted for in step 6: "Make
reparations, if that's possible." <axon>, to throw a f'rinstance at
you: can you see yourself accepting an apology and moving on if
there's no practical way to go back and fulfill the promise? 

Ren's mention of the 12 steps touches on something in the book, too,
which our two lovely authoresses can tackle. 

And finally, to touch on <ari>'s post - please go into the concept
of "hand", of power in the apologizer/apologizee partnership. A true
apology means accepting at least temporarily a subordinate position.
  

    
we can silently call all the people in our lives who can't or won't
apologize, but who take pains to be nice or generous after they
behave badly, amaryllises. 

we talk a bit in the book about atonement & forgiveness in different
faith traditions, but that's not our emphasis. Everett Worthington
is a clinical psychologist who has written several books about these
topics from a Christian perspective, and Rabbi Danya Ruttenberg (aka
The Twitter Rabbi) has a new book called On Repentance and Repair,
which addresses them from a Jewish perspective. 
  

    
I once had a boyfriend who was a total amaryllis. Once we had a bad
fight, and he just couldn't/wouldn't say he'd done anything wrong.
I was upset, in tears. Finally he started duck-walking around the
room with a lampshade on his head.

I could see he wanted to make me feel better. I dropped the subject.

We were very young.

No, reader, I did not marry him.
  

    
The Ruttenberg book is quite worth reading if you are interested in
atonement from a Jewish perspective. 
  

    
>can you see yourself accepting an apology and moving on

Oh, sure. I don't have any unresolved beefs. I'm naturally a
forgiver. But I've observed this tendency in others. 
  

    
Ha ha Sumac, I think it’s a good rule of thumb never to marry anyone
who duck walks with a lampshade on their head for any reason
  

    
Now see, I would call that a plus.

For which I will not apologize.
  

    
Could you talk a little bit about forgiveness?  It seems to me to be
apology-adjacent but neither necessary nor, arguably, the point of
apologizing.

I have from time to time explained forgiveness as not necessarily
condoning whatever was the wrong done, and not requiring that the
wrong no longer have impact, but recognizing that it's no longer
about me; I experience the event as about the person who did it.
  

    
I think we have a whole new taxonomy going on here. You got your
lampshades. You got your amaryllises. And you got your Sorrywatch
worthy actual apologies. (I suddenly wonder--which is more frequent
out there in the wild--people who do offer actual apologies, or
people who try to skirt by ever having to do that?)

And I'm very interested in hearing more in reply to Paul's
observation above.
  

    
(Thanks for the book suggestions.)
  

    
>which is more frequent
 out there in the wild--people who do offer actual apologies, or
 people who try to skirt by ever having to do that?)

I wish I knew. Alas, if one did a poll, lots of people would claim
they apologize if they're ever wrong, thus putting themselves in the
"offers actual apologies" column, when in fact they never seem to
deem themselves wrong, so they ought to be in the "never apologizes"
column.
  

    
>Could you talk a little bit about forgiveness?  It seems to me to be
 apology-adjacent but neither necessary nor, arguably, the point of
 apologizing.

Agree that it's apology-adjacent. This is the area of our greatest
disagreement with many who've written about apology: we don't consider
it part of the apology process. We're opposed to making it a final
step in an apology. As Marjorie says, if you ask someone to forgive
you, you're asking for a gift, and that's rude. At the most, it may
work to say "I hope you'll eventually be able to forgive me," but you
shouldn't press that.
  

    
>
>I have from time to time explained forgiveness as not necessarily
 condoning whatever was the wrong done, and not requiring that the
 wrong no longer have impact, but recognizing that it's no longer
 about me; I experience the event as about the person who did it.

That's very interesting, Paul. I'm pondering whether I agree (I
suspect I do). Are you able to give an example?
  

    
When you can, do get around to that concept of "hand", which I think
goes a long way to explain why some people have serious trouble with
sincere apologies. 
  

    

wait, hand, what?

angie <coiro>, i think we are in agreement about duck-walking
lampshade-men.

marjorie has a very good point about asking for forgiveness, or even
stick-around-even-though-not-forgiving-yet-or-maybe-ever. that does make
the apology about oneself, asking for something.

i read someplace about a survey or research or poll... in which it turned
out that what people really want from someone who's wronged them is for
that person to hurt. to suffer or sacrifice. to lose something. that turned
out to be the real motivation behind most people's willingness to forgive
and/or move on. if they see the other person suffering a while, then they
may be satisfied. did you guys run into that during your research on the
SorryWatch book?
  

    
Here is an example, real, but scrubbed clean of particulars. Someone
I was in a relationship with betrayed me. Whether they apologized or
not is not relevant to the example. The betrayal hurt a lot. 

At some point I noticed that when I thought about that time in our
lives I saw it as something they did for their own nest of reasons.
Not something they did *to* me, just something they did. 

At that point I could release that person, and, if asked (I wasn’t)
I would have easily been able to forgive them. 
  

    
>if you ask someone to forgive you, you're asking for a gift, and
>that's rude.

Is Jesus offering a gift when he will forgive you of your sins if
you should only ask?  (asks the atheist)
  

    
Paul, that's a great story. Thank you. 

Jet, yes! That is why JESUS is JESUS! He gives huge gifts...up to
and including his own mortal life. 

"hand" is a joke from Seinfeld. in an episode called "The Pez
Dispenser," George Costanza is worried that the woman he’s dating,
Noelle, has more status and dominance in the relationship than he
does. He wails to Jerry, “I’m very uncomfortable! I have no power.
Why should she have the upper hand? Once in my life I would like the
upper hand. I have no hand! No hand at all! She has the hand! I have
no hand!” Because George feels he lacks hand, he doesn’t want to
tell Noelle that his pals' antics with a Pez Dispenser were
responsible for breaking her concentration at her piano recital.
Elaine wants to apologize to Noelle, but George convinces her not
to, because Noelle already has hand. But when Noelle hears Elaine
laugh her giant honking laugh at another event, she recognizes it
from the recital and promptly breaks up with George. He protests,
“But I have hand!” Just before slamming the door, Noelle snaps, “And
you’re gonna need it.” 

I don't know if the writers from Seinfeld knew that George's "hand"
is reminiscent of groundbreaking sociologist Erving Goffman's
"face." We all have constructed a face we show the world; we want to
protect that face. And we worry that apologizing (really,
acknowledging that we've done wrong and OWE an apology in the first
place) will cause a loss of face.