Seven bishops and other Episcopal leaders joined with a number of influential Christian leaders in signing a letter asking Muslims to forgive Christians. The letter with signatures recently appeared as a full-page advertisement in The New York Times.
“Muslims and Christians have not always shaken hands in friendship; their relations have sometimes been tense, even characterized by outright hostility,” the authors said. “Since Jesus Christ says, ”˜First take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye’ (Matthew 7:5), we want to begin by acknowledging that in the past (e.g. in the Crusades) and in the present (e.g. in excesses of the ‘war on terror’) many Christians have been guilty of sinning against our Muslim neighbors. Before we ”˜shake your hand’ in responding to your letter, we ask forgiveness of the All Merciful One and of the Muslim community around the world.”
Last month 138 Muslim scholars, clerics and intellectuals sent a letter titled “A Common Word Between Us,” seeking common ground between the two faiths. The letter was hand delivered to many Christian leaders including Pope Benedict XVI, the Orthodox Church’s Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew 1 and all the other Orthodox patriarchs, and to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the leaders of protestant churches worldwide. Archbishop Rowan Williams has already responded to the letter in a joint communiqué written with several prominent Jewish rabbis.
See essays [url=http://toalltheworld.blogspot.com/2007/12/episcopalians-other-christians-ask.html ]of Dean Munday[/url] and [url=http://phibetacons.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTkzNTVlNTU3NWE0NmQ2NmFhOGRlZGQ4N2FhMTRlNzY= ]here[/url]. Hat tip, stand firm. Points out the silliness and hypocrisy. Everybody start holding your breath for muslims to apologize for their terrible, horrific actions at the same time.
First off, kudos to all that worked on this doc & the signers – including Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, Brian McLaren and David Neff (all 4 significant voices in American evangelical leadership).
One year after Pope Benedict XVI made controversial remarks regarding Islam, a group of 138 Muslim leaders representing all the various denominations and traditions of Islam have published a letter to the Christian community called “A Common Word Between You and Us†(www.acommonword.com). This group includes people with different profiles: religious authorities, scholars, intellectuals, media experts, professionals, etc… It also includes people from different schools of mainstream Islam: Sunni (from Salafis to Sufis), Shi’i (J’afari, Ziadi, Isma’ili), and Ibadi. It includes figures from Chad to Uzbekistan, from Indonesia to Mauritania and from Canada to Sudan. Many of the individual signatories guide or influence millions of Muslims and hold positions of religious, social, and political responsibility. The accumulated influence of the signatories is too significant to ignore. The content of the document is powerful in its stunning simplicity. It lifts up two doctrines arguably at the very core of both religions: love of God and love of neighbor.
There is no doubt that this is a remarkable exchange at a critical time in the history of relations between the two religions that together represent 55% of the world’s population. The conversation around shared beliefs needs to replace the name-calling that is becoming too common. We in the West have to give up the idea that all Muslims are represented by the militant fringe of “Islamo-fascists.†Likewise, Muslims need to resist the urge to paint the West with the broad brush of the term “the Great Satan.†In both religions, not only those who think the worst about the other, but also those willing to take violent action toward the other need to be reduced even further than the minorities that they are currently. Both documents agree that “the future of the world depends on peace between Muslims and Christians.†The military force available to nations potentially on opposite sides of a what could amount to a renewal of the Crusades along with the frightening ability of terrorism to act as a catalyst demonstrate the fact that indeed the future of humanity may rest on the ability of all of us to love whatever God we serve will all our hearts and to love our neighbor as ourselves.
This idea of apologizing for other peoples’ actions is truly obnoxious. It’s primary purpose is to elevate the stature of the one “apologizing.” For he by implication says “Applaud my righteousness, for I wouldn’t have done those terrible things.”
carl
exactly, Carl. These hypocrites are not asking forgiveness for something they did, but for something somebody else did. “Dear God thank you that I am not like those other sinners.” How lame!
[blockquote]Episcopal bishops signing the letter include . . . Shannon Johnston, coadjutor of Virginia, David C. Jones, suffragan of Virginia, Peter James Lee of Virginia.[/blockquote]
So perhaps in 900 years, we can expect a letter of apology from their descendants for having hauled the confessing congregations in Virginia into court?
Maybe they should just try living like Christians today?
Forgive me if I refuse to apologise for just wars to recover Christian lands bloodily conquered by the “religion of peace”. The conduct of those involved may not have always been above reproach but neither was that of the Allies during WWII.
Well, I suppose now that Muslim leaders will apologize for the rape and pillage of Constantinople. And in a show of good faith, return that city to those to whom it belongs.
Let’s not take any steps, even token steps, toward furthering the chance for peace between the 2 groups. Is that what I’m hearing?
Shame on those Muslims!!! Taking advantage of babies like that; *they* should apologize!
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas <><
A good first step in promoting understanding between the two faiths.
#3 and #4…. you guys are right on target! Apologizing for other people is always a covert way of self-righteously judging and condeming them (while appearing to be deeply humble).
C.S. Lewis wrote a powerful essay about this called “The Dangers of National Repentance.” It’s amazingly good. Here is an excerpt from it I found on the web:
The Lewis essay is stunningly apt in its entirety to this very public act of “contrition” by these TEC leaders. You can find it in his essay collection GOD IN THE DOCK.
[url=http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2555&var_recherche=crusades]Here[/url] is a response by a [i]very[/i] distinguished scholar of the Crusades to an earlier gesture of penitence:
[blockquote]But should we be apologizing at all? No crusade was actually proclaimed against the Jews, although crusade preaching unleashed feelings that the Church could not control. As far as crusading itself is concerned, most Muslims do not view the crusades, in which they anyway believe they were victorious, in isolation. Islam has been spasmodically in conflict with Christianity since the Muslim conquests of the seventh century, long before the First Crusade, and the crusading movement was a succession of episodes in a continuum of hostility between the two religions. Muslims do not seem to have considered until relatively recently that the crusades stood out in this history; by 1500, indeed, they would have been justified in believing that that particular sequence of wars was ending in their favor. They might have lost Spain, but the Ottoman conquests in Europe had far exceeded anything the crusaders had gained in the East. In the late nineteenth century, however, they began to regard the West’s monopoly of commerce and colonialism as a change of tactics, in which everything the crusaders had lost to them was being more than regained. It follows that apologizing to them now can never, as far as they are concerned, get to the root of the problem, because the crusades are merely symptomatic of a much longer-term competitiveness. It is rather like a marksman aiming at an opponent and, while he fires his rifle, expressing regrets for his ancestor’s use of a bow and arrow.
But for many of the Christian penitents, what the Muslims think is of secondary importance; it is the Church’s subjective act of repentance for past sin that matters. While this kind of self-accusation may make them feel good about themselves, it is possible that, in diverting attention from the real issues, they are doing more harm than good. How useful is it to condemn wars that were supported by great saints like Bernard of Clairvaux, Thomas Aquinas, Bridget of Sweden, Catherine of Siena, John of Capistrano, even possibly Francis of Assisi, however abhorrent the ethical principles on which they were based appear to be to us? Ought we not rather challenge the widespread sentimental and unhistorical assumptions that on the one hand Christianity is an unambiguously pacific religion and on the other that Christian justifications of force have been consistent?[/blockquote]
Christians apologizing to Muslims for the Crusades is like the Allies apologizing to Germany for D-Day. If we are going to coexist with the followers of Satan’s great imposter religion, it should not be on the basis of groveling and indulgence of gaseous white guilt.
For the theological implications of apologizing for the principle of crusading see [url=http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2646&var_recherche=crusades]here[/url]:
[blockquote]The dilemma facing the [Roman Catholic] Church, therefore, is clear. If contrition is to be expressed for the principle of crusading, as opposed to abuses committed during Crusades, either the Church can no longer be regarded as a reliable moral teacher or ethics are relative. Both conclusions are unacceptable, which is why no “apology” for the Crusades will ever be forthcoming[/blockquote]
Insofar as Ezekiel 18:1-18 argues against the idea that we can, should or need to “repent” of actions that took place hundreds of years before we were born, this seems to be nothing more than meaningless moral posturing on that parts of the people who signed this ridiculous letter.
Wanna bet that none of those signing this “apology” were of Armenian linage? Half of all Armenians (one million out of two million) died in less than three years as a direct result of the evil perpetrated against them by the Ottoman Turks during the early 1900’s. The remaining Armenians were driven into exile, generally into the Syrian dessert where they were starved and left homeless.
What is unique in this instance is that the Ottoman Turks [i](known as “The Young Turks”)[/i] were Muslim, while the Armenians were Christians. Unfortunately, the torturous killing of Armenian children with bayonets as a part of a game was one of the more notable activities the “Young Turks” engaged in.
To my understanding, there was never one ounce of remorse on the part of the perpetrators or their ilk, nonetheless a full page ad in newspaper such as the New York Times. Check it all out at: http://www.armenian-genocide.org/genocide.html
By the way, a quick check of the historical accounts over a thousand year span will show this to be rather typical of all of the Islamic conquests. By example, the Christians of Asia Minor were decimated very early on in what can best be described as campaign of “you will convert to Islam or die!”. Today one has only to look at a host of countries around the globe, including Sudan and Northern Nigeria, to see much the same thing going on. Pardon my saying so, but if Christians have been brutal in their conquests and actions (which has occurred), they pale compared to the actions of the Islamic hoards.
It’s like a boxer appologising to his opponent for letting his face get in the way of a knockout blow.
#11 Thanks for the quotation!
Who cares if they don’t apologize? And who cares if they were more violent than we? Since when is repentence qualified by such concerns. This group of Muslims has reached out to us. It is entirely appropriate that we reach back. I for one think repentence for the excesses of wrong of past generations is entirely appropriate for the covenant people of God. Scripture is full of references to sin being visited upon future generations, and of Israel’s recounting of their past victories and their past wrongs. What a thoroughly modernist and unbiblical attitude to say we have nothing to do with the sins of the past.
Our sins are not redeemed by the fact that other people sin worse. The Church is not let off the hook by the wrongs of Islam. How childish to say “well, he hit me first.” Muslims started the crusades with their invasions of Palestine, North Africa, and Asia Minor. And the Turks pushed at the gates of Vienna long after the Crusades or even the Spanish Reconquista. And no one would like to see the Hagia Sophia returned to the service of Christ more than I (those plaques are abominable). But we take the moral high-ground in repenting for the excesses of cruelty of our forbears (like slaughtering every last soul in Jerusalem during the 1st Crusade). The remembrance of those cruelties is a stumbling block to many, in both the secular West and the Islamic world. In reaching out we obey Christ’s command to love our enemies and bless those who hate us.
I find it very telling that those who are most adamant about protecting the faith once received want nothing to do with the history of the Church. The true arrogance is not from the people apologizing, but rather from those who refuse to apologize because they did nothing wrong. If you have no connection to your past, then don’t rant about it. The act of apologizing is not done for you – it is done for the person who was wronged. Perhaps you should apologize for your lack of humility. Pride is, after all, a deadly sin. Or doesn’t that apply to you because that decision was made in the past. Hypocrites indeed.
I can certainly understand the desire to engage in a conversation to ratchet back down the tension between Christians and Muslims. An appeal to Muslim moderates may bring some good conversation and good will, and I would hope some backing off on the part of Muslim partisans. Better for us to have open hearts toward Muslims, and an attitude of seeking understanding and peace than to meet every Muslim with suspicion and doubt.
That being said, however, I do not think that any “I am sorry for what my ancestors did” apology really gets any traction moving towards peace. CS Lewis is correct about “National Repentance;” those repenting are patting themselves on the back.
On the other hand, when the situation is such that the people of the present benefit from sinful or oppressive acts of the past, there may be (I emphasize “may”) some way to take some of today’s benefits and apply them to those who suffered loss to bring those benefits to those who enjoy them. The Brown family of Providence, RI, were slave traders; Brown University was built on the proceeds of slavery. I can see where an effort to benefit the descendants of those slaves would be a way to ameliorate, to some degree, the horrors of slavery. Of course, settling that in a sane way is a very difficult process.
Christian-Muslim relations are a complicated thing. Each of us has grievously attacked the other. I suspect that, if we could examine the historic record objectively, we would find that Muslims have injured Christians more than the other way around, although perhaps not as spectacularly as the Crusades.
We may reach out to moderate Muslims with some success — but good relations with them will not be worth much, since so many Muslims are radically and passionately opposed to Christianity. The recent event of the British school teacher who named a teddy bear “Muhammad” and who was almost imprisoned or beaten because of it shows how little sanity there can be among Muslims. There seem to be very few Muslims who will think and not simply react passionately without examining the whole of the situation first.
The more I know about the teachings of Islam the more I am convinced that it is Satan’s counterattack to Christianity. It seeks to “respect” Jesus while denying the core of his work as Savior and Lord — he is, in the eyes of Islam, simply a great man, second only to Muhammad; he is not the pre-existent Son of God who was the savior for all who will repent and trust in him.
It is a good thing to reach out — but there is the danger that one may feel self-righteous for having made the effort, and the further danger that the Muslim recipient of such an overture will use it to prepare to sucker punch us, or that we will get along great with moderate Muslims, who have no power to influence the conservative, jihadistic Muslims. Islam has no “pope,” and it is broken up into vast, often quarreling groups. I doubt that this letter of apology will get anywhere the needed positive response to scale back the tension.
Brian,
It’s not that we are not interested in the HISTORY of the church, we just don’t like it when History is revised into something it never was. (You know, sort of like TEC is doing with Christian theology.) Driver puts out a good quote above to illustrate what I mean. Let’s stick with the facts of history, not the feelings of historians.
#19 repentance demands some honest acknowledgement of wrong done so being careful with the past is essential is for real repentance.
I am unclear if facts about the past actually matter much either in your comment or in the letter we are discussing but for what it is worth, it is not true that every person in Jerusalem was killed when it was taken in 1099:
[blockquote]It has often been said that crusaders tended to behave particularly badly once they were in the field. That they could be undisciplined and capable of acts of great cruelty cannot be denied. The question, however, is whether the form of war in which they were engaged was a peculiarly horrible one. Recent work on the sack of Jerusalem in July 1099, one of the most notorious incidents and the one commemorated by those repentant modern Christians, is leading some historians to look at the evidence again. We know it to be a myth that the crusaders targeted the Jewish community in Jerusalem. We also know that the figure for the Muslim dead, which used to range from ten to seventy thousand on the basis of accounts written long after the event, ought to be revised downward. A contemporary Muslim source has been discovered that puts the number at three thousand. Three thousand men and women is still a lot of people, of course, but it is low enough to make one wonder why the Western eyewitnesses, who gloried in generalized descriptions of slaughter, felt the need to portray a bloodbath.[/blockquote]
#20 On the contrary I have provided two reflections on such apologies written by a leading historian of the crusades. You might read them and then decide if criticism of such gestures is always allied to lack of historical awareness.
#19… Thanks! That was very thoughtful.
I’m still not sure how saying you are sorry for something someone else did can be other than a kind of judgment and condemnation. You DIDN’T do the “bad thing” in question — so your apology can only be you covertly declaring that the person who did was bad and you are (in this sense) not bad (you by contrast are the deeply sensitive person distressed by his badness).
I think if someone is going to criticize someone or something (the Crusades, the war in Iraq) he should be open and upfront about it — not hide it under something else. I think the act of contrition is sacred and should be used only when a person is deeply sorry for something he is or has done.
You raise an interesting point though. Which is (if I understand you aright) that in practice when you are trying to repair a relationship — say you have had a big fight with your wife — the best thing to do is to say you are really sorry REGARDLESS (even if you don’t believe you were guilty of doing something bad). You do it not to declare guilt but just because you want reconciliation so much more; it’s a kind of minor dishonesty but one grounded in love.
Hmmmm…. I’ll need to think about that. Maybe that does apply in this case. I promise to think about it.
At first glance though I do have some doubts whether it does apply. That’s one of the the points in post #12. (See his telling metaphor about riflemen and bows and arrows.) I have some skepticism that the current hatred of the West is the result of hurt feelings over something that happened almost 1000 years ago — it has to do with other stuff I think.
That observation has been made by many other people too.
I guess if I were writing it I would have avoided the implicitly accusing apology (aimed at people of the past and at George Bush) and simply said that much of our past and recent history (Muslims and Christians) has been violent and we as Christians join with the Muslim clerics in sorrowing over that and wanting that to change. Sorrow doesn’t point a figure at anyone past or present and say that the person is a bad man.
PS. I do agree with you that Christians responding to the letter by the 138 Muslims is important and that we should seize the opportunity to tell them that we WAY agree with them about their idea of tolerance and so on. My problem was just with misusing the office of an apology to condemn others. The idea is really that of C.S. Lewis. Read his eassay if you can — it’s quite powerful.
Driver, I had not read that. Historical accuracy [i]is[/i] very important to me. I’ll check Dr. Riley-Smith’s published work to see what his source is on that. My field is primarily the 19th century, but I should be careful to check any statements against the current scholarship. I only know what I had read in the past.
It would be very helpful if the moderate Muslims who have extended greetings to Christians would be so good as to stop the current slaughter of Christians in countries dominated by Muslims, thinking of the killing of schoolgirls in Indonesia, the torture and slaughter of a young father who owned a Christian bookstore in the Gaza strip, the kidnapping and killing of Orthodox clerics in Iraq and Turkey and elsewhere, opening fire on Christians in churches, the slaughter of the White Fathers in Africa and various convents of nuns as well, etc. etc… Voice of the Martyrs can supply a huge list of current Christian martyrs, dispatched by current Muslims.
Brian, # 20:
“The act of apologizing is not done for you – it is done for the person who was wronged.”
Not sure that is a correct view of the virtue of apology. If I pay Brian’s just debts to his creditors, have I done that out of a since that they were entitled to it even if I didn’t owe it? What if Brian thinks he never owed it but I did think he owed it? Hmmmm, Jesus paid my debt, no doubt I owed it (I deserve death), but, none-the-less, His payment is in vain, is it not, if I don’t repent? No, I think the act of apologizing is for me.
In # 20, Brian from T19 writes:[blockquote] The true arrogance is … from those who refuse to apologize because they did nothing wrong…. The act of apologizing is not done for you – it is done for the person who was wronged. [/blockquote]
On behalf of everyone who has read his comment, I’d like to apologize for his stupidity.
You’re right… I do feel so much better. And I’m sure everyone here whom you wronged feels better as well.
😉
Note – while I was kidding around and like Brian, I don’t like seeing the “S” word — please delete.
And will someone please apologize for me?
The apology is not an apology at all, for the speakers lack the authority to issue an apology. Why does one ever apologize? The only answer is that one has undertaken acts which are in some sense wrong and the speaker has become aware of his error or that one has been an agent in such acts. The actor and any such agents alone then have the power to apologize, for the proper response to a sincere apology is that one is or is not forgiven, and this justice cannot be rendered to those who have not been been participants. The apologies above are therefore mere posturing, an attempt to increase the rewards of the vanity of humility. LM
I don’t see how we can repent of or apologize for what previous generations of Christians did–especially since a good case can be made that they did the right thing as a matter of self-defense and a seeking to right a wrong (the Moslem conquest of Christian lands by sword and fire).
However, I would use the word “regret.” We regret that such wars occurred and now we must work together to find ways to prevent such wars (of conquest or defense) from happening again.
Jihadists will see this as a sign of weakness and will hate Christians even more for being weak.
[#20] Brian from T19 wrote
[blockquote] The true arrogance is not from the people apologizing, but rather from those who refuse to apologize because they did nothing wrong. If you have no connection to your past, then don’t rant about it. [/blockquote]
1. I am not Roman Catholic and so I feel neither connection to it, nor ownership of its deeds.
2. These “apologies” have nothing to do eith the past. They are very much issued for reasons having to do with the here and now. For they allow separation to be placed between the “old” religion and the “new” religion – with the bad “old” religion suffering by comparison. It is a cheap way for liberals to delegitimize their orthodox opposition.
carl
“Why does one ever apologize? The only answer is that one has undertaken acts which are in some sense wrong and the speaker has become aware of his error or that one has been an agent in such acts” —Larry Morse
If one of my siblings were (without my participation, knowledge, or other culpability) to kill every living member of your family, I would apologize to you even though I was not personally at fault. Most people would do the same. I would not ask your forgiveness but I would say I was sorry.
Think about it. Most decent people in that position would say something like, “I am terribly sorry my brother did that.” Unless they wanted to heighten your pain, they would NOT say, “I’m sorry to HEAR that my brother did that”—as though it were just another piece of bad news.
Are we going to apologze to the Germans and the Japanese for bombing them?
Since my ancestry contains both Irish and English forebears should I apologize to myself?
#36
Well Chris, a strong expression of regret and remorse to yourself, might go a long way in bridging that divide.
I think that it is unreasonable to expect Christians to feel sympathy for the actions committed by other Christians last millennium, when the world’s Muslims would show a no sympathy for the actions committed by other Muslims last decade.
Frankly, while it would be nice if they liked us, I would settle for them fearing us. Clearly, they don’t.
Muslims should now apologize to the Hindus against whom their ancestors committed great atrocities. The Japanese should now apologize to the Chinese against whom their ancestors committed great atrocities. It isn’t going to happen. (Sometimes liberals are just silly.)
#35 Irene,
Your last paragraph gets at a subtlety of English. The word ‘apologize’ can have shades of meaning from ‘deep repentance all the way to simple ‘remorse.’ The former implying an amended life, the later a measure of sympathy. (And don’t even get into the rhetorical/theological meanings.) To say one is ‘sorry’ also carries many shades of similar meaning. I am both sorry for my sins (deep repentance) and sorry that Sean Taylor was murdered (true sympathy). The former I own as my own failure, the later is somebody else’s fault.
libraryjim and driver8
I am not saying that there is no historical awareness, my problem is with not acknowledging history. Too often we see people steep themselves in justifications (they were worse than us, they deserved it). The fact is that people were killed. That’s bad. The justification is irrelevant. Jeffersonian above implies that the Allies should not apologize for D-Day. I say they should. This bloodlust in whomever’s name is simply not acceptable. This is not a question of affirmative action-it is an apology for taking lives.
The apology is not an apology at all, for the speakers lack the authority to issue an apology.
That is an ethical question whose answer id far from clear. For differing views, read Simon Wiesenthal’s The Sunflower,/i>
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9780805210606&itm=6
1. I am not Roman Catholic and so I feel neither connection to it, nor ownership of its deeds.
Then you have no connection to Jesus or His deeds. Good for you.
2. These “apologies†have nothing to do eith the past. They are very much issued for reasons having to do with the here and now. For they allow separation to be placed between the “old†religion and the “new†religion – with the bad “old†religion suffering by comparison. It is a cheap way for liberals to delegitimize their orthodox opposition.
No, they allow for correction, for healing and for growth. But those are things sought by followers of Jesus, Carl, so you are not really expected to be connected to that.
[blockquote]Jeffersonian above implies that the Allies should not apologize for D-Day. I say they should.[/blockquote]
So if we repent of D-Day and the liberation of Europe that followed, doesn’t it follow that we should then foreswear any future such action as improper? It would seem that, in your perfect world, one must never resist evil lest one get one’s hands dirty.
Brian
[blockquote] [T]hey allow for correction, for healing and for growth.[/blockquote]
Those who require correction are dead. Those who require ‘healing’ (as you put it) are dead. Those who desire “growth” are the very ones issuing the apology, and it is self-evident that the growth they have in view is not their own . They have “grown” quite nicely, thank you, and give evidence to this fact by bringing forth such a very enlightened “apology.” But perhaps it might inspire others to “grow” in a similar manner? Yes, that is the ticket.
In the meantime, the people who receive the apology kill those Muslims who convert. How nice that you should overlook this inconvenient fact for the sake of “healing” and “correcting” those long since dead. Oh, and of course, that such as I might “grow” in the here and now. Thanks.
carl
So if we repent of D-Day and the liberation of Europe that followed, doesn’t it follow that we should then foreswear any future such action as improper? It would seem that, in your perfect world, one must never resist evil lest one get one’s hands dirty.
My language was not precise enough. We should not repent for the necessity of killing, but for the fact. Yes, we can’t live in a happy pacifist world. Sometimes war and killing are necessary to stop great evil. But they are still war and killing. I have a friend who is in Special Forces. He has had to assassinate several enemies in order to protect the United States. He has killed people while looking them point blank in the face. I asked him if he evr is bothered by having to kill. He said “No. It has to be done. But after every operation I get down on my knees and ask God for forgiveness for taking a life.” That’s what it is all about.
In the meantime, the people who receive the apology kill those Muslims who convert. How nice that you should overlook this inconvenient fact for the sake of “healing†and “correcting†those long since dead.
I can only be responsible for my own actions.
Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?”
Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.
“Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand talents[g] was brought to him. Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.
“The servant fell on his knees before him. ‘Be patient with me,’ he begged, ‘and I will pay back everything.’ The servant’s master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.
“But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii. He grabbed him and began to choke him. ‘Pay back what you owe me!’ he demanded.
“His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.’
“But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. When the other servants saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed and went and told their master everything that had happened.
“Then the master called the servant in. ‘You wicked servant,’ he said, ‘I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. Shouldn’t you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?’ In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.
“This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart.”
[blockquote]The justification is irrelevant[/blockquote]
On the contrary, in war as in all ethics, the justification is [i]everything[/i].
[blockqutote]I can only be responsible for my own actions.[/blockquote]
…and you can’t repent of that for which you are not responsible.
[blockquote] I can only be responsible for my own actions. [/blockquote]
Exactly, Brian. You have discerned the truth. But if you are responsible only for your own actions, then you can apologize only for your own actions. You cannot correct, or heal, or anything else by apologizing for actions for which you are not responsible. Thank you for making my case so succinctly.
Those who sinned are dead. Those who were sinned against are dead. There is no one to correct. There is no one to heal. There is no one alive who is responsible for these actions. What then is the purpose of this apology – other than the obvious purpose which I already stated?
carl
[blockquote] My language was not precise enough. We should not repent for the necessity of killing, but for the fact. Yes, we can’t live in a happy pacifist world. Sometimes war and killing are necessary to stop great evil. But they are still war and killing. [/blockquote]
Btw, Brian.
Any other differences we might have aside, I greatly appreciated this clarification. My father was almost killed in France in August 1944. I don’t agree with the exact sentiment you expressed, but I understand your point. Originally, I didn’t. I wrote, thought the better of, and deleted a rather scathing reply – and at the moment I am glad that I did delete it. That in itself is a lesson. 🙂
carl
The Church and the State were much more intertwined in the past. Those who signed this letter and those defending them are thinking anachronistically. For example, the secular government of Hungary could not have defended itself from the atrocities perpetrated on Budapest by the “saracens.” Secular and religious power were one and the same.
I have no problem expressing regret (sincere regret, not TEC style “regret” as in saying I regret you got your knickers in a knot over my canonicaly correct ratified by vote heretical innovation) for the excesses of the Crusaders and the unnecessary suffering they caused over the amount needed to repel the Muslim attacks and attempted genocide of Europe. But to ask forgiveness of “the All Merciful One” is blasphemy, bluntly and clearly. The Pharisees rightly said only God can forgive sins. To clear up their confusion about Him, Jesus said to the paralytic, “My son, your sins are forgiven.”, whereupon he picked up his mat and walked home, affirming Jesus’ true status. I will [b][i]NEVER[/b][/i] ask forgiveness [i]for sin[/i] of one who is not God, let alone the imaginary and cruel god fabricated by Mohammed. Blunt? Harsh? Too bad. Why, it’s as though we would accuse Muslims of being so harsh, brutal and unforgiving as to riot in the streets demanding blood be spilled over a teddy bear! Imagine!…
Brian, your illustration about the special forces friend vitiates your argument. He was asking GOD for forgiveness, not his victims.
Furthermore, your clarification of an apology for Normandy sounds nothing like this apology for the Crusades. To say a bad thing needed to happen, but it was still bad, is hardly what many would call an apology. “I’m sorry that I had to kill you” does indeed imply sorrow, but not regret or remorse. I dardly think the muslims who are so bent out of shape over our failed attempt to liberate the Holy Land from them would be appeased by our saying, “We’re so sorry that your agression made us fight back against you”.
Maybe it’s just me, but even I’d be pissed off receiving that kind of apology.
Brian #45
If your friend is really SF, it would suprise me greatly that he would discuss missions with you. Just ain’t done.
Rob, US Army Retired
Irenaeus, I take you point, and yet I would make this point, that as an intrinsic part of the family that committed the crime, you share in its guilt because you share its responsibility. But your apology is weak even if heartfelt, because your connection to the crime is tenuous.
The criminal and his agents alone have the authority to apologize, for an apology is always an admission and acceptance of wrongdoing, and is not be any means necessarily a request for forgiveness. LM
[blockquote]I have a friend who is in Special Forces. He has had to assassinate several enemies in order to protect the United States. He has killed people while looking them point blank in the face. I asked him if he evr is bothered by having to kill. He said “No. It has to be done. But after every operation I get down on my knees and ask God for forgiveness for taking a life.†That’s what it is all about. [/blockquote]
If the signers of this risible document had been the actual Crusaders and they had begged forgiveness of God for having done the necessary, but horrible act of killing, your analogy would apply. But they weren’t, and their pleas for forgiveness implied error on the part of the Crusaders.
Larry: If my sibling committed mass murder and I did not incite him, assist him, otherwise contribute to his crime, or even suspect that he would do such a thing, I would not bear personal moral responsibility for his crime. But under such circumstances I could and would apologize for myself even though I could not apologize on my sibling’s behalf.
Rev. K [#35] makes good points about the range of meanings in the word apology.
As for apologizing for the deeds of my distant forbears, consider this thought (previously posted on Stand Firm):
Insofar as we reap the benefits of our predecessors’ misconduct, we cannot as Christians remain indifferent to the consequences of that misconduct. We may or may not be called do something about it, but we can be flippant about evil only at our own spiritual peril. Our American forbears committed monstrous injustices in taking land from American Indians and relegating most Indians to barren leftovers of land that no one else would want. Whatever we are or are not called to do, we do not the moral liberty to tell destitute Indians that they simply need to get on with their lives.
As I have written, I believe that in some circumstances you can apologize even when as an individual you do not and need not ask for forgiveness.
Nonetheless, the issues here have some parallel’s in Simon Wiesenthal’s famous question about how he should have replied when (while a Jewish prisoner in a concentration camp) a dying German asked his forgiveness for the Holocaust. Wiesenthal said nothing. I would have answered that I could not not offer forgiveness on behalf of millions of other victims but would forgive the wrongs done to me, including any part he may have played as part of the system that inflicted those wrongs.
Most of my opinions on the situation of ‘apologizing’ to the muslims have already been expressed (i.e., I, too, feel it a meaningless, misguided gesture), but …
In the case of the injustices done to the American Indian Nations, we can and must still insist that justice be done to those who are still on ‘reservations’ and try to rectify those injustices of the past.
Clearly the situation and the attitudes have changed and something viable in the present needs to be done. (Just what I have no idea!)
When I was in Wyoming, I was shocked that the Sioux were treated by the ‘whites’ as inferior, and the prejudice I saw exhibited was just mind-boggling. I read a report that the “Indian Affairs Agent” under Jimmy Carter (I think) was just a bad as the ‘indian agents’ of Custer’s time. We need a civil rights movement here!