"I'm sorry you felt that way," "I'm sorry if...," "I'm sorry.... But...," "I'm sorry for what happened," "I'm sorry for the miscommunication."
Christians who understand grace live that out with true apologies.
Secular sources even understand what fake and inadequate apologies look like, and that an apology requires sincerity, empathy, restitution, and a promise.
When was the last time you've been discipled within the church about how to apologize and had that publicly modeled?
So many evangelical and Reformed church cultures act as though a true apology is tantamount to apostasy. Many leaders absolutely refuse to truly apologize.
The Christian nonprofit world in so many ways is all about saving face, and to make an apology (whether internally to staff who were wronged) or publicly (when the sin is of public consequence) is always always always avoided like the plague.
Seminaries and Bible colleges likewise choose rather to hunker down and let the dust settle or make things go away quietly, or even rely on their best fans to discredit any attempts to show their wrongdoing, rather than simply say, "We were wrong and we're sorry."
A Christian leader who cannot apologize is not suited for their position of leadership. They are a harm to themselves and those under their care because they choose not to live out the grace they claim to have received. They are ultimately puffed up and full of pride.
Maybe you have never learned how to apologize well before. Now is a good time as ever to learn. Learn to own your mistake as your mistake. Learn to see the pain beyond what was intentioned and see what the impact of your actions were. Learn empathy. Learn humility.
Learn the right vocabulary and pray God grows your heart to go along with those words. Apologize to those who seem "below you" in status or reputation. Apologize publicly when you need to do so. Study the Scriptures and see the general equity of God's guidance for restitution.
And then, continue to teach and model it to others. Show and tell others who don't know and to the next generation.
The church is never promised to be a people without sin in its midst. But, we are called to be those who are set apart in how we address sin & make things right.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A good way to convince people that they need to take what the Bible says seriously is by showing that you take it seriously when it calls you to love your neighbor, pray for your enemies, care for the least of these, bear your cross, bear one another's burdens, and pursue peace.
The "apologetic of action" has always been powerful in the history of the church. Multitudes of people did not come into proximity to the life of the church because they were convinced of some abstract apologetic argument. Rather, it was because Christians were living out
a new ethic from a new kingdom from a God who speaks life through his Word. They saw goodness and blessing pour over from the lives of Christians. "Could Jesus be real?" was not an abstract question, but a question they asked when they saw the poor fed, the wounded healed,
A Christian counseling methodology that only accounts for people as sinners and not also as sinned against is woefully incompetent and deleterious to souls. And yet, the disturbing irony is that such methodologies get the stamp of approval of being "biblical counseling."
Such "biblical counseling" can't be truly biblical with such a deficient view of sin and its effects - we know that the Bible speaks clearly about whole categories of being sinned against, including interpersonal, systemic, and oppressive. And yet, this "biblical counseling"
only deals with everything within the narrow category of sinner - what did you do wrong, what should you repent of, what you can change moving forward.
Such "biblical counseling" also positions itself with a sense of arrogance, as though it has the corner of the market
Here's a good resource on workplace bullying. There are quite a few parallels as they relate to working in Christian nonprofits and church settings that are toxic.
I don't believe that Christian leaders need to be experts on a certain subject before they can weigh in with their opinion on it. However, I do believe that Christian leaders need to realize the impact their influence has and the implicit faith that their followers place on them.
It's very high stakes when a Christian leader decides to weigh in on a subject that has ripple effects on the way vulnerable people are treated or mistreated. It's also very high stakes when a Christian leader remains silent when he/she must speak up.
Christian leaders should therefore lead with a posture that is full of humility and is open to correction. Rather than make hyperbolic statements, broad generalizations, and "I have the last word" rhetoric, Christian leaders should do their own homework the best they can,
Just because a system comes from God doesn't mean that it's magically immune from heinous sin.
I believe that presbyterianism is most consistent with a biblical theological church polity. Yet, I firmly believe that more work needs to be done to the system to prevent abuses.
I don't believe that just having "presbyterian" in your denomination's name or following every jot and tittle about what seems to be the most "presbyterian" way of doing things will prevent abuse and its coverups within our circles. We must create more safeguards and
mechanisms to ensure that the vulnerable are protected, power is used for blessing, and godliness has the last word over orderliness.
So many God ordained systems in the Bible were used by sinners for heinous sin (just think of the religious leaders of Jesus' day!). This should
Piper and Grudem are a primary proponent of a bizarre interpretation of Judges:
"Deborah, a prophetess, judge, and mother in Israel..., along with Jael..., was a living indictment of the weakness of Barak and other men in Israel who should have been more courageous leaders."
I heard this same interpretation proliferated through seminary and in Reformed churches as assumed fact. Yet, the fact of the matter is that nowhere in the Bible does it hint at the fact that Deborah, Jael, & other leading women were an indictment against failed male leadership.
It's actually placing a grid of interpretation upon the biblical text. It's reading a presupposition of "manhood and womanhood" into the text where the Bible actually commends Deborah and Jael (Judges 5). "Most blessed of women be Jael..." the biblical text says, not "this was