An Authentic Apology - Part One

An Authentic Apology

One Friday night, I was struck with a bout of insomnia.  After having watched a C-SPAN recording of the funeral of U. S. Senator who had recently died unexpectedly in a plane crash while on vacation, I stumbled upon a listing of noted apologies officially offered by members of Congress.  For the next couple of hours, I entered an experiential classroom as I assumed the dissonance of an anthropologist.  I meticulously studied the length, approach, components, and mannerisms of each apology.  As a pastor, I gleaned some helpful insights as it relates to the spiritual principle of giving and receiving forgiveness.  A person seeking to emulate Christ's character needs willingness, genuineness and interpersonal skills in graciously practicing this spiritual discipline. 

First, I observed the briefest apologies seem more sincere.  The speakers simply stated the facts and immediately assumed responsibility for their actions.  Their words were profound because they were simplistic and straightforward.  I noted the absence of adjectives and adverbs.  There were hardly any clauses or conditions.  The speakers did not attempt to explain away their behavior.  Also, they did not juxtapose what they said or did with the actions of other people.  They forthrightly acknowledged the pain they caused.  They expressed sincerity in their heartfelt regret for the emotional and possibly financial harm they inflicted upon other people.   In listening to two speakers in particular, I reasoned I could accept their apologies as they were not formulaic but genuine.

A former Congresswoman from the Atlanta area caused a national uproar a few years ago.  She vociferously complained about being the victim of racial discrimination when a member of the Capitol Hill police force stopped her upon entering the floor of the U. S. House of Representatives. Although she failed to put her legislative identification lapel on her clothing, she proceeded to the House chamber.  Accordingly, he stopped her and would not listen to her insistence of being a Member of Congress.  Being an African-American woman, this former Congresswoman determined her race and gender explained the police officer's actions.  Quite possibly, the man is a racist who would not have subjected a White member of Congress, male or female, to the same scrutiny.  Equally plausible, he adheres unwaveringly to protocol and procedures.  Anyone without the official lapel or other identification would have been handled in the same manner.  Simply put, this man was simply doing his job. 

As this ordeal escalated in the subsequent weeks, many people who knew little if any actual details began to formulate hard assessments about the incident and participants.  Some media personalities from the breath of the ideological spectrum depicted the Congresswoman as small minded and short-sighted emphasizing "the bigness of small things." Members of her political party posited a personal incident had spiraled out of control.  It was now commanding precious time and resources needed for more important public policy issues.  As she would not receive sound counsel from colleague and constituents, this Congresswoman was forced ultimately to offer an apology on the floor of the House.  Surrounded by leaders of her party on live cable television, she briefly and humbly apologized; accepting her role in unnecessarily escalating the situation.

In retrospect, this Congresswoman probably concluded she should have responded differently.  One imagines the officer proffered an apology once he more fully understood his error.  Why didn't it suffice?  Did an exaggerated or perhaps an emaciated ego create a political and personal embarrassment?  Nonetheless, the pinnacle of self-righteousness soon gave way to a valley of humiliation where she had to apologize to her colleagues and residents of her congressional district.

A second political apology involved the then chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee.  In what was characterized as an unprincipled partisan ploy, this influential member of Congress called the Capitol Hill Police on colleagues of the opposite party.  Initially, he asserted his right to do so to restore order in a Committee hearing that dissolved into chaos.  The rules of the House stipulate the Sergeant at Arms’ prerogative to handle any disruption.  The Chairman summons the Sergeant.  As he attributes the chaos to colleagues who ideologically opposes his views, the Chairman seeks to quiet and punish them.  Not surprisingly, his colleagues in both parties resoundingly condemn his actions as excessive and disrespectful.  None of them witness any actions deserving such an extreme response as to summon law enforcement to a standard congressional hearing.  This unthinkable offense unquestionably warrants an apology.