True to my word, I have removed my page of the original article. The apology appears here.
I tend to be passive-aggresive. This time I (and others) chose to write to the people involved. There was disagreement, but the right thing has been done for Toronto, Vancouver, and others that chose not to sign.
Despite the wording of the apology, this was never about me or my interpertation. It was about staying true to the wording of question 6 in the Q&A and the stated spirit of the UP.
Well, good, I’m glad to see something. Although, it’s a bit of a ‘left handed’ apology. He didn’t really apologize for what he said but that others “interpreted some of his comments as being judgmental toward those churches that have yet to participate”. It’s like saying ‘I’m sorry you thought I was wrong”. It’s apologizing for the other’s action without taking responsibility for your own actions. You can’t really apologize for someone else’s actions/feelings. You can only apologize for your actions. But, it’s still an apology. Which is more than we would have gotten a few years ago.
Oh, and he couldn’t just say churches ‘that don’t wish to participate’ – he says “have yet to participate”, like eventually they will capitulate (Ok, I’ll stop ranting. I shouldn’t respond to these things before I have coffee.)
ttk
I know, I know – it makes all about how others interpreted it and not about saying something that was ‘unedifying’.
Oh well.
Hi Pinakidion,
So there were at least a couple of us (I suspect more) who communicated that. I for one appreciate the apology very much. I am as interested in unity with the signing churches as I am in unity with all the rest of my brothers and sisters. This was a very constructive step.
Alan
I agree. This is constructive, even for those of us that do not like the UP. This spirit of “you have to be one of us to be unified” needs to be challenged.
I’m with toeteaknow. But if Bruce reads this I’d like to apologize for his inability to understand what I say. Everyone knows that when husbands communicate with wives, guys with girls, dogs with cats, trees with iron, (please insert relatable text here), that there are misunderstandings and it’s just because we are different not because one is wrong but maybe just didn’t speak on the level the other one could understand.
I believe, like others have said, that this is only a phase and that we need to have patience, love and respect for him as he prayerfully wrestles with God on this. And know that one day he will succomb to pressure agree with us.
Too over the top? I apologize that you think that way.
All I know is that if I apologize to my wife for ‘misinterpreting what I said’ she’d only get more upset with me.
In the His Needs, Her Needs vein of things, it points out that arguments get into trouble when a person tries to defend themselves with intent. For example, if I am getting my wife punch and I accidentally elbow her and bloody her nose – saying “I didn’t mean to” doesn’t stop the bleeding. She’s aware that you didn’t mean to hit her, the issue is her bleeding, not your intent. The same is true in an argument.
This holds true even if intent is questioned.
This “have yet to participate” thing has me wishing we’d published a little notice similar to Toronto’s even more, just so we are clear. Central Jersey published a similarly gracious regret here, by the way.
I also find the half baked “I’m sorry you took it that way” apology to be a great example of worldly sorrow to include in the Sin and Repentance study.
OTOH, I can submit comments with no WordPress error messages! Now THAT’s an upgrade! Hot Diggety Dog! Plus, I can use exclamation points as well as That Guy In Portland!
I understand why someone might be dissatisfied with an apology for how he was understood. We’ve all heard that kind of thing before. But I don’t see this situation that way. I take him at his word that he did not intend to communicate judgmentally against the non-signing churches. He certainly wants as many as possible to sign, and he wrote from that perspective. That seems plausible to me.
In the introductory paragraph he characterizes himself as having “stumbled in many ways” and specifically in the writing of the previous article. He took responsibility for the miscommunication and apologized for it.
Then he said unequivocally that the non-signing churches can have valid reasons for not signing, and that they still are brothers and sisters and should be treated that way. Either he thought that all along, or he came around to that point of view. In either case I appreciate that he is there now and has stated it clearly and publicly for all to see.
So I think we should appreciate this as a constructive step. Maybe it is not the perfect apology (I don’t see a lot wrong with it). But it is helpful and that sort of thing should be met with appreciation and encouragement. If we rebuff all their conciliatory efforts, nobody could blame them for giving up on people like us.
Just my opinion
Alan
Hey Alan,
I still think it is constructive, especially from a political standpoint.
He should not have been brought to this point of view by a few people pointing out his contradiction. He already claimed this point of view by writing the UP(and the Q&A) in the first place. Yes we all make mistakes, but this was a big one.
As an aside, I feel like ‘they’ have already given up on me. I do not know what your email exchange was like, but mine was a constant effort to stay focused on the issue and not discuss me. I did not help matters by responding in kind instead of turning the other cheek.
Well, I do see Alan’s point about rebuffing all conciliatory efforts. I also see “have yet to participate” and do not see “valid reasons” in there. I guess I see this less as conciliatory and more as, “let’s be patient with those idiots until they come to their senses and ratify along with those of us who desire unity” (combining the unapologized for stuff from the first article with the second).
I’m just waiting for one of us to refer to the other as “In Error.” If I do it first, somebody slap me, ok?
Pinakidion,
I think BW truly didn’t see how this came across to non-signers. He knew his own intentions, and he was hearing criticism that he didn’t understand.
The fact that he wrote the apology says a lot. Maybe at the time it didn’t seem like he listened, but in the end he came around.
Alan
I would think that anyone that was going to post an artical on a site that is not solely theirs should consiter have it profread. so as not to inply anything that that orgination or group does not intend to mean. we see it all the time in new articals, infomertials, etc.
so if this was not his intended meaning then being humble enough to have someone else view it, to insure that his meaning is coming accross correctly, and that he is not over stepping his bounds.
but that is my opinion.
Alan – FWIW I didn’t talk to him. Somehow my email was intercepted by a third party that called him. I spoke to a third party the entire time.
I don’t want to be a wet blanket or an automatic naysayer. After all, I wanted an apology public or private and I got a public one, so shouldn’t I be happy with that? Maybe it sounds hollow to me because it does not sound like a real apology. Maybe the right thing for me is to accept a semi-apology for the sake of maintaining peace. I honestly do not know. It certainly doesn’t seem fair.
Mark – You’re not in error, you’re emergent.
I think I agree with all stated here. He apologized and did so publicly. I think that at atimes when folks says “I’m sorry you took it that way.” That can be valid. In other ords, “I didn’t mean what you heard, and I’[m sorry it came across like that to you.” In a sense, there’s nothing to apologize about. The intended idea was not communicated, the apology is for the misunderstanding. I’m inclined to give him teh benefit of the doubt and move on.
On the other hand, I think that there is a disconnect going on. He clearly sees the non-signers as not simply of a different opinion, but not yet coming to the right conclusion, and that’s unfortunate.