Apologies

Dr. Richard Mouw is the self-professed evangelical president of Fuller Theological Seminary. While researching Dr. Mouw's views on Islam, I came across some other pieces of interest. His opinion of polygamy is odd and gives me the impression he's trying to say the cool thing to stay a part of the "in" crowd. Although his opinion may make more sense when coupled with his comments regarding Mormons and evangelicals. Here's a critique of that apology. I agree that Mouw was out of line apologizing for "we evangelicals". His blanket apology incriminated everyone engaging in ministries to Mormons. He made no distinctions between those who are doing good honest work and those who may not be.

I dislike blanket apologies. If neither I nor my ancestors were involved in slavery do I need to apologize for it? My ancestors were starving in Norway due to famines and bad government policy. I don't require an apology from the Norwegian government for their treatment of my ancestors. I think, that's history and move on. Where does the apologizing get us? Why perpetuate a grievance victim culture that requires apologies from those who weren't involved to those who weren't afflicted? Apologies from white southern slavers to their slaves? Yes. Apologies from those who actively discriminated against blacks and wanted to keep them segregated to those who were actually affected by those policies? Yes. I, however, feel no need to apologize for what other white folk have done in the past. Why do I have to apologize for the bad actions of other white skinned folk that I have no relation to whatsoever? Why does our all being white automatically put us all in the same category? If I had to apologize for simply being in the same color category as those who've committed heinous acts, I could never stop. I'm still waiting to hear the apologies from the black Africans and Arabs that sold their brethern into slavery in the first place. I'm waiting to hear an apology from Muslim Imams for the persecution and slavery of Christians. Actually I'm not waiting. I don't expect an apology or require one. All these after-the-fact apologies are pointless since they don't involve those who truly need to be apologizing or those that truly need the apology.

However, I do believe there is a role for governments to apologize for state sanctioned actions that happened in the past. I believe Turkey needs to apologize to Armenians for the genocide of 1918. To this day they refuse to admit anything even happend. I don't know if this ever happened, but I think the US governement should have apologized to the Vietnamese for leaving them to the Chinese communists and cutting off all aid to the south Vietmanese. I think the Russian government should apologize for the USSR's slaughter of millions under communism. I think South Africa needed to apologize to their black community for years of Apartheid. It's appropriate for governments to recognize their misdeeds especially open and democratic countries. But apologies that come as a result of false multiculti guilt I can do without.

Remember when Pope John Paul apologized to Muslims for the crusades? Was that appropriate? I'm not so sure. I understand he was apologizing for those who killed and marauded in the name of Christianity, when that is NOT what Christianity is about, but did he need to apologize for those crusaders who were defending their homeland from Muslim invaders? I believe there's been a bit of revisionist history about the crusades as well. If Muslims still considered the crusades with pride like they used to, would there have been an apology in the first place?