I love the Olympics. I have been transfixed by them for over fifty years, starting with the 1972 Munich games, where Olga Korbut catapulted women’s gymnastics to a demanding athletic sport, and a very photogenic Mark Spitz shattered seven world records to go along with the seven gold medals he won in his seven swimming events. My family puts up with my obsession every other year, summer and winter games alike, as I take over the family television for two weeks, from the opening ceremony to the extinguishing of the Olympic torch.
The opening ceremony in Paris this summer was no different. We settled in to watch the four-hour opening extravaganza, which, with a nod to twenty-first-century technology, I taped in order to cruise through commercials and anything else I (and no one else) deem “boring.” Halfway through, my husband just rolled his eyes (or fell asleep) as I insisted on watching each national team float down the Seine. But there was one part that I did, in fact, fast forward through as it just seemed so inane and perhaps a little too “French.” I passed on what I took to be a fashion runway showing off deconstructed clothes, drag queens, and some creature dressed like Papa Smurf, who looked like he would soon be harvested for foie gras. The rest of the evening, I decided, would be better spent watching the Olympic flame rising above the Tuileries gardens and Celine Dion belting out Édith Piaf’s “L’Hymne à l’amour” from her perch halfway up the Eiffel Tower.
Mon Dieu! It appears that I had zapped past the most controversial two minutes of the opening ceremony. The next morning, my social media feeds blew up, with Christian leaders from around the world, including the French Catholic bishops, accusing the Olympic Organizing Committee of making a mockery of Christianity by reimagining DaVinci’s Last Supper in the form of a bacchanalia.1
Others countered that it was supposed to be a live reimagining of a feast of the gods (lower case “g”) – with the smurfy-looking fellow representing Dionysus and the whole thing supposedly resembling the seventeenth-century painting titled The Feast of the Gods by Jan van Bijlert, which they were pleased to tell the metaverse, hung in the Magnin museum in the French town of Dijon. But a spokesperson for the Magnin acknowledged that the Dutch protestant artist was likely sticking a finger in the eye of the Catholic DaVinci, adding that “In the context of the Reformation … the artist found a strategy for painting a Christ-related Last Supper under cover of a mythological subject matter.”2 And so the controversy continued to spin for days beyond the 24-hour news cycle.
By Sunday, the Olympic artistic director Thomas Jolly and Paris 2024 spokesperson Anne Descamps were in front of the media, explaining what they were and were not trying to accomplish with their “tableau vivant.” Jolly told the Associated Press that it wasn’t his intention to depict DaVinci’s Last Supper. He added, “My wish isn’t to be subversive, nor to mock or to shock. . . Most of all, I wanted to send a message of love, a message of inclusion and not at all to divide.”3 Anne Descamps was a bit less tepid in her remarks, stating, “Clearly there was never an intention to show disrespect to any religious group. . . On the contrary, I think (with) Thomas Jolly, we really did try to celebrate community tolerance.” Going further, she added, “Looking at the result of the polls that we shared, we believe that this ambition was achieved. If people have taken any offense we are, of course, really, really sorry.”
These tepid apologies have a “sorry not sorry” vibe to them. Jolly lets himself off the hook by claiming purity of intentions, while Descamp’s “sorry,” even with its double “really really,” offers nothing more than condolences while not acknowledging the possible legitimacy of the concerns. Are we really to believe that these are sincere apologies or just more performance art?
I want to suggest that they are both. Mostly because, as Western culture moves beyond the post-modern to post-secular, disbelief in any truth holds the corollary that no one does anything wrong. Ironically, at the same time, we find ourselves saturated by a culture of umbrage where it seems that everyone is either outraged or harmed. So, we have become very good at offering, just like the Olympic organizers, sincere albeit vague apologies for what is usually perceived as vaguely defined harm with frequent “I’m sorry’s” carrying the same moral weight as the response of “no problem.” I am willing to give Jolly and Descamps the benefit of the doubt that their words were sincerely uttered but just as morally empty, something to say and move on. I suspect that, like so many of us, they have little practice at offering up a full apology when doing something wrong that harms others.
What makes for a good ‘full” apology?
The philosopher Nick Smith, who has written extensively on the nature of apologies, argues apologies are demanding ethical acts that should not be confused with sympathy, sorrow, or attempts to keep the peace among friends and family.4 He writes that full apologies begin by acknowledging the specifics of the wrong directed to the person who was harmed and accepting one’s own causal responsibility for it. He goes on to say that a person offering the apology will not just offer words to get him or herself “off the hook” for some action or to smooth over relationships but will include ownership of his or her wrongful intentions, regret that the act occurred, repentance for the actions by promising not to repeat the act, and some form of restitution as a way to recognize and make amends for the harm that was done.
Perhaps most importantly, full apologies that result in reconciliation are only possible when the victim and offender are willing to share moral values. Smith writes, “The offender will understand the victim’s claim as legitimate, her own behavior as wrong, and will offer the most meaningful words in an apology: ‘I was wrong.’ Having said this, the offender recognizes the victim not as a mere obstacle to her self-interests but as someone who shares deep beliefs with her.”5 For Smith, the ability to offer a full apology with mutual respect for the harmed party demonstrates nothing less than character.
The Olympic organizers would not or could not offer a full apology as they were unwilling to acknowledge that the French Catholic bishops’ or other Christian leaders’ concerns might be legitimate. Instead, they prioritized the value of inclusion over a serious examination of the values they chose to include. All of this makes the Olympic Organizing Committee’s rushed-out apology little more than another tableau of performance art. As Smith cogently writes, “I suspect that our reluctance to openly discuss where our pluralistic values diverge causes us to offer hasty apologies, and such apologies can replace normative discourse with social reflexes meant to relieve immediate tension rather than build mutual understanding.”6
For Christians, a full apology pushes beyond Smith’s extensive model toward reconciliation with both God and others. It’s a real-time opportunity to demonstrate humility and a dependence on God to act in a way that is entirely foreign to our fallen human nature. We are called to repentance (Luke 17:3) by taking responsibility for our actions (I John 1:8) and malformed intentions (Mathew 7:16; 5:23-24), confessing our wrongdoing (Luke 18:13-14), providing restitution as necessary (Leviticus 6:1–7) and, in recognizing our share in the imago Dei (Philippians 4:2), asking forgiveness from God and those we have harmed (1 John 1:9) to kickstart a more fully orbed reconciliation process.
In this manner, fully formed apologies can create deeper bonds with the person(s) we have harmed so that reconciliation reflects a new and stronger story of how we live together as the body of Christ. An apology, at its best, is an apologetic—it provides a glimpse into how humanity, in its brokenness, can still, with the power of the Holy Spirit, practice the Fruit of the Spirit, which just might draw others into the love of Christ.
Without responsibility, regret, repentance, restitution, mutual respect, or the desire for relational reconciliation, apologies become little more than an acknowledgment that something is amiss. As a daughter of the Midwest, I am not immune from falling into the trap of constantly saying “sorry” for anything and everything, whether it’s a little bump up against someone else’s cart in the supermarket, a less-than-fabulous attempt at cooking dinner, or constantly leaving the mute button on when trying to talk on a Zoom call. But given the events of this past week, I think it would bode well for Christians to develop a stronger Christ-centered apologetic for apologies, to stop the cultural habit of saying “I’m sorry” when there is no actual wrongdoing, to call out the “sorry not sorry” apologies all around us, and put more effort into offering fully formed apologies, when appropriate, as a love offering to God for the reconciling work of Jesus on the cross.
*With an acknowledgement of the 2017 Demi Lovato hit song by the same title.
Footnotes
- Elise Ann Allen, “Paris Olympic Committee makes soft apology for Last Supper drag parody,” Crux, accessed July 29, 2024. https://cruxnow.com/church-in-europe/2024/07/paris-olympic-committee-makes-soft-apology-for-last-supper-drag-parody
- Melani Goodfellow “Olympics Opening Ceremony Artistic Director Says Controversial Tableau Was Not Inspired By ‘The Last Supper’,” Deadline, accessed July 29, 2024.https://deadline.com/2024/07/olympics-opening-ceremony-artistic-director-intention-mock-or-shock-1236024601/
- John Leicester, “Paris’ Olympics opening was wacky and wonderful — and upset bishops.Here’s why,”AP News, Accessed July 29, 2024. https://apnews.com/article/olympics-2024-opening-ceremony-audacious-analysis-49f9885ff2b95b9b7ccc51ca195e84e1
- Nick Smith. I Was Wrong: The Meanings of Apologies (Cambridge; Cambridge University Press, 2008).
- Nick Smith, “The Categorical Apology” Journal of Social Philosophy, 36 no. 4 (2005), 480.
- Smith, 2005, 481.
Dr. Diddams, nice post. As my wife read to me the “apology” on Sunday morning, I was frustrated by the non-apology being offered. But I recognized that is the same format most apologies take in our world today. For me, a sincere apology is not contingent on whether or not anyone else was offended, but upon my taking the time to evaluate what I said and did and to see that I was not modeling Christ and treating others with the dignity and respect they inherently deserve being made in the image of God. I also appreciate your call to stop apologizing for things that don’t need it; I too am a Midwesterner.
Thanks for your kind words. The events of last week made me realize how apologies have become so trivialized which in turn, can water down the impact and moral meaningfulness when we offer a full. apology.
Excellent post! You’ve helped me understand this issue by which I had been perplexed.
Thank you! I’m glad you found it to be helpful.
Re: “they prioritized the value of inclusion over a serious examination of the values they chose to include.”
I do believe this is the crux of the matter: values. Different cultures and groups within cultures espouse values that often clash. The irony of feigned tolerance is that there is, in fact, none. Tolerance was a buzzword about ten years ago; its use has long since disappeared, and I wonder whether this is in recognition of the reality that where “tolerance” is being pushed, it is completely lacking on the part of the “pushers” who are demanding tolerance for what they value.
Perhaps the furor over that moment during the opening ceremony that many of us shocked is that whatever apology would be offered would be empty because of a suspected lack of any tolerance for the values which generated the shock. We need to forgive, but we would be very naive indeed to expect that those who chose to include that tableau in the Opening Ceremony, and those who support that inclusion, have any respect or empathy for our values. Our call to forgive is not contingent on the other’s repentance, but on the recognition that we have been forgiven for far more and dare not harm the most important relationship in the life of each Christian.
This is an excellent point, Gordon. The decision to forgive or to apologize should not be dependent on the requirements of others but our own knowledge, spurred on by the Holy Spirit, of right and wrong.
You are correct that the Olympic organizers were unwilling to acknowledge that the French Catholic bishops’ or other Christian leaders’ concerns might be legitimate.
That is because their concerns were not legitimate.
What you described as “a culture of umbrage where it seems that everyone is either outraged or harmed” is an excellent description of the over-the-top performance art of false victimization performed by Catholic bishops and other Christian leaders. It does not matter whether or not Da Vinci’s Last Supper was an influence on the opening ceremony.
The taking of offense is not a “harm” that has any degree of merit, and an apology is not warranted simply because someone takes offense. Catholic art has been deemed offensive to many Muslims and Protestants over the centuries because of it’s depictions of holy figures in iconography (which is why so many Catholic icons have been historically destroyed by Muslims and Protestants). The Olympic organizers owe no more apology to Christians for their ceremony, than Catholics owe to Muslims and Protestants for their iconography.
If the decision to include the Last Supper scene was a call for inclusion of people whose sexual practices are contrary to scripture, then the One insulted more than anyone else is Christ Himself. To depict Him in such as manner is blasphemous to His character. He would never engage in lewd sexual practices, and His love for people has never included acceptance of behaviour He clearly deems sinful. When the religious leaders called Him out for sharing a table with those they deemed disreputable, Christ retorted “I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.” (Luke 5:30-32). He was not welcoming people into His kingdom; He was telling them the condition for getting in.
Then your particular version of Jesus does not have to attend. The Olympics are not a religious assembly. Long before this year’s Olympics, numerous Muslims were offended by the “desecration” of allowing women to compete, then later by the “desecration” of women athletes competing with uncovered heads. Religions have been complaining about “scantily clad” Olympic swimmers and divers throughout the history of the events. There is no end to the particular offenses any one religion could impose on the rest of the world.
What an excellent point, Jeff. Apologies, should be given when we can say “I’m sorry,” and not just to keep some peace. You may have read that some of the performers in the tableau said that there was nothing to apologize for – that art is meant to provoke. I would have been less annoyed if the Opening Ceremony organizers had been more forthright than the non-apology apology they offered. Sometimes as you note, values will clash and people will be upset. But I would prefer a deeper conversation / communication that acknowledges differences than to either go for the jugular or brush concerns aside for the sake of inclusion.
Like most words in the English language, “sorry” can have variant meanings. “Sorry” can be a deeply felt regret for a harm that one mutually agrees has been perpetrated. But “sorry” can also (and equally validly) be an expression of sympathy for someone else’s experience. “Sorry” is quite commonly used in instances where the speaker has committed no fault, but simply recognizes that someone else is having an experience they perceive as negative. Neither use of “sorry” is incorrect or false.
It is as clear as glass that the Olympic reps used the word “sorry” in the second sense. Far from being “tepid”, they explicated their intentions for the ceremony quite clearly and only offered “sorry” as an expression acknowledging that some people took a negative offense.
You can call this “tepid” or not a “full apology”, if you like, but you are only imposing your own definition for a type of “sorry” that you may have wanted to hear, but which the Olympic organizers quite obviously did not intend.
I have not given serious thought to the subject of the apology, nor have I read Dr. Diddams’s references; so, I have no business taking the reader’s time. Nonetheless, I would like to highlight some things that I see in what has not been said or has been merely alluded to.
The elements of a (full) apology are presented as (1) acknowledging the specifics of the wrong, (2) accepting causal responsibility, (3) ownership of one’s wrong intentions, (4) regret that the act occurred, (5) repentance, including assurance that the act will not be repeated, and (6) restitution and amends. Thus, if any element is missing, the “apology is not a (full) apology. Dr. Diddams adds “mutual respect, or the desire for relational reconciliation” as requisites for a (full) apology. This addition recognizes that a (full) apology requires something from the person who was wronged. That is, a full apology is not possible, and presumably therefore cannot be required, if the “wronged” party will not participate. Gordon Maulden alludes to this in his “clash of values” comment and his distinction between forgiveness and apology. The former is not contingent upon the latter.
The six elements required of an apology employ several critical words. First, there must be a “wrong.” One cannot acknowledge a wrong, or its “specifics,” if none has been committed. We need a definition of what is a “wrong.” Jeff Bingham questions that taking offense is a harm, a wrong. Second, it follows from the requirement that one must “own” one’s “wrong intentions,” that one must have wrong intentions. Thus, there is no requirement for a full apology, and the repentance (including the promise not to repeat it), restitution and amends, absent an intentional wrong. This makes sense if I ask, “How is George?” unaware (and having no reason to know) that George died, and my inquiry has caused pain to his widow. Or, when I say, “Merry Christmas” to someone who finds offense at my well-intentioned wish.
In addition, I can ask whether my “Merry Christmas” is the “cause” (element 2) of the recipient’s discomfort or is it their choice to take offense that is the cause? There is also the question whether we need to apologize to those who created and performed the Olympics Tableau for our criticism of their efforts — at which I suspect they take offense. First, have we committed a “wrong”? Second, was it “intentional”? Third, do we have “causal responsibility” for that “wrong”? And, as Dr. Diddams adds, is there “mutual respect, or the desire for relational reconciliation.”
I am not here trying to avoid apologizing, just full apology. I think there is ample room left for various forms of less-than-full apologies. While I share a distaste for “if anyone was offended,” I think my simple “I’m sorry,” even though that person bumped into me, is a simple matter of courtesy. And I also find room for Jeff Styer’s “sincere apology,” that “a sincere apology is not contingent on whether or not anyone else was offended.” That is, it’s not – at least, not entirely – about them; it’s about me “modeling Christ.”
Thanks for these thoughts. I appreciate their richness. We try to keep our blogs to 1,500 words so I am delighted to keep the conversation going past my word limit. Nick Smith, in his work on apologies, makes a similar point that not all apologies have to have every attribute – the point I wanted to make was that these are the attributes of a full apology. But in the absence of some, it’s still a viable apology. He recommends moving away from a bifurcated “yes – no” evaluation of whether an apology is valid to a categorical view of what makes for an apology. An apology need not have all – I offer his categories here as what makes for a full apology.
I also appreciate what you have written about the difference between an apology and the lack of forgiveness when there is no reconciliation. I tried to make the point that an appropriate apology can lead to reconciliation but as we are all painfully aware – forgiveness does not always follow an apology.
I want to add that the point you and Jeff Styer make is so important. Our motivation, our desire, to apologize should not necessarily be contingent on the presence or absence of others’ thoughts or wishes about our behavior. However, as I can often be opaque, like the apostle Paul, to my own motivations, there is some value to hearing others out, considering their position, and at times still have the strength of character in the face of some opposition to be able to say “we disagree.
I agree that there is the courtesy of acknowledgment when we bump into someone. I wish there was another common phrase besides “I’m sorry” as I think its overuse has taken some force away from apologies that acknowledge wrongdoing. Having lived in both St. Paul MN and NYC, my observation is that some folks, for better or worse are socialized more than others to say “sorry.”
Thanks for contributing to this conversation!