Say You’re Sorry

By Kent Fillinger

From Mel Gibson to Michael Richards of Seinfeld, from corporate executives to hospital administrators and from Ted Haggard to politicians, public figures saying sorry has become an acceptable and expected cultural practice.

How and when should a church leader acknowledge or accept a ministry mistake, mishap or misconduct? What impact does an apology have on the congregation and the leader?  What is involved in the art of the apology and the character of confession?

King Saul and King David, political and spiritual leaders of the nation of Israel in the Old Testament, serve as excellent case studies in the contrasting approaches to and results of saying sorry.

In 1 Samuel 15, God told Saul to completely destroy the Amalekites. By obeying God, Saul would have consecrated the holy war to God, but Saul only partially obeyed God’s command. Saul destroyed only the items he did not want, and kept the rest, which greatly troubled God. God sent Samuel to condemn Saul for his disobedience. Saul initially responded by trying to pass the blame onto his army. When that strategy failed, he tried to explain how he had obeyed God’s commands by redefining what it actually meant to obey. Samuel explained to him that God desires obedience more than anything else.

Then Saul changed his tactic again and attempted a confession (in 1 Samuel 15:24) when he said, “I have sinned.” He said the right words, but his heart was not right. Saul manufactured a self-serving apology and again tried to pin it on his army and his fear of them. Samuel did not buy his apology and reaffirmed God’s decision to reject Saul as king.

The section concluded with Saul declaring once again, “I have sinned.” But, again, his confession is followed by more bogus excuses, thus calling into question the sincerity of his apology: “His concern is again saving face before the people rather than finding forgiveness before God” (Bill T. Arnold, The NIV Application Commentary: 1 & 2 Samuel, Zondervan; Grand Rapids, MI, 2003, p. 222). Saul’s apology was nothing more than an acknowledgement of wrongdoing; he gave no indication that he would act differently in the future.

In contrast to Saul’s apology is King David’s confession found in 2 Samuel 12, after David had slept with Bathsheba and had her husband, Uriah, killed. God sent the prophet Nathan to expose David’s sin. David said the same words as Saul: “I have sinned.”  But he was full of genuine remorse and sorrow. Arnold writes, “Saul’s ‘I have sinned’ was followed by equivocation, with words roughly equivalent to ‘but we can fix it, right?’ By contrast, David’s simple phrase ‘I have sinned against the Lord’ (only two words in Hebrew) is spoken alone. There is no attempt to blame or dodge” (Bill T. Arnold, The NIV Application Commentary: 1 & 2 Samuel, Zondervan; Grand Rapids, MI, 2003, p. 534). David confessed and apologized not because he was trapped, but because he realized it was the best response. God’s resultant forgiveness demonstrated the sincerity of David’s apology.

Several leadership lessons can be learned from this case study. Our society typically views apologizing as a sign of weakness. But as leadership consultant John Baldoni explains, “Apologizing for a mistake or a misdeed is a sign of strength. It is something that should be taught, not avoided” ("The Fine Art of Apology"). Delivering a sincere apology like David is an act of leadership.

When you are caught in the wrong, you should not plea bargain like Saul did. David demonstrated that accepting responsibility regardless of the cost is genuine leadership (see also 2 Samuel 24). As a leader, it is necessary to step into the kitchen and take the heat and make an individual apology to the person you wronged. Sometimes leaders need to apologize even when they are not personally responsible for the episode; sometimes, as the team leader, you make an institutional apology.

David’s apology was effective because he was sincere. Barbara Kellerman writes, “A good apology must be seen as genuine, as an honest appeal for forgiveness. Such apologies are usually best offered in a timely manner, and they consist of the following four parts: an acknowledgement of the mistake or wrongdoing, the acceptance of responsibility, an expression of regret, and a promise that the offense will not be repeated” (“When Should a Leader Apologize and When Not?” Harvard Business Review, April 2006, p. 76-77).

The positive impact of a good, timely apology is noteworthy. When people see their leader apologize, their sense of humanity is reinforced and a foundation of trust and respect is built. It sets an example for others to follow. Conversely, when a leader fails to accept blame and apologize, it destroys the leader’s credibility. An appropriate apology provides a salve for the wounded, defusing their anger. And it enables you to lead effectively in the future. Trust is not about what you say; it is about what you do. Thus, saying you’re sorry is a demonstration of character. Abraham Lincoln said, “Character is like a tree and reputation like its shadow. The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing.”

Kent Fillinger is the president of 3:STRANDS Consulting in Indianapolis. Visit www.3strandsconsulting.com or call 877.785.7855 for more information.