Cross-Cultural Apologizing: Considering Form and Function

By Bruce Sidebotham

In evangelism, church planting, and community development, missionaries are bound to accidentally hurt feelings and offend some people. Restoring relationships often requires apologizing. Outsiders often fail with their apologies by using forms from their home culture that don’t work in the target culture. They mistakenly assume that because the function of apology is universal, the forms are also universal. Using culturally inappropriate forms for apology undermines reconciliation, intensifies resentment, and prolongs hostility.

Some Cross-cultural Communication Theory

Meaning to tell the audience his embarrassment was great for being late, the foreign missionary actually ended up telling the congregation that his private parts were very large. This misunderstanding turned out to be a humorous and common pun, but the misunderstandings resulting from wrongly communicated apologies can be exponentially more disruptive.

Different cultures have different meanings for forms that accomplish universal functions. All societies have ways to apologize. However, words, grammar, and gestures create forms that often differ between cultures. In the above example, the foreign guest chose the wrong word (form) to accomplish his intended apology (function), resulting in misunderstanding (missed meaning).

The “Languages” of Apology

Author Gary Chapman popularized the five “love-languages.” He and clinical psychologist Jennifer Thomas have identified five “languages of apology.” They are:

1. Expressing Regret—Saying, “I am sorry.”
2. Accepting Responsibility—Admitting, “I was wrong.”
3. Making Restitution—Committing, “I will make it right.”
4. Genuinely Repenting—Promising, “I will not do that again.”
5. Requesting Forgiveness—Asking, “Will you forgive me?”1

Chapman and Thomas assert that people differ in their perceptions of apology. Different forms speak more deeply and more sincerely to different people.

You may appreciate hearing all languages, but if you don’t hear your primary apology language, you will question the sincerity of the apologizer. On the other hand, if the apology is expressed in your primary language, then you will find it much easier to forgive the offender.2

What’s true between individuals who vary in personalities is doubly true between cultures that vary in language, heritage, and majority religion. Different apology forms also speak more deeply and more sincerely to different cultures. Familiar apology forms may ring hollow across a cultural boundary. Someone hearing an apology in an unfamiliar form will likely doubt its sincerity. On the other hand, accommodating local apology forms may better facilitate reconciliation.

Different historical, economic, and political contexts underlie the one reason. Different beliefs about apologizing to God underlie the other.

Some Social-Context Driven Differences

Social context impacts forms for apology, North American civilization exercises significant power over its environment. Personal control over their careers, marriages, and destiny. Governments have considerable global influence. People with a high sense of power and control also have a high sense of responsibility. As a result, they tend to doubt the sincerity of apologies that avoid taking responsibility. They typically respect people who own up to their mistakes. They usually disrespect people who make excuses and blame others or circumstances. North Americans especially despise the word, “but,” in any sentence that includes the words, “I am sorry.”

Most people in the world, however, have little power and minimal control over their environment. They are generally more vulnerable to nature and disasters. Arabs, for example, have little personal control over their careers, marriages, and destiny. The frequently uttered phrase “insyallah,” meaning, “If God wills,” illustrates the perception that ultimate responsibility rests with God rather than people. This passivity actually enhances perceptions of personal piety. Middle Eastern governments have little global influence and tend to see themselves as victims in a world order dominated by others. People with little sense of power and control have a low sense of responsibility. Therefore, shouldering responsibility is rarely a necessary part of their apologies, and placing blame elsewhere often becomes part of the form for apologizing. People in these contexts desire dignity more than accountability.

North American quickness to apologize to the world for everything from unequal wealth distribution to past injustices like the Crusades and the slave trade, flows from a sense of being responsible and in control. Confessing such “sins” and taking such responsibility fills an American emotional need, but it has not led to reconciliation with offended populations. Those offended parties aren’t desiring admissions of guilt or acceptance of responsibility, as much as they want restitution and the affirmation of dignity that comes when someone humbly asks for forgiveness while admitting they don’t really have control. Making restitution and requesting forgiveness are the primary apology forms for much of the world. Neither requires admitting responsibility.

Some Religious Context Driven Differences

Religious heritage contributes significantly to forms for apology. The way people relate to God establishes a pattern for the way they relate to each other. In Christian tradition, God forgives sins when his people confess them and take responsibility for them. Accordingly, no one can make restitution for his or her own sins. Only God can do that. Theologically, it’s called “substitutionary atonement.” Historically, it involves the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. This concept plays out in personal and corporate relationships by having restitution frequently made through neutral third parties like the government or insurance companies. Offended parties often reconcile with no restitution happening at all. North American apologies typically require the words “I was wrong” (confession), and “I am sorry” (regret). Often, they include the words, “I will try not to do that again” (repentance).

Apologies in most of the rest of the world don’t need those words of confession and accountability. To North Americans, apologies without those sentiments are incomplete. And yet reconciliation happens all the time around the world in families and between tribes without anyone ever admitting guilt or accepting responsibility. In North American culture, the main glue of relationships is trust, an important ideal in relationships is innocence, and a major destroyer of relationships is guilt. In most of the rest of the world’s cultures, the main glue is respect, an important ideal is honor, and a major destroyer is shame. North American apologies seek to restore trust. Humbly admitting guilt enhances trustworthiness. Apologies in most other cultures seek to restore respect. Respectability involves honor, status, and appearances. Under such conditions, admitting guilt undermines honor, projects arrogance, embarrasses the offended party, and humiliates all involved.

In both Christianity and Islam, relationship with God begins through identity with a profession of faith. In Muslim tradition, however, God forgives the sins of his people when they demonstrate that they are good Muslims by performing the ritual works of Islam (like the five pillars of fasting, praying, pilgrimage, alms giving, and reciting the creed). Confession is not necessary. Respectability is maintained. Humiliation is avoided. God forgives sins based upon good deeds outweighing bad ones.

That pattern for reconciling with God translates in personal and corporate relationships to making restitution and asking for forgiveness. Restitution affirms the dignity of both parties. Similar to the way that an insurance company can restore what has been lost without being at fault, a wrong-doer can restore what has been lost without admitting responsibility. Asking for forgiveness differs from saying, “I am sorry.” It surrenders control to the other party. It moves responsibility for restoring relationship from the guilty party to the offended party. It admits to imperfection, but it does not admit to all of the details of the offense. That kind of detail would be a confession.

Making restitution and asking for forgiveness, while often blaming circumstances or others in order to avoid responsibility, is the principle apology form in cultures with Muslim majorities. In many years of living and working among Muslims, I have rarely heard a Muslim say, “I am sorry,” but I frequently heard Muslims asking for forgiveness. In fact, requesting forgiveness from friends and relatives is an important feature in Muslim holiday celebrations. Humility in cultures with Muslim majorities isn’t demonstrated in the ability to admit faults but in the ability to depend upon grace from others to forgive faults that remain unconfessed. From the perspective of the people in those cultures, it is the North American form for apology that sabotages reconciliation by undermining the dignity of the parties who need to reconcile. It publicly humiliates one party, it embarrasses the other, and it gives relational control to the offender rather than to the offended.

Some Practical Implications

These different forms have strengths and weaknesses. One form may be objectively better than another, and one may spark better social harmony than the other. For example, when reconciliation depends primarily on confession and repentance, its highest price is simply humility—but a weakness may be that without restitution, restoration becomes facile and shallow. That shallowness may be seen in admonitions to children to say, “I’m sorry,” whether or not their heart is in it.

On the other hand, when reconciliation depends heavily upon restitution, a satisfactory price for justice may be too high to pay. One theological explanation of the death of Christ is that he paid a price for justice that was too high for us. And on that same hand, when harmony in relationships requires a favorable balance between good deeds and bad deeds, such balance may never be satisfactorily attained. Between tribal populations nursing long-standing grievances, such balance is an impossible dance. In those situations, a useful concept may be that someone else has paid the impossible price for restoring balance

Yet comparing forms of apology to ascertain superiority or inferiority can be a futile endeavor. People in different systems will perceive a superiority in the system that’s most familiar to them unless and until they have a powerful world view change. And the form that’s best for a church congregation isn’t likely to be the best for a criminal justice system.

North American missionaries can teach and model the Biblical form of forgiveness through confession and repentance. They can also embrace the value of restitution because, as shown later in this article, that is also demonstrated in Scripture. New believers need to mature into a responsibility-taking apology form. And North American missionaries need to accommodate the prevailing apology forms in their target culture to live in harmony with those around them.

A Negative Example

In 2012, some local workers at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan discovered singed Qur’ans in a burn pit. Taliban prisoners had written messages to each other in them, and they’d been thrown out. Violence against the American and NATO presence in Afghanistan broke out almost immediately. Leaders all the way up to President Obama apologized by communicating regret and claiming the ones responsible would be held accountable. Resorting to this standard American form likely exacerbated the violence. It’s like a doctor apologizing for accidentally sewing his scissors into a patient after removing an appendix. The admission of guilt increases settlement costs.

In Islam (and also frequently in Western law), forgiveness follows restitution or retribution. Blaming circumstances for what happened reduces the cost of restitution. In contrast, underscoring responsibility raises restitution’s cost. Naveed Qamar, the head of Jamaat-ud-Dawah in Karachi, Pakistan said, “We don’t accept Obama’s apology. The Muslims don’t accept his apology, as it is nothing but a farce.” Without restitution, Obama’s apology seemed insincere to the Islamic world, and its demand for retribution escalated as he took responsibility.

In their Judeo-Christian system for apology, North Americans usually consider that avoiding responsibility is poor form. They consider that paying someone off for their loss is insensitive (except in the impersonal legal system). And responding to an offense or insult with random violence is uncivilized and evil. However, in Sharia systems, reconciliation flows from balance. When salvation depends upon good deeds outweighing bad deeds (as in Islam), then justice between people depends on bad deeds and good deeds balancing too. People in Sharia systems restore balance with one side making restitution or the other side taking retribution. In this case, Afghan people took retribution when America offered no restitution other than taking responsibility by claiming the perpetrators would be held accountable.

The Muslim and Judeo-Christian “dwellings” have different “house rules” for reconciliation. North Americans cannot import Judeo-Christian “house rules” into Muslim “dwellings.” In this situation, deflection and restitution would have been more productive than taking responsibility. The President and his generals could have blamed the Taliban by saying something like, “Some detainees were desecrating Qur’ans by writing messages in them, and it is God’s will that they have now been exposed in this way.” Then, they could have highlighted the damage caused by those detainees, both with respect to the way the Qur’ans unfortunately got treated and the retribution happening through random violence. Most importantly, they could have offered restitution on behalf of the detainees for the resultant insult, damage, and carnage through something significant and symbolic like a big donation to a Muslim literary association. With those steps taken, they could have asked for forgiveness in a generic sense for anything done that had been offensive.

A Positive Example

When Don Richardson took his family to live in the Sawi tribe and translate the Bible for it back in the 1960s, Sawi villages were warring to the point that the tribe was facing extinction. The Sawi valued treachery to the degree that Judas was their hero in the gospel story. But when Richardson threatened to leave unless the warring stopped, the Sawi settlements found a way to reconcile in order to keep the Richardson’s medicine and steel tools flowing. The warring clans exchanged the infant sons of their prominent leaders. An exchanged infant was called a “Peace Child,” who ended the treachery. Don Richardson used the practice as an analogy of the gospel. He convinced many in the tribe to put their faith in Jesus as the “Peace Child” sent by God. The Peace Child Ritual is a form for reconciliation that minimizes confession and taking responsibility. It established an enduring reconciliation through mutual forgiveness and the offering of a child who functioned as restitution.

Examples from the Bible

Biblical cultures were probably closer to today’s Middle Eastern and Asian cultures than to today’s North American and European ones. Restitution seems to have been a big factor in several apologies recorded in the Scripture. Consider, for example, the reconciliations between Zacchaeus and his community and between Jacob and Esau.

Zacchaeus was a despised tax collector. His neighbors considered him to be a “sinner,” and they severely criticized Jesus for visiting him. As a result of Jesus’ visit, Zacchaeus said, “Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount” (Luke 19:8 NIV). Then Jesus responded, “Today salvation has come to this house” (Luke 19:9 NIV). The grammatical construction of Zacchaeus’ promised restitution is interesting. It parallels the subjunctive construction of ceremonial Muslim requests for forgiveness made during their holidays. The way that Zacchaeus avoids a clear confession of his guilt and responsibility is also curious. Yet Jesus clearly forgives Zacchaeus on the strength of his conditional promise to make restitution—even without a clear confession of guilt or acceptance of responsibility.

Jacob cheated his brother Esau out of his inheritance and birth-right. Esau sought retribution and threatened his life. So, Jacob fled hundreds of miles away to his Uncle Laban’s. Twenty years later, Jacob set out for home from his uncle’s place as a rich man with sons, herds, and wives. When he learned that Esau was coming to meet him with 400 armed men, Jacob feared for his life. He sent ahead goats, ewes, rams, donkeys, camels, cows, and bulls by the dozens as a gift for Esau. It appears these were a form of restitution (Genesis 32:13–21). And it worked without any formal words of apology, for the story says, “Esau ran to meet Jacob and embraced him; he threw his arms around his neck and kissed him. And they wept” (Genesis 33:4–5 NIV).

Concluding Recommendations

When North American missionaries and aid workers take responsibility for tragic events, negative circumstances, hapless insults, hurt feelings, or minor to serious injuries in non-Judeo-Christian cultures, they often undermine potential for reconciliation. In fact, the more that they underscore their sorrow, regret, and responsibility for such events or circumstances, the more they undercut their ability to reconcile with the people who are slighted or suffering. Results are exactly the opposite from expectations for the form of apology that’s primary in North America. The admission of guilt and responsibility serves to vindicate the aggrieved parties in their bitterness. Forgiveness for transparently admitting guilt follows when entities are already in trusting relationships. When trusting relationships do not exist, that kind of transparency simply enhances justification for hostility.

Instead of expressing regret and thereby taking some measure of responsibility for everything from the Crusades to slavery’s middle passage, North American workers should request forgiveness—not for the perceived offenses, but for generic inadequacy. They should use words like, “If there’s anything that we’ve done to offend you, please forgive us.” This language transfers the initiative and responsibility for the relationship to the party that perceives itself to be offended without adding to their excuses for nursing bitterness. Aid, relief and development, gifts, presents, connections, access, and awards can be offered not as bribes to cover offenses, but as restitution for damage done by uncontrollable circumstances. Accepting restitution becomes recognition that uncontrollable forces are to blame, that generic forgiveness is being offered, and that relationship is being established or restored. Working through a third and neutral party may be optimal in many cases.

Summary

Cultures have forms, functions, and meanings. Apologizing is a universal function, accomplished with different forms having different meanings in different cultures. Based upon their social context and religious heritage, North Americans prefer a form of apology that emphasizes responsibility while minimizing dignity. Based upon a different context and heritage, many other cultures prefer a form of apology that maximizes dignity while minimizing responsibility.

Apologizing to people in one culture in the unfamiliar foreign form of another compounds misunderstanding and hostility over the original offense. North American workers and ministry entities habitually aggravate hostility and misunderstanding by apologizing in the form most familiar to them rather than in the form familiar to their audience. To further peace, reconciliation, ministry, and evangelization, those working in cross-cultural relationships need to understand and accommodate forms for apology that are appropriate for the culture in which they are present.

Bruce Sidebotham spent seven years working cross-culturally in Indonesia. He is a Geologist, a Civil Engineer, and a former officer in the Army Corps of Engineers. He has a Master’s degree in Intercultural Studies and Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) from Columbia International University, and a Doctor of Ministry degree from New Geneva Theological Seminary. As a chaplain (Colonel) in the US Army Reserves, Bruce directs the consulting ministry called Operation Reveille that helps service personnel with cross-cultural relations.

Notes

1. Gary Chapman and Jennifer Thomas, The Five Languages of Apology: How to Experience Healing in All Your Relationships (Chicago: Northfield Publishing, 2006), 24.

2. Chapman and Thomas, Five Languages, 105.