An attempted apology about BBC's NDA lie

In a surprising turn, the two separate posts I made recently have intersected.  I had posted about Ken Currie's lies about there being not even a mention of NDAs at Bethlehem.  I had also posted some reflections about harm, apologies, and forgiveness.  

In response to Janette Takata's initial post about Ken Currie's lie, he emailed her an apology.  You can see on the link her rationale for posting it, as well as get a sense of Steve's reception of the apology with his answer.  Below is Ken's apology with some of my own reflections: 

Janette, 

You have shared a contradiction between an email from me in May '21 and my words at a church meeting in July '21.  You are right about this.  Thank you for pointing it out. 

I am repenting in my heart and asking God for help to not do that again. 

To the degree that this has bruised your faith I want to apologize to you and ask your forgiveness.  I remain grateful for the years of sweet partnership with you and your family at Bethlehem, sad for the current estrangement and hopeful for the day we will reunite around the throne of grace to worship and fellowship forever.

Ken Currie

I was glad he is seeking to apologize for something. He could have ignored things and moved on. That does say something. But I must admit I don't find that apology very satisfying. In fact it raises even more flags for me.

1) He says "you have shared a contradiction." With those words, he avoids making himself the actor ("you have shared" rather than "I") and also softens the language to "contradiction" (rather than "lie" or "duplicity"). Both avoiding active language and softening words are classic hallmarks of an apology intended to appease rather than set right. There seems to be no actual ownership of the action and the harm.  

2) Ken's repentance "in [his] heart" ought to bear fruit in action to set things right with all who have been harmed. It does not seem anywhere close to appropriate to simply stop at "asking God for help not to do that again."  His email doesn't recognize the fact that he has harmed not only the Takatas, but the whole congregation. If he were repentant, restoration and restitution is appropriate and necessary. He has stolen truth from the congregation. He ought to return it to the congregation.

3) It is appropriate for him to apologize for how "this" (vague again!) may have bruised the Takatas' faith, but even that language seems to put the focus on their discovery of his deception. This feels like he's saying, "I'm sorry you caught me" by only apologizing to Janette who posted it and not saying anything at all about how he will address it with everyone.

4) In Janette's two part post, she said a lot more about how she has been harmed by the elders, but Ken apologizes for none of the things named.  Presumably he's seen at least the second one, which had the "contradiction" (this "contradiction" should really just be called a "lie"). Elders have cast blame and shame upon the Takatas, damaging their friendships, relationships, and ultimately making them feel unwelcome by the church body and leadership. 

Ken apologizes for "the degree that this [contradiction] bruised [Janette's] faith" without any recognition/acknowledgement of the whole host of other things that he and the elders have done to harm the Takatas. This is a massive flag to me - if he's seeking to set things right, he should seek to set all of it right as far as he is responsible for (and really, true repentance typically goes beyond). To not acknowledge any of the other harm says in effect, "I'm not responsible for the other things" which really only compounds the harm, rather than actually seeks to heal it.

5) Ken does not acknowledge the massive time gap between his lies and this "apology," nor the "attempted backtrack" that happened on 8/12 which I mentioned in a comment on Janette's post.  If he's really seeking to set right former wrongs, he ought to own his role in it all the way through.  

I do appreciate the step towards an apology, but without further action, this is mere appeasement, not an apology.  If this is all that is said, it falls far short of a true apology (which should be to the congregation, not just Janette) and really deepens the concerns rather than alleviates them.