Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Philosophical accounts of political apology make official representation a condition of a collective apology's meaning: only an authorised speaker can say ‘we’ for a people and bind it to change. By that measure an ecclesial apology for a nation's sins, offered where the state has not apologised, looks ineffective at best. I argue that such an apology is a prophetic act resting on a different kind of representation. Drawing on Walter Moberly and Walter Brueggemann, I read Jeremiah 14 as a paradigm of prophetic confession, in which the prophet confesses his people's sin in the first person plural, without official warrant. Dietrich Bonhoeffer's account of the church as vicarious representative ( Stellvertretung ) then supplies the ecclesial warrant for such an act, provided the church confesses a guilt it shares. The 1965 apology of Ōmura Isamu to the Korean church, and the Kyōdan confession that followed, illustrate the argument.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
KAZUSA OKAYA (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: