Just learned about a Ted Talk given last year by Jennifer Thomas on how to improve our apologies, “Getting the last word on apology.” She researched what people want to hear in an apology, and discovered that it varies, depending not only on the seriousness of the offense, but also on personalities. Just as we need to understand our mate’s love language to ensure we are communicating love, we need to understand what the receiver needs to hear in order to communicate an effective apology. Very helpful.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg gave some interviews last week (the Associated Press, CNN, The New York Times) in which she expressed her personal opinion about the prospect of Donald Trump as president. Her comments about him were not kind, and were widely criticized as inappropriate for a member of the Supreme Court. Yesterday, she issued the following statement:
“On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised, and I regret making them. Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect.”
The media is referring to this as an apology, but is it a good one? A good apology needs to meet criteria summarized in “the four R’s” – Regret, Responsibility, Repair, and Refrain from repeating that behavior. Her statement basically does that, although it could do a better job. For example, to characterize her remarks as “ill-advised” implies that someone advised her; she could’ve come up with a stronger adjective, like, “wrong.” And adding the phrase, “in response to press inquiries” almost implies that the media were as responsible as she was, belying the fact that she voluntarily gave these interviews, something justices traditionally refrain from doing.
Peacemaker Ministries uses seven criteria for developing a good apology, and one of them is to “acknowledge the hurt” – in other words, to acknowledge the impact of the offense upon the “victim(s).” Perhaps that’s what’s missing in Justice Ginsburg’s statement, and her subsequent remarks about it – not only does she not acknowledge the personal impact of publicly criticizing someone, she doesn’t acknowledge the impact on her role as justice, and on the whole Supreme Court. One almost gets the sense that she regrets the uproar, but still retains some satisfaction in having spoken her mind.
In the court of public opinion, this statement may not set her free.
The ministry now known as Peacemaker Ministries began in the early 1980’s with a singular purpose: equip the church with dispute resolution skills so that disputes among Christians are resolved among Christians, using Christian principles, to God’s glory. The two foundational Scriptures for the ministry complement one another: I Corinthians 6:1-7 exhorts Christians not to sue one another in court, and Matthew 18:15-17 describes a process for how Christians should resolve their disputes. If Christians follow the principles in Matthew 18, they are unlikely to have unresolved disputes needing a court decision; but if they do, they can bring them to fellow Christians “wise enough” to resolve them, so there’s no need for Christians to bring their disputes to civil courts.
As the ministry grew, the development of inter-personal peacemaking skills (Matthew 18:15) was distinguished from the development of skills needed to intervene in other people’s conflicts (Matthew 18:16, I Cor. 6:5). All aspects of intervening in others’ conflicts—case administration of mediation and arbitration, Rules of Procedure, contract clauses, advanced training, and the certification of gifted conciliators—were placed under the umbrella of the Institute of Christian Conciliation (ICC) as a division of Peacemaker Ministries over twenty years ago.
Now the ICC will be formally separated from Peacemaker Ministries (PM). As PM sharpens its focus on equipping laypeople to respond to conflict biblically, it is seeking a new “owner” for the ICC. The board came to the difficult decision that it could not be a good steward of the ICC as well as of the other resources entrusted to it, especially the newest offering, The Path of a Peacemaker. The ICC audience is much smaller than the church at large, and deserves resources devoted to it. As one who has been involved with Peacemaker Ministries for decades, and now as a member of the board of directors, I have struggled with this decision. It feels in some ways like we’re cutting the heart out of the ministry; but on another level, it is a logical next step, given the dual audiences and the fiscal constraints in which PM is currently operating. I do believe God has made it clear to the board that things need to change and, as a matter of good stewardship, PM should transfer the ICC to another organization that can better enable it to fulfill its potential.
The church needs the ministry of the ICC more than ever. Christians continue to sue one another because they don’t know there’s a viable Christian alternative; and Christians gifted as mediators and arbitrators are searching for opportunities to use their skills to serve the church. With God’s help, the next owner of the ICC can energize this ministry so that it becomes a standard, integral component of the church.
A recent article on CNN highlights the difference it makes to a medical patient when the offending physician/institution apologizes versus when it refuses to acknowledge its error. In the case where a woman’s son died due to hospital error, the hospital immediately apologized, explained to her how it had occurred, provided some financial compensation, and invited the mother to help it take steps to ensure this wouldn’t happen again. In a different case where the physician removed the wrong rib, the physician tried to cover up the error, and now the patient is suing the physician and hospital. Her lawyer says the lawsuit isn’t about the mistake; it’s because no one ever apologized.
Should the statute of limitations be tolled while a denomination follows internal dispute resolution procedures? Expressed another way: Does it violate religious freedom when disputing parties of faith following their mandatory internal process must also file their case in court or lose their chance to pursue a remedy in the civil courts?
There have been many disputes in the U.S. recently between local congregations and their denominations regarding who owns the property where the congregation meets. It’s not unusual for these to end up in court. One recently went through the Michigan court system, and the denomination is asking the U. S. Supreme Court to give them another chance in the state courts.
Defendant Bais Chabad claims the title to the property in West Bloomfield where their congregation is located. Plaintiff Chabad-Lubovitch of Michigan claims all property should be titled in its name. After several years of internal dispute resolution proceedings, Plaintiff filed suit in Michigan’s circuit court. Defendant argued that the statute of limitations had expired; Plaintiff countered that the statute was tolled while the parties tried to resolve this internally. The trial court agreed with the Defendant and dismissed the case.
Plaintiff appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals. That court reversed, holding that mandatory dispute resolution procedures toll the statute of limitations, and that includes exhaustion of “ecclesiastical remedies.” The court referred to this as the doctrine of equitable tolling, noting that the reasons behind statutes of limitations—that plaintiffs not sleep on their rights, or expect defendants to defend stale claims—were not present here, where parties have been litigating this matter vigorously for years.
The Michigan Supreme Court tersely reversed the Court of Appeals, in lieu of granting plaintiffs’ leave to appeal, ordering that “there are no grounds on which to equitably toll the statute of limitations.” (Order 149567, May 20, 2015) So now the plaintiff is petitioning the US Supreme Court to grant cert to establish a First Amendment “church autonomy” exception to statutes of limitations. Peacemaker Ministries supports the petitioner in this case. Requiring parties to file a lawsuit to preserve their legal remedy — including their right to enforce the parties’ agreement — is contrary to the proscription in I Corinthians 6 against suing believers in court. Filing a lawsuit also makes it much more difficult for disputing parties to reconcile.
