Christians Take Another Dispute to Court

Josh Eckel and Tyler Mileger, Christian founders of a small clothing company based in Dallas, Texas, called “Play Hard Pray Harder”, filed a lawsuit against Josh Hamilton, also a professing Christian, after discovering that Hamilton had been promoting the same “Play Hard Pray Harder” slogan on clothing sold by Scripture Art, a company that Hamilton co-founded with his wife. Hamilton is a major league baseball player now with the Los Angeles Angels, formerly with the Texas Rangers.

At least the parties were able to settle short of a trial. Media reports gave Hamilton the credit for the settlement. He cited the admonition in Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount that, “if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well” (Matthew 5:40). But the Texas company’s lawyer told the Associated Press that his clients “were extremely disappointed that the issue had to be extensively litigated for Hamilton to do the right thing.”

Did either side try to resolve this within the church, rather than in the civil courts? Paul admonishes Christians not to sue, but to find wise people within the church to settle their disputes (I Corinthians 6:1-8). Peacemaker Ministries is available to do just that, and has trained hundreds of “wise” Christians around the U.S. (and the world) to resolve disputes between believers. It’s too bad these guys didn’t all pray harder about how to resolve this privately and keep it out of court altogether.

Peacemaking Court

Michigan is going to have a “Peacemaking Court.” Washtenaw County Circuit Judge Timothy Connors has received a grant from the Michigan Supreme Court to establish a Peacemaking Court in Ann Arbor. I’m especially heartened that my colleague Susan Butterwick will be leading this innovative project—she has the right experience and perspective to make it work well.

The court will be modeled on Native American tribal court traditions, which value “four Rs: respect, responsibility, relationship and restoration.” There’s apparently only one other such court in the U.S., in Brooklyn.

While “peacemaking court” sounds like an oxymoron, this concept is a move in the right direction. The adversarial system may be effective in ferreting out truth in some cases, but it can also destroy any possibility of reconciliation and restoration, thus causing a chain-reaction of ongoing conflict. It will be interesting to see how this court brings peace to conflicts in ways that traditional courts cannot.

Kwame Kilpatrick Apologizes

It’s instructive to analyze public apologies, and we had another chance a couple weeks ago at the sentencing of Kwame Kilpatrick, former Mayor of Detroit, who was found guilty by a federal jury in March of corruption, receiving bribes, failure to report income to the IRS, etc.

Mr. Kilpatrick apparently had quite a bit to say at the hearing, held October 11, 2013, before he was sentenced to serve 28 years in prison. Here are some excerpts:
“I want the city to heal. I want the city to prosper. I want the city to be great again. I’ve been a tremendous problem in getting that to happen… I’m ready to go, so the city can move on. The pressure of this job—and I’ve watched it eat up man after man—is enormous. It was this pride, yes, and this ego that took over… I tried to wear that on my sleeves. I really, really, really messed up with that… The people here are suffering. They’re hurting and I accept full responsibility for it.”

This is a pretty good apology. He seems to recognize the depth of his wrongdoing, and the effect that his actions had on so many others. He offers an explanation—job pressures, his ego—without making it an excuse. He seems willing to accept the consequence, that he needs to “go” so the city can heal.  He doesn’t “admit specifically” what he did wrong, one of the elements of Peacemaker Ministries’ “7 A’s of Confession,” nor does he ask for forgiveness (he says that his family has forgiven him, but he doesn’t ask his constituents for forgiveness). And, since he’s been sentenced for previous crimes, perhaps he’s said all of this before.

Today’s news that he’s appealing his sentence suggests maybe he still isn’t quite sorry enough.

“I’ll Fly Away” to Court

“I’ll Fly Away” to Court

We are saddened by news that the beloved hymn “I’ll Fly Away” continues in litigation. Albert Brumley, Sr., wrote this song in the late 1920’s, and it was published in 1932. It has been recorded by numerous artists, sold millions of records, and appears in numerous hymnals.  Before Mr. Brumley died in 1977, he purportedly conveyed the copyright to two of his sons. In 2006, the other four Brumley children commenced litigation to terminate the 1975 copyright transfer to their brothers. A trial was held in 2010, and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals just issued a ruling in this case (Brumley v Albert Brumley & Sons, Inc, http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/13a0229p-06.pdf), remanding it to the trial court for further proceedings. The case has now been going on for seven years.

It’s been called “the most recorded gospel song,” according to Wikipedia. The lyrics promise, “Some glad morning when this life is o’er, I’ll fly away / To a home on God’s celestial shore, I’ll fly away.” One wonders if Mr. Brumley was only too happy to fly away from the brewing conflict among his children – or whether he could have done more to prevent it.

Conflicts among siblings are ripe for resolution through mediation. Is this dispute only about the royalties from this song (which presumably are huge, given its ongoing popularity)? Or, for example, are some siblings miffed that Dad excluded them when he was doling out copyrights? Or that the two brothers unfairly coerced Dad into giving them sole rights? Or that the brothers broke a promise to Dad that the brothers would share profits with the other siblings? Or that Dad knew the other four were spendthrifts? Mediation could unearth, and address, some of the underlying motivations that are driving this conflict.

Moreover, if the Brumley children are Christians, they should heed the proscription against civil litigation found in I Corinthians 6:1-7. One of Paul’s reasons for prohibiting civil lawsuits among believers was the poor witness that they provide to the wider world. The irony of a gospel song spawning years of litigation was not lost on the Sixth Circuit, which began its opinion by quoting the first two lines of the song, and observing, “Unfortunately, Brumley Sr.’s death would lead to a familial dispute concerning ownership of the Song’s copyright.”

The song just won’t sound the same to me – until we hear that the siblings have resolved this and reconciled.

Just a few more weary days and then, I’ll fly away
To a land where joys will never end, I’ll fly away.
I’ll fly away, oh glory, I’ll fly away in the morning;
When I die, hallelujah by and by, I’ll fly away.

Altared Expectations

Altared Expectations
The ABA Journal has an article in this month’s edition about lawsuits against churches, entitled “Altared Expectations.” It notes that there was a time when lawsuits against churches were incomprehensible. I think this came from both sides: parties didn’t think of bringing legal actions against churches, and courts did not entertain them even if they did. But since the 1980’s, the litigation explosion has touched churches as well.

One lawsuit mentioned in the article was brought by a Tennessee man who alleges that church leaders assaulted him in the course of trying to exorcise a demon. Another concerns a pastor who refused to allow a certain headstone in the church cemetery in North Vernon, Indiana. The plaintiff in that case, the wife of the deceased, had a headstone fashioned in the shape of a couch, sporting the logos of the Indianapolis Colts and NASCAR, as well as images of a dog and a deer, and the pastor evidently doesn’t think it belongs in a Catholic cemetery.

St. Paul, in one of his letters to the Corinthians, warned believers not to bring their civil disputes into the courts. He basically tells them that they should be ashamed of themselves for not seeking wise arbiters within their church community, and insists that it’d be better for them to be wronged or defrauded than to sue in the local court. He implies that it’s a bad witness. This article in the ABA Journal proves his point.

These cases really ought to be resolved within “the church,” whether within a local congregation, or at least among believing Christians. Unfortunately, most churches aren’t equipped to do this. Peacemaker Ministries has stepped into the breach, with a wide array of resources designed to help the Church take back its responsibility for its conflicts. It even has contract clauses that parties can insert in their contracts to specify that, if a dispute arises, it will be resolved through Christian mediation or arbitration, rather than in court. A Pennsylvania appellate court just upheld a Christian conciliation clause in an employment contract, proving that courts are willing to enforce these clauses that send the case back to “the church.”

Shame on us Christians for our “altared expectations.”