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.”

• The elder board complains that the senior pastor seeks their input, then ignores their advice and does whatever he wants to do.
• A wife complains constantly about her husband; the husband rarely attends church anymore, and made excuses when the elders called him.
• A manager isn’t sure how to discipline a Christian employee who is giving a bad witness by flouting the company’s time-off policies.
• A college graduate wants to work full-time in Christian ministry, but his parents want him to get a good job and get married.

Sound like typical problems in your church or workplace, right? Except these all came from church leaders in East Asia. I had the opportunity to share biblical principles of peacemaking with two groups of dedicated Christians there earlier this month, and I was surprised by how similar their experiences are to ours in the U.S.

These pastors and church leaders, who came from various regions to attend this training, had already completed Resolving Everyday Conflict, a Peacemaker Ministries resource that has now been translated into their language. My colleague and I taught a three-day course on coaching a person to respond biblically to conflict, plus a half-day introduction to mediation.  As you can see from the photo, the Peacemaker Ministries brochure has also been translated into their language.

Participants enthusiastically received this training. Unlike in the U.S., where there are too many conferences to choose from, opportunities for organized Christian gatherings are very limited in Asia, and tend to be theological lectures. In contrast, peacemaker training is experiential—tell it, show it, do it, discuss it. As in the U.S., participants were initially skeptical about roleplaying, but came to appreciate its value. One pastor commented, “When I was playing a party, my coach was treating me the way I coach people in my congregation—and I realized how unhelpful it was to give advice before I had truly listened to their heart.” Another pastor, roleplaying the coach, was actually jabbing her finger at her “party,” reminding her to “be salt and light,” and in the de-brief afterwards they both discussed how counter-productive that approach was.

Several pastors stood up at the end of the week to describe how this training had changed their lives. “I wasn’t going deep enough—my advice was too shallow. I was telling them what they ought to do, without regard for how it affected them.” “I didn’t know how to help them deal with their conflict, so I just told them I would pray for them; now I have tools to truly help them.” “I’ve been doing this wrong for years now; I missed opportunities to minister to people, but from now on, I’ll be different.”

Contrary to what I’ve learned about cross-cultural training, participants were quite willing to raise their hands and ask or answer questions, and to admit their mistakes. In the roleplays, they found it challenging to refrain from “fixing it” or “solving it” for the other person—the same challenge that U.S. audiences face. The trainees were younger than typical U.S. audiences, which bodes well for the church in East Asia: peacemaking will be integral to how they live out their faith.

The church in this particular country is not free, so I am refraining from providing details, or showing pictures of participants. But I can safely say that I am grateful for having been able to participate in this amazing experience, because now I’ve seen first-hand how God is bringing forth His kingdom in East Asia.

There was another apology in the news a couple weeks ago: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu apologized on March 22 to Turkish Premier Recep Tayyip Erdogan for a 2010 raid on a Turkish flotilla that killed 8 Turks.
Any apology is news, but of even more interest to peacemakers is the fact that this was apparently brokered by President Obama. The president was visiting with Mr. Netanyahu in Israel and reported that he encouraged him to reach out to Mr. Erdogan, and “both of us agreed that the time was right.” So Mr. Netanyahu phoned Mr. Erdogan, who accepted the apology. At one point, apparently the President got on the phone too. President Obama said afterwards that he’s been appealing to Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Erdogan “for the last two years” for them to fix “this rupture.” The event had chilled relations between Israel and Turkey.
I’m impressed. I don’t know the details, but I know how hard it is to persuade someone to apologize. I can only imagine how much tougher it is to get a head of state even to think about apologizing for his military’s actions –as well as to get a head of state to accept an apology where his citizens were killed. Both leaders had multiple justifications for standing their ground, but their rapprochement seems to be in the best interests of both countries.
Wouldn’t we love to know the details of the negotiations?! Did President Obama appeal to their mutual interests, history of alliance, or the cost of continued conflict? Presumably the negotiations were “shuttle diplomacy,” all caucus, but it ended with a simultaneous conversation over which the President more or less presided. Now if he could only have such luck with the Senate and House leaders…