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.”

On Compelling People Into Arbitration

Courts compel people into arbitration by enforcing arbitration clauses in contracts. Parties to the contract may argue that they didn’t know about the clause, or that circumstances have changed, but typically a contract provision calling for arbitration will be enforced. Even if the validity of the contract itself is in dispute, courts reason that parties voluntarily chose arbitration as the means by which they would resolve any disputes (Prima Paint Corp v Flood & Conklin Mfg Co, 388 US 395, 87 S Ct 1801, 18 L Ed2d 1270 (1967)).

But if the arbitration clause is in a will or trust, it’s viewed differently. This question arises when the person making out the will, or setting up the trust, specifies that anyone who disputes any provision of the will or trust must resolve their dispute in arbitration, rather than in court. The beneficiary has not agreed to arbitration in the contractual sense, so U.S. courts are divided as to whether parties to an estate dispute can be ordered into arbitration pursuant to a provision in a will or trust. Schoneberger v Oelze, 96 P3d 1078 (Ariz, 2004) cf. Rachal v Reitz, 347 SW3d 305 (Texas Sup Ct, 2011).

For Christians, the issue should be moot. The Christian Scriptures forbid Christians from suing one another in the civil courts, and enjoin them instead to resolve their differences within the church (I Corinthians 6:1-7). So, whether or not the will or trust includes an arbitration clause, believers who stand to benefit from it should choose Christian mediation and/or arbitration.
So can a Christian testator/settlor require that any disputes among the beneficiaries must be settled in Christian arbitration? If the disputing beneficiaries are all believers, the arbitration clause would reinforce the biblical command, removing all temptation to battle this out in court. Both legally and spiritually, the beneficiaries are compelled to arbitration. But if one of those beneficiaries is not a believer, should she still be compelled to participate in Christian arbitration?

These questions are before a court of appeal in California just now (McArthur v. McArthur, CA 1st District Court of Appeal No. A137133). Shortly before she died, Mother amended her trust to leave the bulk of her estate to one of her three daughters, and to mandate Christian arbitration if there were any disputes among her daughters. Another daughter is challenging both the amendment and the arbitration clause. She’s not objecting to the fact that it is Christian arbitration, but rather to the notion that she should be compelled to participate in arbitration when she never agreed to that process.

Personally, I don’t have a problem with compelling potential beneficiaries to resolve their estate disputes in arbitration. I agree with the reasoning of the court in Rachal v Reitz, supra, that the assets from a trust are a gift, and the donor can condition it on participating in arbitration and staying out of court. And I definitely endorse compelling Christian disputants to resolve their disputes within the church rather than in court. But the idea of forcing an unbelieving party into Christian arbitration against their will makes me uneasy. God loves justice, and it doesn’t feel just—even though the process itself is likely to be as just as any court proceeding, if not more. Does the daughter feel like Mother is reaching out from the grave to try one last time to shove the gospel down her throat? Even though God can work in that situation, it doesn’t feel like the way of Christ.

Rather than forcing people into Christian arbitration, I like the way that Peacemaker Ministries encourages it without requiring it, by suggesting the following language for a will:
I believe that God wants Christians to make every effort to live at peace and to resolve disputes with one another in private or within the church. I believe that obedience to these principles honors and pleases God, benefits those involved, and may lead others to faith in Christ. Therefore, trusting that my family and friends will honor my beliefs and wishes, I ask that any questions or disputes that may arise during the administration of my estate be settled by mediation and, if necessary, arbitration, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure for Christian Conciliation of Peacemaker Ministries.

Peacemaking in East Asia

  • 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.W-Brochure

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.