Lawsuits: How should a believer handle being sued by non-believers?

Paul says that one believer suing another in a secular court is a discredit to the faith (1 Corinthians 6:1-11). We can refrain from suing someone else. But we cannot prevent a non-believer from suing us. 

One greater than Paul is here; Jesus spoke plainly about non-retaliation for evil, and returning good for evil. He specifically mentioned lawsuits in that context: 

"You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you." (Matthew 5:38-42)

Life has thrown a tricky situation my way, and I find myself being sued by my brother's children over a small IRA that I inherited from my mother. (Based on the contract / beneficiary agreement, the IRA custodian determined that my brother's beneficiary status lapsed when he pre-deceased our mother, and so the whole went to me as the surviving beneficiary. However, would a contract stand up in court? A jury or court is actually able to overturn a contract, so a contract is not necessarily a protection in court, even though that is one of a contract's main reason for existence.) Although the financial institution resolved matters as the contract reads, my brother's children dispute it, and I find myself being sued for a decision made by a financial institution over a contract signed by my late mother. 

Based on Jesus' teaching of returning good for evil, I did tell my lawyer that I was willing to offer them what their father would have had as beneficiary, had he survived. If only it were that simple. When my lawyer reached out to their lawyer to make that offer, their lawyer did not hear the offer, instead taking some aggressive legal actions. The resulting legal defense fees exceeded the value of the little IRA, which is worth something like the value of a not-particularly-fancy car. Based on the wording of the suit, they seem to want an amount greater than the value of my home. If the original IRA were compared to Jesus' saying about being sued for a tunic and voluntarily giving a cloak as well, then their legal demands are not merely for the tunic and the cloak, but for the whole wardrobe. 

On the one hand I'm not worried that any judge would award what they're asking, considering the actual amount of the IRA and the wording of the governing contract. On the other hand, "give them a cloak as well" would be seen as stingy rather than generous in their eyes, in light of what they're asking. 

Jesus' teaching is clear to repay evil with good, but how is not straightforward. They are not Christian, and may not be aware that Jesus said "if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well." But if they were aware of that saying, it's possible they would lodge a new suit and demand my home, to see how far I would go down that road. I am looking for the path that is faithful without being gullible, without being played or manipulated. Jesus calls us to be "wise as snakes but harmless as doves." Those opposing me do not show any interest in being harmless. They have been estranged since my brother's death, having gone no-contact to the extent that my mother and I were not notified of the time and place of my brother's burial, and only found out afterward that it had taken place and we had been excluded from it. So "just talk it through" is not as much of an option as it might be in other circumstances. 

I find myself trying to find the faithful way through multiple complications. In order for them to see my non-retaliation toward them as gracious, they would first have to see that they are not actually legally entitled to anything in this situation, given the terms my mother agreed to with the IRA custodian and the beneficiary form involved. They first have to see a settlement offer not as some fair and honest reward of their aggressive actions, not as my weakness so that they credit their lawyer, not as a sign of culpability, but as God's grace. 

How much of that is possible? 

---

Note: I wrote this while the events were unfolding, but withheld posting until the matter was mainly resolved. Earlier, there was some slim chance that they might read this; they might have been notified of it through a third party who is aware of my blog and knows all the parties involved. It would have complicated things unnecessarily for them to see my private inner thoughts before the matter was mainly resolved. We went to mediation, and the mediator's policy is that the opposing parties are never in the same room, and never speak to each other directly. So I'm not sure the extent to which coming in peacefully did any good, other than getting legal matters resolved on terms that seemed to be distasteful to everyone.  

The Apocalypse of Peter: A simple way to evaluate it

The "alternative" books of the Bible are always good for stirring up controversy. Were they suppressed, or did they simply not make the cut? Is it a power-play, or is it quality control? There's been some discussion lately on the Apocalypse of Peter. 

I'd like to suggest a straightforward test for its value: Read it. It takes very little time. It's not long. Read it, then ask yourself: Did it teach one worthwhile thing about Jesus or his apostles? Did it teach anything edifying? And if not, why should the church have included it?

People try to make a controversy out of the fact that the early church eventually took a pass on that, among other books. And based on their notes about why they made their decisions, it wasn't suppression, it was quality control. Of the books people claim were "suppressed," most were actually preserved by the church. That's not suppression. And when people stopped bothering to make copies of those books, it wasn't that anyone minded supplemental Christian books. There are libraries full of them. It's because the books weren't that interesting or useful, and might misrepresent themselves. Consider one measurable fact: how many claims are there that the book was suppressed, compared to how many claims that it contains anything valid and useful? 

Eternal Judgment: Settling out of court

Last week's post laid groundwork for this: Christ is our mediator. The role of Christ as mediator is mentioned several times in Scripture, but rarely explored in sermons or commentaries. The job of a mediator is to help negotiate an agreement between opposing parties. That is, a mediator helps opposing parties settle out of court. It is natural for us to view God as a judge: he is portrayed that way. In fact, Jesus portrays himself as a judge under the New Covenant. But the New Covenant -- a mediated settlement between God and man -- has been put in place by Christ. 

In court, opposing parties may each think their case is right. But when we have wronged God, we might view our certainty of innocence with some skepticism. 

In earthly terms, court is often the setting for drama: it's impossible to know what will happen in court. If there is a contract, is it valid? Is it enforceable? A contract will have terms; are they acceptable? And so there is no guarantee of the outcome of a trial, regardless of expectations. 

One of the main benefits of a mediated settlement is that it sets the outcome on pre-arranged terms. In Christ, we have a settlement agreement, a covenant. 

And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. (Matthew 26:27-28)

In Christ, we have settled out of court with God. The terms were: forgiveness; mercy; grace. 

Blessed are the peacemakers: Considering the job of the mediator, and the role of Christ

Peacemaking is an odd task: while everyone wants peace on the terms they imagine it, generally there is also some matter of justice or fairness behind a conflict. Who would accept peace at the price of unfairness? Can peace last if it is nothing more than a negotiated injustice? Conflict may seem better than co-signing to accept an injury. Those who simply want everyone to stop fighting have very little success because justice is not served, and valid points are left unheard and unaddressed. Someone who says simply "stop the conflict" is not likely to succeed as a peacemaker. 

So the art of a mediator involves skills that go beyond what a judge would do in settling questions of fact or law. The mediator tries to broaden perspectives so that each side gains awareness of the other side's position, gains perspective if their own side has any weaknesses they hadn't seen. The mediator may be able to get each side to realize the other side's true position, to leave aside the hard-hearted caricature that took root when there was no understanding and no respect. The mediator encourages each side to re-evaluate its thoughts about what's fair and what's practical. The mediator explores ways to broaden the playing field so that more options can be imagined, and so that everyone saves face, and both sides may attain an acceptable solution. Peacemaking is not an easy task. 

In the spiritual world, Christ's position is described as a mediator between God and man, the mediator of a new covenant between God and man (Galatians 3:20, 1 Timothy 2:5, Hebrews 8:6, 9:5, 12:24). He works to prevent that alternative where we would appear before a Judge, and without the facts on our side. When we look at Christ, we leave aside our hard-hearted caricatures of God, and we take an honest look at our own position. And so through the mediator we receive a new covenant: "I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and remember their sins no more." (Hebrews 8:12)

The kingdom of heaven is like a wardrobe door

The kingdom of heaven is like a wardrobe door. Its presence is simple, humble, and ignored. Once seen, once opened, it leads to unimaginable beauty and unexpected depth. There are temptations which can corrupt us and turn us into the worst versions of ourselves, and dangers to challenge us and transform us into great warriors or great healers, kings and queens of an otherworldly realm. It is best known by those who enter with the spirit of a child. 

(The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe by C.S. Lewis was originally published on October 16, 1950. It was the first-published volume of The Chronicles of Narnia.)

"Spare the rod, spoil the child"?

I hope my regular readers will forgive me for clearing out an old backlog topic here; it's not really in keeping with my usual content. I will not be questioning anyone's parenting style here, or anyone's parents' parenting styles. I'm hoping there are still a few useful areas of discussion. 

This post's title "Spare the rod, spoil the child"? deserves its question-mark on more than one front. Many people believe that saying is from the Biblical book of Proverbs; it's not. It's from a satirical poem which pokes fun at all kinds of things, the common moral code included. 

The proverb being satirized at that point is likely Proverbs 23:13-14, "Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you beat him with a rod he will not die. Beat him with a rod and you will save him from the grave." (JPS translation). The JPS commentary notes, "Corporal punishment can save a child from sins that will lead to his death." Of course, other things may also save a child from sins that will lead to his death, and there is (I think) where the productive conversation lies. 

I grew up in a time and place where all children that I knew were corrected with corporal punishment. It was not considered abusive as such, though abusive parents existed. The current debate -- the casual one among parents, not the academics -- generally divides up into two camps. The pro-corporal-punishment camp generally believes that the time-out-and-talking camp is too permissive. The time-out-and-talking camp generally believes that the corporal punishment camp is not only ineffective but dangerous. Please keep in mind, again, that I will not be questioning anyone's parenting style here, or anyone's parents' parenting styles. 

My own experience as a parent: I raised my children during the time when, as a culture, we had begun to re-think corporal punishment. So in my children's earlier days I used corporal punishment, then I decided to try the time-out-and-talking method. I found time-out-and-talking to be at least as effective on correcting the attitude and more effective on a peaceful atmosphere in the home, and so kept with it. All of this is simply my experience; as they say, your mileage may vary. 

Here are the discussions I think are productive: 

When is discipline too harsh? 

Yes, there is such a thing as discipline that is too harsh. The "corporal punishment" approach carries actual physical risk of harm; anyone who takes that approach -- in places where it is still legal -- carries a serious responsibility to be calm and proportionate. The "time-out and talking" approach does not risk physical harm; however, it can descend to fits of rage and verbal abuse; simply for being non-physical, it is not automatically kinder. It can likewise be out of proportion. So the "time-and out talking" approach also carries the responsibility to be calm and proportionate. 

When is discipline too lenient? 

Of course there is such a thing as discipline that is too lenient, or missing. If children are not learning to manage themselves, to be responsible, or if children are allowed to be disruptive, then that calls for correction. 

What is the end goal when handling a specific disciplinary problem? 

I'm rewinding to my experiences as a child: afterwards, it was rarely clear to me what the problem was, or what the expectations were, or what I should have done differently. The main take-away message was "don't make Mom mad." Productive discipline will help a child understand the expectations, think twice about acting out on an impulse, grow a sense of self-control, and develop the capacity to reason through a situation. Those are the things I most wish had been part of my childhood training. 

The advantages of the Golden Rule over the Platinum Rule

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" -- The Golden Rule

"Do unto others as they would want to be done to them" -- The Platinum Rule

To be sure, the Golden Rule and the Platinum Rule have similarities as guidelines for how to treat people. However, for those of us who have ever known someone to take advantage of others' generosity, the Platinum Rule raises certain red flags. The Platinum Rule carries an assumption that everyone is owed what they want from whom they want, and puts full control in the hands of the person asking. 

At its best, the Platinum Rule can account for times when we know another person's preferences.  In the same way, anyone who follows the Golden Rule would be glad to account for the receiver's wishes -- it is, after all, how we would want to be treated -- so long as the giver shares the belief that those wishes are a good idea. So when the receiver's preferences are known and are reasonable to everyone involved, then there is no material difference between the Golden Rule and the Platinum Rule. But under Platinum Rule, the wishes and willingness of the giver are not taken into consideration; the good judgment of the giver is not part of the picture. With the Platinum Rule, one person's wishes obligate the other to comply, creating an unhealthy power dynamic. 

With that in mind, I find the Golden Rule to be safer and wiser, kinder and more sustainable for a number of reasons: 

• The Golden Rule treats both the giver and the receiver as equals. It is not centered on one person or the other, but on the shared humanity of both. 
• The Golden Rule is based on generosity. It depends on the willingness of the giver and not only the demands of the receiver. 
• The Golden Rule provides a failsafe against the assumption that people are owed what they want, while the Platinum Rule does not protect against abuse. 
• The Golden Rule protects the giver against situations where the receiver is demanding something objectionable to the giver. The equal validity of both people is built into the Golden Rule. 
• In practice, this means that the Golden Rule protects the giver against situations where the receiver is selfish, greedy, or even possibly spiteful. The Golden Rule creates no obligation to fulfill a demand that is unreasonable, unwelcome, or objectionable. 
• The Platinum Rule gives the receiver (asker, demander) sole judgment over the giver's actions. The Golden Rule has a balance: it should be reasonable to both. The Golden Rule protects the agency of the giver and the willingness of the giver. The giver ultimately keeps discretion to make personal decisions. 
• The Golden Rule protects both giver and receiver from situations where the receiver is young or inexperienced and needs guidance. A receiver may be asking for something irresponsible or harmful. 
• The Golden Rule provides guidance when we do not know the other person's wishes, while the Platinum Rule is limited to times when we have specific personal knowledge. 
• The expectation of the Golden Rule is equality and reciprocity, not deference. The needs of the receiver are never meaningless or invisible with either the Golden Rule or the Platinum Rule. But the preference or ability of the giver are never meaningless or invisible under the Golden Rule. 

Some of these points show the practical limitations of whether we know another person's wishes. In the famous parable of the Good Samaritan, the Golden Rule saved the victim's life, where a stranger took reasonable actions for the obvious needs of the injured man, who seems to have been unconscious ("half dead" in the original parable). In any situation where the two people cannot communicate, the Platinum Rule cannot help. 

However, many of these points focus on how the Golden Rule cannot be abused against the consent of the giver. As mentioned before, anyone who follows the Golden Rule would be glad to account for the receiver's reasonable wishes since that is, after all, how we would want to be treated. The Golden Rule keeps the healthy balance between giver and receiver, built on the assumptions that both are equal. Equality and mercy are the essence of fellowship, and the Golden Rule is part of a larger network of teachings intended to build the fellowship of sustainable, compassionate, equal relationships. 

Update: Aron Wall, in the comments, adds a valuable point: The Golden Rule is the exercise of empathy, while the Platinum Rule never asks us to imagine ourselves in another's place. Thanks for the valuable addition!