Practices of Christian Conciliation in the USA: History, Current State and Problems
https://doi.org/10.22394/2073-7203-2022-40-4-333-357
Abstract
The article shows the history of the practice of Christian conciliation in the United States in the second half of the 20th and early 21st centuries as a result of a combination of several factors, primarily the activities of Protestant churches and Christian lawyers, the spread of the system of alternative dispute resolution and the peculiarities of the First Amendment interpretation by the courts. The author analyzes in detail the structure and main directions of activities of the leading organizations such as the Institute for Christian Conciliation and “RW360”. Particular attention is paid to the procedure of religious conciliation, mediation and arbitration, as well as educational activities for the training of Christian peacekeepers and their certification. There are both sup‑ porters and opponents of Christian conciliation practices in the United States. The former consider this mechanism as part of freedom of religion and a tool for improving social relations, reducing conflict in society, while the latter insist on the need to prohibit or limit such practices as violating human rights. According to the author, the system of Christian conciliation, despite its merits, is vulnerable to the penetration of unscrupulous practices from the legal sphere: mediators and arbitrators can treat ordinary believers unfairly in order to please the interests of religious organizations. Overall, the studied institutions are an example of how religious associations, using the opportunities provided by the secular legal system, expand their influence in society and actualize the traditional religious functions of disputes resolution.
About the Author
I. MukhametzaripovRussian Federation
Ilshat Mukhametzaripov — Leading Research Fellow
Kazan
References
1. Baskerville, S. (2020) “The New Iron Curtain: Colleges Use Legal Innovations to Punish Dissent and Purge Academic Heretics”, The College Fix, 17 September [https://www.thecollegefix.com/the-new-iron-curtain-colleges-use-legal-innovations-to-punish-dissent-and-purge-academic-heretics/, accessed on 17.07.2021].
2. Broyde, M. J. (2017) Sharia Tribunals, Rabbinical Courts, and Christian Panels. Religious Arbitration in America and the West. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. Chua-Rubenfeld, S., Costa Jr., F. J. (2019) “The Reverse-Entanglement Principle: Why Religious Arbitration of Federal Rights Is Unconstitutional”, The Yale Law Journal 128(7): 2087–2121.
4. Fifer, A.B. (2016) “Peacemaker Ministries and the Institute for Christian Conciliation”, Anne Bachle Fifer. Mediator, trainer, peacemaker, 18 May [http://abfifer.com/blog/2016/05/peacemaker-ministries-and-the-institute-for-christian-conciliation/, accessed on 17.07.2021].
5. Glusman, D. H., Ciociola, G.D. M. (2006) Fiduciary Duties and Liabilities: Tax and Trust Accountant’s Guide. Chicago: CCH.
6. Guidelines for Christian Conciliation. Version 2021/March, Institute for Christian Conciliation [https://www.iccpeace.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/ICC_Guidelines_v2021Mar.pdf, accessed on 17.07.2021].
7. Handbook for Christian Conciliation. Version 5.4, Christian Conciliation Service [https://rw360.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Handbook-for-Christian-Conciliationv5.4-2-18-21-1.pdf, accessed on 17.07.2021].
8. Hensler, D. R. (2017) “Our Courts, Ourselves: How the Alternative Dispute Resolution Movement Is Re-Shaping Our Legal System”, Dickinson Law Review 122(1): 349–382.
9. Kovach, K.K. (2006) “The Evolution of Mediation in the United States: Issues Ripe for Regulation May Shape the Future of Practice”, in N.M. Alexander (ed.) Global Trends in Mediation, pp. 389–450. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.
10. Leonhardt, M. (2021) “The huge diversity issue hiding in companies’ forced arbitration agreements”, Consumer News and Business Channel, 7 June [https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/07/arbitrators-are-male-and-overwhelming-white-heres-why-itmatters.html, accessed on 17.07.2021].
11. Lucas, J. (2017) “Biblical Peacemaking: An Essay Comparing and Contrasting “The Peace Maker” and “Pursuing Peace””, Academia, 7 September [https://www.academia.edu/35617095/Biblical_Peacemaking_pdf, accessed on 17.07.2021].
12. Michaelson, J. (2013) Redefining Religious Liberty: The Covert Campaign Against Civil Rights. Somerville: Political Research Associates [https://www.arcusfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Redefining-Religious-Liberty-The-Covert-Campaign-Against-Civil-Rights.pdf, accessed on 27.10.2021].
13. Oppenheimer, M. (2014) “An Argument to Turn to Jesus Before the Bar”, The New York Times, 28 February [https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/01/us/before-turning-toa-judge-an-argument-for-turning-first-to-jesus.html, accessed on 17.07.2021].
14. Rules of Procedure for Christian Conciliation. Version 2021/March, Institute for Christian Conciliation [https://www.iccpeace.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/ICC_Rules_v2021Mar.pdf, accessed on 17.07.2021].
15. Sande, K. (1991) The Peacemaker: A Biblical Guide to Resolving Personal Conflict, 2004 ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
16. Shellnutt, K. (2020) “Harvest Settles Multimillion-Dollar Agreement with James MacDonald”, Christianity Today, 16 October [https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2020/october/james-macdonald-harvest-walk-word-million-arbitration.html, accessed on 17.07.2021].
17. Waddell, G. G., Keegan, J.M. (1999) “Christian Conciliation. An Alternative to Ordinary ADR. Part I”, Cumberland Law Review 583(29), republished by The Institute for Christian Conciliation on 16 February, 2015 [https://www.instituteforchristianconciliation.com/christian-conciliation-an-alternative-to-ordinary-adr/, accessed on 17.07.2021].
18. Walter, N. (2012) “Religious Arbitration in the United States and Canada”, Santa Clara Law Review 52(2): 501–569.
Review
For citations:
Mukhametzaripov I. Practices of Christian Conciliation in the USA: History, Current State and Problems. State, Religion and Church in Russia and Worldwide. 2022;40(4):333-357. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.22394/2073-7203-2022-40-4-333-357