�@

IN SEARCH OF JUSTICE (Rev.)

(Copyright June 1, 1995)

By: William D. Bontrager, J.D.

1710 C.R. 121, Hesperus, CO. 81326

970-259-3384

wdb@frontier.net

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I refuse to think of myself as a "free thinker" -- but I do store up things, mentally modified to my understanding of God and His ways, changing words to a form which makes sense to me in light of who and what I am because of Christ.

For that reason, some of what you read comes from others -- but I am unable to name or credit them, for I have neglected to store up the sources.

But four acknowledgments do need to be made:

First, to God Who loved me so much that He died for me in Christ Jesus, and then hounded after me in gentleness and persistence -- and Who still gently taps on my thick head with His teachings;

Second, to my Dad and Mom -- to Dad because all that I like most about myself I see coming from him; to Mom because she has always been the quiet display of sacrificial love;

Third, to my wife, Ellen, and my three sons -- Daniel, Richard, and Edward -- who chose to love me although I didn't demonstrate reciprocal love until of late, and, even now, do so only in infrequent and small amounts; and

Fourth, to Lawrence Eck, and the others of the Associated Christian Conciliation Services, who went before, transmitted the vision, and paved the way.

DISCLAIMER

An attorney knows that professionals may be liable for not fully informing their clients (or patients) of everything the client may need to know with which to give an "informed consent."

Consequently, we have developed "disclaimers" which we incorporate into documents which are then given to clients, patients, etc.

A disclaimer is basically a statement which says: "You may think that you know what I am saying, but I may not be saying what you think I am saying. Thus, proceed at your own risk."

So, I issue the following disclaimer.

I am not a theologian.

I have not been to Bible College or Seminary.

And, when you get to Heaven, and stand before the Lord, and He asks you: "Why did you do this dumb, stupid, thing on January 3, 1996?;" and you respond: "Well, Bill Bontrager, in his book, told me to," the Lord will probably respond with: "That is no excuse; I formed you in the womb, and wrote My laws and rules on your heart before you were born. You cannot justify your actions or inactions based upon what someone else wrote."

Finally, you will find me referring to the Bible time and time again. I did not author that book, so don't blame me for what it says. I could write you a release for liability from what it says, but only the Author can give a valid release, and I don't think He will do that.

I have attempted to write what is very near and dear, and real, to me. But I know that nothing in this book is of any value unless it is His truth, and the Holy Spirit witnesses that factor to you.

Thus I ask your forgiveness where I may fail in this effort. And I pray that you will, as you sit down to read, ask the Lord to speak to you His truth which He wants you to know at this point in your life.

FORWARD

Throughout all of my life, I have encountered conflicts.

I was a child of parents; a parent of children.

I have been, and still am, married, thanks to mutual stubbornness and a willingness to allow God to build love for one another.

I have been an employee of employers; and an employer of employees.

I have had auto accidents, arguments with health insurance companies, traffic tickets, hassles with the I.R.S., and, as you will see, a major conflict with the Indiana Supreme Court.

As a lawyer, I have handled conflicts for others and, as a judge, presided over the conflicts of others.

I write this book because I have seen thousands of Christians and Christians organizations destroyed by their conflicts. Yet, as I read the Bible, I see where our conflicts can be an opportunity for great spiritual growth.

And, so, I have two aims from this effort of writing:

(1) That more Christians will begin to deal Biblically with their conflicts, bringing, in the process, glory to God through Jesus Christ, peace to self, and reconciliation in their relationships. And,

(2) That more Christians will, when they see a friend in conflict (whether Christian or not), offer themselves to that friend as a peacemaker.

I have laid out this book as I have because:

(1) I hope that those who read this may find hope and comfort from my own story;

(2) that by using many small paragraphs, those who read this will be moved to stop often and contemplate all that is being said and not said; and

(3) that by setting forth complete Scripture texts, the Word of God will be freed to do its work of confirmation.

PROLOGUE

Dear God, I hope You know what You are doing.

It's 2:00 a.m., August 16th, 1983. I am 42 years of age, driving a U-Haul full of belongings, a dog and one son asleep on the seat beside me, my wife and another son in the car following.

I'm leaving Elkhart, Indiana, town of my birth, my youth, and where I have lived my whole life. I'm leaving mother, brother, friends, church, and the law I was born in, raised in, trained in, worked in, presided over as judge, and which supported me.

I'm moving to Minneapolis, Minnesota, a center of over two million people, and You know I hate big cities. You also know that Ellen gets cold when it gets below 80, and we saw snow there in April!

I've got one son in college, one only a year away from college, and another three years away. I owe them $15,000, borrowed from the college accounts their grandfather established for them.

All of my life, I have worked to provide for my family, and now I don't know if we'll be able to buy groceries when we get there. You showed us a house to buy, and not only have we not sold the house or office in Elkhart, You haven't even had anyone look at them.

As I'm driving, one moment I'm laughing and the next moment I'm crying. I've never been scared in my life of being able to do whatever I set my mind to do. Now You, the Creator and Sustainer of the universe, tell me to do something and I'm scared senseless by inadequacy, fear of failure, and fear for our financial provision.

But I'm driving because You told me to, and because, throughout my life, I've been searching for justice. Now You tell me I've been looking in the wrong place for 42 years, and that if I'll simply do as You ask me to I'll get to see justice take place.

The funny thing is, I think I see a faint glimmer of it down this dark road.

Dear Lord Jesus, I hope You aren't crazy!

Section I

Chapter 1

"Let Justice roll down like waters, and righteousness

like an ever-flowing stream." Amos 5:24

As I consider my life, it seems I have always been searching for justice -- that will-o-the-wisp at the back of the mind which we know exists -- and which we know we will recognize when we see it.

Justice is that thing which, when we read about a particular situation, we often say, "That is not justice."

Justice is the thing we demand for ourselves.

For most people, justice is only a periodic thing to think about or speak about. For me, it has been an obsession of life. I "blame" my father for this obsession, for without him, my search may never have begun.

Dad was a lawyer and politician. According to the history books, he was the typical example of the poor country farm boy who had to do chores on the way to and from high school to pay for school. Then he boot-strapped himself, by dint of pure grit, to a position of authority and respect.

For the first eight years of my life, Dad served as a city judge, and then as county prosecutor. I had a law-enforcer for a father.

Because of what was to him a matter of great injustice (see page 7, Readers Digest, July, 1954), he ran for, and was elected to, the Indiana State Senate, where he served 16 years. I had a law-giver for a father.

I was born into this environment in 1941, the second of 3 sons (David, born 1939 and Charles, born 1945). The place was Elkhart, Indiana, now a city of over 40,000, in a county of 130,000, on the East-West toll road about mid-point along the north line of the state.

But it remained Dad, and the impact of his personality upon me, which molded me more than the rest of these mundane items.

They say that the law is a "jealous mistress", and I found it to be so. It seemed to be so for Dad.

Or maybe it is always so for people who are searching for justice?

Or maybe anything which we allow to become the center of our life can become a jealous mistress.

But because of who Dad was, what he was, and whatever motivated him, our home seemed a center for legal and political discussions. It was like a 24-hour a day current events class in political science graduate school.

I can recall Dad holding forth at the end of the table about some lawsuit, and rearranging the food on my plate to diagram the scene of the auto accident. The rest of the meal was devoted to final argument. And I found it hard to fork my food, for he kept moving the objects of the accident around the plate.

I also recall once, when quite small, going to him and tugging on his coat with some, to me, meaningful question of life. It was the last time I did that, for I quickly discovered that I had opened a door to being cross-examined.

What do "normal" families talk about around the dinner table? I don't know. I thought the great American pastime was roasting other people. Around our table, we discussed and debated social, ethical, religious, and political issues. And we discussed persons, and their actions and inactions, generally in a condemning way rather than in a praising way.

In 1952 -- I was 11 -- I missed my first day of school. Dad made us stay home to watch television. Understand, watching television was a rare event, so a full day sounded pretty neat, and it was a day out of school.

The event was the Republican National Convention, about which Dad declared: "This will be the death of the Republican Party as the eastern liberal establishment will steal the nomination from Bob Taft and give it to Ike." And that is a direct quote, etched in my brain for eternity.

Dad also was President of the National Exchange Clubs. I remember Mom and him going to Cuba for the national convention at the end of the year he was President. Being a man who found it hard to take vacations, it was also planned as a vacation. Within six hours of getting to Cuba, he was on his way back north for a special session of the legislature, called because of one of his bills aimed at righting another injustice. So, justice came before vacation -- as well I found out.

All of us boys, every year when the legislature was in session, served as pages, so we got to see the political process first hand. But all I recall is that it seemed a lot of people were running in a lot of different directions, with no one listening to what the speaker was saying.

Dad was also a man who loved God, and he was a student of the Bible. Thus, most discussions of law and politics eventually ended up having the issues, or person, compared to the Biblical standards.

And the comparisons didn't stop there! Sunday dinner seemed to be a meal of roast pastor, as the pastor and his sermon were dissected and examined under the light of the "Divine Law".

I always felt I was being likewise examined and compared, and I felt that I was always on the short end of the comparison.

Finally, Dad was a man who seemed, to me, to be distant and unapproachable, aloof and cold. He was a face behind a newspaper, a figure in the garden, a man "holding court", or a man on the run.

He was at the Legislature in Indianapolis Monday through Friday, getting home late on Friday. Saturday, he was off to the office before we were up, staying until after we were in bed, repeating that Sunday morning, then presiding over Sunday dinner, and then leaving for Indianapolis right after dinner.

He traveled the state for the Republican Party, and the country for the National Exchange Club.

Somewhere, in all of this, I got the impression that he was always judging me and that, try as I might, I didn't seem able to please him. Dad also seemed incapable of displaying love: to tuck me in bed, or give me a hug, or a pat on the head, or to tell me that I had done well.

I recall bringing home grade cards which were always straight "A" in the subjects -- but Dad talked about the "C" in "Attitude."

Dad passed away in 1971, before I gained the knowledge and understanding that I now have. Today, I know that Dad did love us, and I know that as "truth."

I know it because I have chosen to believe that God loves me based only on what the Bible says -- I have no objective evidence (at least that which would be admissible in a court) to support that knowledge of God's love for me.

The Bible, however, also says that God creates us in His image. That means He created my father in His image. Therefore, my father was created with love for me in his heart even before I was born.

I also know that my father loved me because I love my wife and children with a desperate and abiding love. Yet, like my father, I seem unable to adequately or properly or constantly or consistently display that love. I agonize over my failure, and I believe that my father agonized over his failure.

In short, Dad, like me, fell short of the glory of God.

But, because of all that Dad was, and all that I perceived him to be, and the fact that he was gone a lot of the time, I never felt that I could go to him for advice, comfort, or sharing.

All of this also led me to truly hate him. Since I associated his characteristics with being an attorney, I swore a blood-oath that I would never be an attorney.

My view of my father, and this environment in which I was raised, also helped shaped my theology about God:

First, God was an absolute. He existed. There really is not a time in my life that I can look to and say that I didn't believe in God and His existence.

Second, I knew that God created me, and that He created me distinctly different from all others, and that every other human being was, likewise, created unique and distinct.

Third, I knew that God created me with a knowledge of right and wrong; that He expected (not wanted) me to do right and refrain from doing wrong (Dad was also trying to teach me the differences). Since Dad punished me for my failures, I expected God would, during life, punish me also. Since Dad always seemed to know when I had done wrong and found out about it, I expected God would know and find out also. This fear helped to keep me basically honest.

Fourth, I knew that God expected (not wanted) us to help other people as we travel through life.

Fifth, I believed that God created mankind for the purpose of bringing justice to the earth; that He had equipped us to be able to do so; that He expected (not wanted) us to do so; and that He would judge us on our success or failure of doing the job. From Dad, I saw that the best way to establish justice was by working through the system of law, government, and politics.

Sixth, I knew that God wanted me to have a "right relationship" with Him and with all whom I met, although I didn't know what that meant or how to achieve according to God. I felt I understood how to do it with people, however -- just be honest and treat them as you like to be treated.

Finally, I knew that I would someday stand before God and be

judged on how I had carried out the assignment. God would stand there, in His long black robe, with a white wig, holding a balance scale, but without any blindfold. He would pour my actions onto the appropriate sides of the scales, allowing me to argue my case over each act before He passed judgment. Then whichever way the scales tipped, that was the way I would go. I knew I would win the case, by a simple preponderance of the evidence (civil law, not criminal law would apply) for I was a "good man."

I saw God as otherwise detached -- like Dad. It was as though God had created the universe, a place which we know is full of nothing but troubles and hardships, and then created and thrust man into the center of it with a basic job description, work instructions, and the necessary tools to straighten things out.

I imagined God then left to do whatever it is God does when He is not creating.

We didn't need to seek Him for help, and He didn't expect us to seek Him. Every now and then, He would come back, check on things, and make some minor correction in the course of the ship.

If we needed to check the course, we had the "Divine Law" of the Bible to go to, particularly the Old Testament portion.

As I look back, school and church, for me, merely reinforced this basic theology. After all, our Constitution says:

We The People, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure the domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I was taught the following basics:

"The United States is a nation of Law, not of men. These laws and structures are founded upon the 'Divine Law'."

"We have a 'justice system' in the United States."

"No other nation in the history of the world has ever achieved the level of justice which we have achieved in the United States."

"We are creatures with rights. It is right to uphold, fight to maintain, and make sure every other person knows of our rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

"We are a nation of laws, and since anarchy is the alternative, you do not take the law into your own hands when your rights are violated. If you have not been dealt with justly, you go to court, sue the offender, and the law and the judge will do justice for and to you."

"If anything seems to be wrong with the laws, or the system, or the people in authority, so that justice is being denied, that is of no great concern. We will merely change the law, change the system, and/or change who is in power. Then justice will be obtained and done."

"All mistakes can and will be corrected, with time and patience, through the law and government and system; Justice Will Prevail!"

Finally, there was the teaching about what made America and

Americans great, and formed our images and attitudes and style of

behavior. It was called "Frontier Dynamics". It was associated with the idea of "Rugged Individualism".

The basic idea was to keep a stiff upper lip, do your own thing in rightness, bother no one, defend anyone who needed it if you were in the vicinity, but, you can make it on your own. Relationships are not important, and emotions are to be kept well in check.

Have you ever stopped to think how many of those rugged individuals, alone on the frontier, ended up scalped, frozen, or mauled by a grizzly?

The ones who survived did so in community, building forts, coming to the forts in times of attack, parceling out the labors for the benefit of all, discovering and utilizing the talents of each for the benefit of all. And weeping with one another, and rejoicing with one another.

Fortunately, throughout all this time that I was growing up, there was also Mom. I have only just begun to see and understand her impact upon my life.

The Mom I recall as I grew up was the mother of the breakfast time. I would get up, go through the bathroom ritual, and reach the kitchen. There would be Mom, in her robe, with the table set, food ready, lunch prepared in the lunch box, smile on the face, and hug in her arms.

Mom was also the darner of socks, sewer of labels on clothes, etc. She was, and is, a true Proverbs 31 woman. She was the continuous and clear display of sacrificial love.

I recall the playground fight, although I have conveniently forgotten who started it.

I do recall very clearly that Joe swung first, hitting me. I then swung, but missed (selective memory?).

The Principal came on the scene, separated us, and went about gathering evidence. She then took us to her office where she spoke to us about the matter of fighting. Then she reached into her bottom right hand drawer, brought forth her sturdy paddle, and set herself to administer justice.

"Joseph, bend over!" 6 swats. "You may leave."

Well, obviously the truth had been heard, and justice done, so I started to leave.

"William, the Lord said: 'Turn the other cheek'. Bend over!" Three swats. Still, it was justice.

* * * * *

I recall the day we were told that our books would not be used the next year.

We owned the books, which meant we could not resell them. We were also told of a mission school which could use the books, and large barrels were placed in the room to receive any donations (we were not required to donate).

Some kids, instead of donating, spent class-time folding the pages back upon themselves, thus damaging the books.

Upon discovery by the principal, the entire class was instructed in the wrongness of "willful destruction of property which had value to others, even if the property is your own to destroy." Each of the kids got a public three swats with the paddle, and a note of explanation was sent to his (or her) parents.

The next day, the books came back, all the pages unfolded, and were placed in the barrels. That seemed like justice.

Chapter 2

"Woe to those who enact evil statutes and to those who constantly record unjust decisions, so as to deprive the needy of justice, and rob the poor of My people of their rights." Isaiah 10:1-2

I still don't know why I decided to become an attorney. I had sworn a blood oath that I would not be one. I remember the day, where I was, who was present, and what the conversation was. It was as though a switch had been thrown, and what I had sworn I would never be, I would be. And it was as though it was always going to have been that way.

So I packed up, left Indiana, and started my second year of college, now pre-law rather than engineering, now at the University of Colorado, rather than Purdue University.

I got into politics at once, intent upon forming some contacts so that, after law school, I could get a job in Colorado, in the mountains I already loved (was I looking to be a rugged individual in location as well as attitude and action?), and so that I would never have to return to, or deal with, Dad.

I met Ellen while handing out "Nixon for President" stickers at a football game. Both of us came from families that stressed political agreement as a prerequisite to a healthy marriage.

We got married the next spring; Dan was born the following winter. The college steadily increased the out-of-state tuition. The vision of a log house in the mountains, string ties and cowboy boots, and a law practice which would allow time for skiing and jeeping, all vanished in the face of economic reality. We moved back to Indiana, and to Indiana University.

Dad had never gone to law school. He learned law through a correspondence course, and by studying law under another attorney. He still had his books from the late 20's, so I packed them up and carted them off to law school with me. This proved to have an interesting impact upon me.

Each of Dad's books, on each subject of the law, began with fundamental propositions of "truth". They were axioms of the law. They claimed that they were founded upon immutable principles, existing in nature or God, always there and always true.

The study of law, in order to be meaningful, had to begin with a study of these truths. Once you knew the truths, you began to read cases which showed you how they were applied in various factual situations.

It was like having a shelf full of jars of food-stuffs. After hearing the facts of the case, you went to the shelf to see what principles needed to be applied in order to serve up justice.

For the trained attorney of the past, his livelihood depended on his ability to recall the immutable principles, and argue their application to the facts of the case. By argument from accepted principles, he sought to persuade the judge. The more logical the application, the better the lawyer.

But law schools of today operate on a different basis. Today you study cases by the thousands and attempt to extract the principles from the cases. But every time you change the facts of a case, you change the essence of the principle. This means that the food shelf is bare at the start.

From the cases, you place what you think to be the principles up on the shelf. If, for the next case, you find the principles don't fit, just throw them away and find a new principle which will fit. "Law" has become situational; the absolutes have been lost.

Today, an attorney earns his livelihood by dreaming up, arguing, and getting someone to accept, a new and novel "principle," often out of thin air! Since God is an absolute, and the law is not, sooner or later the law student or attorney will lose all concept of absolutes and, therefore, of God.

For example, consider the matter of contracts. An attorney drafts contracts striving to remove all loopholes from use by the opposition while retaining one or more for his own client. The client thinks that the black words on white paper have independent meaning; that they mean exactly what they say. In fact, the document has no meaning absent trust and relationship between the parties. End trust, end relationship, and the words on the paper will take on meaning under only one of two circumstances:

(1) that the parties restore relationship, in which case they will then give meaning to the words;

(2) that someone, judge or jury, will tell them what the language means.

The attorney knows this, but finds himself soon unable to admit it to himself or to his client. So a promise is not a promise; it is always conditional and situational. Yet Jesus said "Let your 'yes' be your 'yes', and your 'no' your 'no'." Matt. 5:33-37

How can we expect an attorney to understand a God Whose promises, Whose Word, are absolute and unchanging, guaranteed to be performed?

I didn't understand this at the time, for I chose to place my faith in the existence of the principles, and the willingness of all people to recognize and follow those principles. That matched with my dinner table upbringing.

I expected justice from the laws and legal system and the people entrusted with overseeing the system.

But the educational process did give me a double-mindedness, for it taught me how to play the game and albeit subconsciously, it subverted me.

It was with all of this -- my background, my personal theology of God, my understanding of the place of principles and absolutes in the matter of justice and law, and my law school training -- that I began the practice of law.

Today I wonder if the term "practice of law" is also related to this matter of justice? It seems as if we are intimating that if we "practice" long enough, we will eventually get it right. Then we will have justice.

What I did, starting in June of 1966, was to "lawyer" for a living. I served as a technician of that which I had learned. And I began to see, but not understand, that we are not a nation of laws but a nation of people involved in making, interpreting, and enforcing laws.

There are, in fact, and never have been or will be, any absolutes when it comes to the law.

There is, in fact, and never has been or will be, justice through law as we think of justice.

As an example of the lack of absolutes, let's consider the matter of the commission of a crime:

There is the question of whether or not the crime will be detected. Many are not.

If detected, will it be reported? Many are not.

Will the person who committed the crime be caught? Many are not.

If the guilty person is caught, will he be arrested or merely warned and released? An officer will make this decision.

As the facts of the case will fit several crimes, with different penalties, will the person be charged with a heavy penalty, or light, or something in between? This will be the decision of the prosecutor.

Will there be a plea-bargain offered, how lenient or harsh will the offer be, and will the proposed bargain be accepted? Or will the zeal of either attorney for a day in the lime-light of the court room get in the way of just and reasonable settlement?

If there is a trial: (1) will all the facts be discovered; (2) will all the facts be allowed into evidence; (3) what will be the demeanor or character of the witnesses, as perceived by judge or jury; (4) what will be the level of competency of the lawyers; (5) what will be the competency and courage of the judge; and (6) what impact will personal matters of life have upon the lives of every participant at the time when they make their particular decisions in the process?

Will the guilty be convicted or acquitted? And the innocent convicted or acquitted?

Will the person be sentenced to prison or put upon probation?

How long will be the sentence?

Which prison will the person be sent to, or how much supervision will he be under if on probation?

What will be the conditions of the prison to which he is sent -- will it have programs available, or merely be a warehouse?

What crime may be perpetrated on him while in prison? Perhaps even a crime far greater than any he did? What will be the impact of the experience upon him? Will it serve to rehabilitate or harden?

Will the probation officer care about the man, or treat him as one more statistic in an already too large case load?

Will the person be released early, or have to serve the entire sentence?

Will the family, community, and victim accept the person after conviction, or reject him?

Finally, how will each person who hears about the matter, through media gossip, interpret what they hear in light of their concept of justice?

No, these are not decisions or actions of a blind, impartial, absolute law. They are, each and every one of them, decisions of individual people, with their individual backgrounds, their problems of the moment, acting within a specific moment in time.

Each of these people, just like me (although I failed to understand this at the time), are sinners "doing what they do not want to do, and not doing what they want to do" (Rom. 7:15, 19-20). Since every one of these matters affect justice, there is no true justice available at law.

Yet, every person I have ever met "knew" that there was to be justice, and "knew" what was or was not justice!

The more and more that I saw, and the more and more that I participated in the legal system, the more and more I became convinced that We The People were not doing a very good job of bringing justice to the earth. We were not doing the job assigned us by God. But, that didn't bother me deeply, for I knew that we could still do it! All we had to do was change who was in power, alter a law or process here or there, and we could still get justice.

Since I was a "good" person, I was obviously qualified to assist. So I got into politics.

* * * * *

I recall our law school teacher on the Uniform Commercial Code. He was fond of claiming that the Code was drafted so that little old ladies always win. Then he would give us a test question where the little old lady had to lose. But if we didn't point out that little old ladies always win, and point out where the law needed to be changed so that she would win, we had our grades reduced.

* * * * *

I also recall the time I convinced a client to plead guilty to an offense he said he did not commit and an offence I believed he did not commit. I convinced him to do it because he could plead to a misdemeanor, and avoid the risk of conviction of a felony, and having that felony on his record. I did it, and he did it, but it left a sour taste in both of our mouths.

Chapter 3

"Loosen the bonds of wickedness. Undo the bands of the yoke. Let the oppressed go free."

Isaiah 58:6

In 1972, I assisted in the election of Otis Bowen to the governorship of Indiana. After his election, I wrote a letter to him, offering to serve as a volunteer in any capacity in which he might think my talents could be of benefit.

I thought that through such service I could, in some small way, assist in bringing greater justice to the state of Indiana.

One year later (maybe my help was not all that significant!), I received an invitation from the Governor to become a member of the Indiana Board of Correction. I literally did not know what the Board was, or what it was designed to do. But I said, "yes."

Three weeks later, the inmates at the Indiana State Prison rioted, and I discovered what the Board of Correction was.

Until then, I had no significant experience in the criminal justice field of the law. My contact had been to go over to City Court periodically on behalf of a client, ask the prosecutor to reduce the speeding charge from 46 mph in a 30 zone to 44 mph so that it would only mean one point on the license, not two. The prosecutor would do so, adding a few dollars to the fine and court costs. Since it always happened that way, justice was always done.

I served on the Indiana Board of Correction from September, 1973, through December, 1976, and became Chairman in early 1975. I visited every penal institution in the state of Indiana, studied legislation to alter conditions, nomenclature of crimes and penalties, attended conferences, and read books on penology and correctional philosophy.

As I wandered the prisons, read and studied, met inmates, viewed often deplorable conditions and meaningless programs, any inner peace which I had was driven from me (I have always been a too-easily angered person).

You may be interested in knowing that the animal control ordinance of the City of Indianapolis provided that any dog pen which a person owned must contain 24 square feet of exercise space. At the Indiana State Reformatory, just outside the city, there are hundreds of cells containing 48 square feet --with two men per cell.

Often times the ages and crimes of the roommates would be grossly disparate: one young and a property offender while the other was older and seasoned, with violent crimes to his credit.

Later, as a judge, I had a case where the 26-year-old had a criminal record of: forging a $25 check at a clothing store at age 19, burglarizing a clothing store at age 22, and forging a credit card for $80 worth of clothes. I sentenced him to the Indiana State Reformatory for 32 years. This was the penalty that the law mandated for an "habitual offender."

As I studied the situation, I found that I also had to look at the criminal justice system through which the inmates had passed. After looking at that, I needed to look at the juvenile system, for it seemed many of the adults started there.

Then I needed to look at the mental health system, for many of the inmates suffered from acute mental health problems.

I then moved to consider the special education system, for the average functional educational level of the inmates was about 5th grade.

Then, on to study the system for the physically handicapped.

The last two areas -- special education and the handicapped -- held special interest to me because our second son, Richard, had needs in both areas.

My studies were to prove invaluable later, as judge, although it also was to make me insufferable whenever I saw the lack of justice in the system.

But everywhere I looked, "We The People" were failing. Once again, I found no apparent justice.

And I was also amazed that when I spoke about these matters to others, I often found that where they saw justice, I saw injustice, and vise versa.

But that represented no real problem for me; after all, I had all the facts, and the knowledge of the law, and the ability to make appropriate judgments, whereas they had only hearsay and lack of legal understanding upon which to base their very wrong conclusions!

But I firmly believed that when the people were told the truth -- hard though it might be to swallow -- they would recognize it as truth and they would respond appropriately. I believed that we are good (other-centered) rather than sinful (self-centered).

With that premise in mind, I campaigned for the Indiana State Senate in 1974. Like my father, I saw legislation as the way to "set matters right." As I campaigned, I spoke on prison conditions, alternative sentences, lack of good mental health facilities and treatment options, and lack of special educational programs. I spoke of justice and the need for "We The People" to sacrifice some of our pet projects so that the plight of others might be bettered.

What I discovered was that most people were interested in chuck holes, bridges, and lower taxes -- which is the long way of saying I lost.

There was something else having an impact on me during all this time (1959-1974). Ever since graduating from high school, I had dropped out of church. I did go at least 3 times per year, my reason being that I considered myself a Christian. Since everybody went to church twice a year, and so many of them were merely, from my judgment, hypocrites, a real Christian would go more than twice; three seemed like as good a number as any other.

Early in 1975, a new pastor came to the church I infrequently attended. He started to light a fire in me. Then he suddenly left, another came, and the fire was going out.

That fall, our son, Richard, was badly burned. During the weeks that he was in the hospital, the pastor of the church where he was in Boy Scouts -- not the church we then attended -- visited him each day. Richard was in reverse isolation, meaning the visitor had to scrub down, don surgical garb, and a wear mask. This pastor did that, each day bringing a word of cheer, and a riddle to be answered the next day.

I didn't know exactly what I was looking for in life, in God, in work, in people, or in a church; but what that man displayed was closer than anything else I had encountered.

We started attending Winding Waters Brethren Church, and within a few weeks I was one of the most regular and dependable members in the church. I started singing in the choir, reading the Bible, and even teaching Sunday School. By early 1976, Ellen and the boys wanted to be baptized, so I said the words and joined them.

It was also in that year, 1976, that there was going to be a vacancy in the Judgeship of the Elkhart Superior Court II. In the past, the attorneys would get together and, basically, tap someone to be Judge. Oh, others might run, but the weight of the vast majority of the attorneys normally carried the day. That year, for many reasons, that was not going to happen. So I appointed myself a committee of one to find a qualified person to run for Judge whom I could support and campaign for.

In Indiana, judges were elected on the regular, partisan, political ballot. However, that meant nothing to me, for a judge should be above any normal sense of politics if justice were to be done.

So, I went to attorneys of both parties. And, one after another, they said "no." The main reason was the pay scale, which was only $31,500 at the time.

As I made my rounds, there came a Friday when, to my amazement, two attorneys, one from each party, both unaware of the other, after refusing to run, said to me, "Why don't you run?"

I laughed -- judges are over 60, slightly balding or with a great mane of white hair, wear three-piece suits with watch fobs, and starched shirts with ties.

I was 35, wore a flat-top, cowboy boots, western cut clothes, and, if a tie at all, a string tie (if I couldn't live in the West, I could at least dress western).

Over the noon hour, I got to thinking some about myself.

Money was not a major goal of my life, even though I was already making fifty percent more than the judge.

I wasn't happy with my workaholic nature, particularly with the boys growing (they were then 15, 11, and 8), and the judgeship, I thought, would give me a slower pace of life.

Then , too, there was this thing called "justice." Since I could not find it anywhere, maybe I could do some as judge.

I left the office early, and stopped to see the pastor and ask him what I should do. I still don't know what possessed me to do that.

I am a German-Male, and we types never need to ask anyone what we are to do. We know, by instinct, at all times, what we are to do. We are always in total control of all facets of our life and have no real need for outside guidance or counsel -- least of all from a pastor. Remember my belief that God has equipped us and given us our marching orders, and left us to do the job.

Pastor gave me good advice: "If you feel God is calling you to be a judge, then, by all means go for it." I thought, "What has God got to do with it?"

I know -- or have heard, and read in the Bible -- that God does speak to some people, and "call" them. But not thick-heads like me!

I talked it over with Ellen, and ran, even though I wasn't "called." I took office on January 1st, 1977, and left February 14th, 1982, nearly destroyed in the process.

I found that I could not do justice, nor even deliver justice.

I watched a parade of hurting, broken, maimed, downtrodden people -- people who were emotionally, spiritually, financially in agony and bondage -- walk through the courtroom, looking up to me in some expectation of receiving help.

All I had to offer them was the law -- and it did no good.

It seemed to me that:

Where individual treatment was called for, the law responded by lumping people together.

Where mercy was called for, the law offered only condemnation.

Where healing of relationships was called for, the law offered only a sword which divided.

Where assistance, a helping hand, and rehabilitation were called for, the law offered nothing.

"Lady Justice" proved to be truly blind, and deaf, and devoid of hands and heart.

Being human, of course, the error could not be mine (or ours) -- it had to be God's error.

He Who was called Just, He Who was called Righteous, He Who ruled the universe -- He had made a mistake. He had turned and walked away at a time of need. He was turning a deaf ear to the cries of His creation. He would not look at the plight of His people. He had to do something.

Ludicrous boldness has always been a fault of mine, along with a monstrous ego. So, in the fall of 1977, I unabashedly told God that He had made a mistake. I told Him that He was a fraud Who was calloused and uncaring, and that He had better get to work to make things right. He had to find a new way, for "We The People" weren't going to get the job done.

After all my pent up anger and rage had been unleashed, it was like God and I had a conversation -- me screaming and Him speaking quietly and gently.

No, I didn't hear voices, or anything like that, but "conversation" is the only word I can think of to explain the by-play of emotions that swept through me. It went like this:

"Yes, Judge," said God (Note the capital J, and the use of the title? God knew where I lived -- in the law -- and that is where He chose to meet me.), "I do know what is going on down there, and let Me assure you that it has all been provided for."

"In a pig's eye," I said. "If it has all been taken care of, why can't I see it?"

"Because, Bill," (Note how all of a sudden, having gotten my attention, He turned very personal?) "you are a sinner."

"So what? I know that. What has that got to do with what we are talking about? So I speed, drink too much, smoke like a chimney, fudge on my taxes, and have a problem with gambling -- so what? Okay, I'm a rotten husband and father, but you can't lay that on me; that's Dad's fault."

"Bill, do you recall the man you just sent to prison for life, for the rape of a two year old child? Do you recall how you felt about him, and what you wanted to do to him?" (Oh, boy, did I ever -- and at noon in the middle of the town's busiest intersection!) "Well, that is how I feel about you, and what I would just as soon do to you. That is what a sinner is, that is what you are, and worse."

For the first time in my life, I knew there was not going to be a balance scale in God's hand when I had to face Him. There was not going to be a weighing of the good and bad things I had done, measured against the Biblical law.

There was only going to be Him, in absolute holiness and righteousness, and me in my sinfulness. Between us would be a void which I could never cross no matter how hard I worked at it, or how long I might live. I stood judged by the law I believed in -- by justice -- and stood silent and condemned.

"Now we know that whatever the law says, it speaks to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be closed, and all the world may be accountable to God; because by the works of the law, no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the law comes only the knowledge of sin." Rom. 3:19-20.

On Monday mornings, as Judge, I separated people from family and community by sending them to prison. I was Judge of Criminal Court.

On Monday afternoons, I separated husbands and wives. I was Judge of Divorce Court. But I placed adoptions for the end of the day to ease the pain by joining something together, rather than dividing (forgetting that even then I was dividing a mother from her child).

On Tuesdays, I separated children from parents, and placed them in juvenile homes and foster care, while ordering the parents into treatment programs. I was Judge of Juvenile Court. We said we expected to put this family back together again, but it seldom seemed to work.

On Wednesdays and Thursdays, I presided over the battles of businessmen on their contracts and relationships, dividing them by the decisions which I made. I was a Judge of Civil Court.

On Fridays, I separated people from family and community by sending them to mental institutions. I was Judge of Mental Health Commitments.

And on the weekends, I cried.

* * * * *

The man who raped the child? When last I knew, he was still in prison, but he is free, for he knows Christ as his Lord and Savior and made confession to God and victims.

Chapter 4

"But, now, apart from the law, the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed to by the law and the prophets, that righteousness of God being through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction -- all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God; rather, we are justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus Whom He displayed." Rom. 3:21-25 If the radically transformed attorney, Saul of Tarsus (Paul), had stopped writing at verse 20 of chapter 3 of Romans; if God had stopped interacting with mankind when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, then I was doomed to Hell for eternity.

Praise God that He did not stop, nor did Paul.

That night, God answered my screams of rage and hopelessness by showing me that there was a bridge across that void. That bridge was Jesus Christ Who was God in the flesh, come to earth to show us the way, nailed by me to a cross for my sins, and then raised from the grave in triumph, glory, and power.

Christ and His cross, were God's free gift. If I would accept the gift in faith, with a broken spirit and repentant heart, I would thereby gain a right relationship with God.

There is, there was, and there always will be, no other Way -- only the Perfect God can provide salvation for imperfect man.

To use Josh McDowell's phrase, "The evidence demanded this verdict." In fact, as I look back, it did not even take faith on my part. It was a coming together of truth and conviction, granting to me an understanding. Being used to working from facts and law, those were the very tools used by God.

Isn't it interesting how God always meets us right where we live? He custom tailors His message to get our attention. And He always deals with us individually, rather than in groups.

Too bad the law can't be that way; then we might see justice. But I am getting ahead of myself. I didn't know all these things then.

I still lacked a great deal of understanding.

I knew that there were things I ought to do which I didn't do;

I knew that there were things which I did which I ought not to do; and I saw myself unable to change in any of those respects.

I knew God had love and compassion for me, and had provided for my salvation through Jesus Christ. And I, in turn, had love and compassion for those who appeared before me seeking justice.

But I had no time, or love, or compassion for the law or any other person in authority with whom I was forced to deal as judge. I saw them as fools -- corrupt, disinterested, calloused, mercenary, self-seekers of power.

What was needed to be done, to achieve justice, would have to be done outside of, or on the fringes of, the law.

It would have been better if I had seen all these others as I saw myself, as a sinner saved only by grace, struggling down the road of life, trying to make things a little better, waiting for the Lord to return and set all things right.

But, not making that connection, and feeling anointed by God to make things right in my area of influence, I picked up my 16 pound sledge hammer, pulled on my hob nailed boots, and went out to instruct "them" in the error of "their" ways; to teach them that I had the way to justice, and that if they would just do what I said, when I said it, we would yet bring justice to earth.

"We", through our efforts -- through law and system and government and politics -- could still get the job done.

As I went forth, a shining knight in armor, I forgot a few things:

(1) those I went out to instruct were there before I arrived, and pretty well entrenched in their positions;

(2) most would prove to still be there, just as well entrenched, after I had left;

(3) there were more of them than of me; and

(4) some of them, and all of them put together, had far more power and clout than did I!

I never used to be able to read the writings of Paul -- maybe it was the attorney in me doing battle with some of the attorney in Paul which seeps into his writings.

Had I understood then what I understand now, maybe the past would have been different. Maybe, when I "spoke with the tongues of angels" for truth and justice and a better way, I would have done so with love, rather than as "a noisy gong and clanging cymbal" (I Cor. 13:1). Possibly if I had possessed a sense of God's agony over those who strayed from His sheep fold, and had seen those in authority as ones for whom He wept, maybe I would have wept more and thundered less.

It didn't help that I was stuck in reading the prophets of the Old Testament. I saw them as stern faced men, standing on the Temple steps, right arm rigidly extended, index finger pointing, thundering judgment against the evil doers on behalf of God.

Later, I would come to see them as men in constant tears. Later, I would perceive their message in a different light.

When I began to perceive God as a God Who hungered so deeply for the desired relationship with His ultimate creation -- which rejected Him -- that He was willing to send His Son to the cross to die in agony, it would change my concept of justice.

Later, I would learn what the prophets knew.

"Later" proved to be too late -- at least for me as a

judge.

* * * * *

I recall a man speaking to a group of judges in the fall of 1980, when, unknown to me, it was already too late, speaking to a group of judges.

He told us that judges were, to others, very powerful and scary people, even threatening to others just by their very

existence. He also said that, due to the nature of our jobs, we would see things which would distress and even outrage us. We would want to change those things.

What we needed to recognize was that any change we advocated would directly challenge some other person as to how they were or were not doing their job. The challenge would immediately place them upon the defensive. To protect themselves from what they would perceive to be an attack, they would seek to determine what our motive was for what we were advocating.

"Motivation," he said, "is 99 percent perceptual. Why you do what you do is very unimportant in the scheme of reality. Why the person being affected by what you are doing thinks you are doing it, is true reality. And how you do what you do is as important as what you do."

Chapter 5

"No testing has overtaken you except such as is common to man; and God is faithful, Who will not allow you to be tested beyond what you are able, but with the testing will provide the way of escape also, that you may be able to endure it."

I Cor. 10:13

As I said, it was to be later, and too late.

On February 25th, 1981, I was found in Indirect Criminal Contempt of the Indiana Supreme Court, fined $500, given a 30-day jail sentence (suspended) and informed that proceedings would be begun which could result in my removal from the bench, and loss of license to practice law for life.

What happened to bring this all about is not so important. If you feel compelled to know more, read chapter 16 of Loving God, by Chuck Colson, under the title, Contra Munda (Latin for Against The World). I think a better title would have been, "Foot In Mouth."

However, I am going to share a few facts, for they relate to this whole matter of justice.

In April, 1976, Indiana changed the name of a certain crime from First Degree Burglary to Burglary of a Dwelling, and changed the sentence from a non-suspendable (no probation possible) indeterminate (the prison officials determine how long you serve) 10 to 20 years, to a suspendable (probation can be granted), determinate (Judge picks the number of years) 6 to 20 years. But the change would not take effect until July 1, 1977.

In April, 1977, the date the law was to take effect was changed, and moved to October 1st, 1977. On September 15, 1977, a man broke that law and was caught. In January, 1978, he pled guilty.

I sentenced him to 5 months time served in the county jail, plus 7 months to be served in a state facility (the one with cells twice the size of dog pens). I suspended the balance, declaring the non-suspendable portion of the law unconstitutional according to several legal theories.

Two of the theories were:

(1) If, after arrest but before conviction, the legislature reduces the penalty for an offense, should not the defendant get the benefit of the reduction?

(2) Is there not a violation of the idea of "separation of powers" when the legislature -- who never has to personally meet a defendant -- determines who goes to prison, rather than the judge who meets the offender, has a pre-sentence report and who has all of the facts of the offense and offender? It was, after all, the executive and legislative branches of Germany -- not the judicial branch -- which determined that a Jew got executed.

Moreover, the Indiana Constitution provided that the Penal Code was to be based upon principles of reformation and not "vindictive justice." Is it not vindictive justice to determine that someone must go to prison without any regard to who they are as a unique, God-created, individual?

The prosecutor appealed.

In September, 1978, the man was released from prison and began a process of meeting his victims and making some restitution. We called this "Victim Offender Reconciliation."

He and his family were reconciled. His former boss, from whom he had stolen, hired him back. All looked wonderful.

In June, 1979, the Supreme Court reversed the sentence and directed me to send him back to prison for the rest of the 10 to 20 years.

The man appeared, and asked for a continuance to research the law and present evidence concerning his rehabilitation. (Actually, I suggested this to his attorney as an argument.) I granted continuance for 60 days, over objection of the prosecutor who said, "Your only option here, Judge, is to send him back to prison ASAP."

At the end of the 60 days, the prosecutor asked me to withdraw from the case on the grounds of bias. I did so, for I knew I was biased. You see, I had determined that I knew the law better than the Supreme Court, that it would be an injustice for the man to go back to prison, and that I could teach the Supreme Court what was "right." That is biased!

A special judge heard the evidence and read the law. The evidence included many of the offender's victims testifying on his behalf. The special judge found the offender rehabilitated, and ruled that to re-imprison him would be manifestly unjust.

But this judge saw himself as bound by the order of the Supreme Court, and ordered a return to prison. He then allowed the man to remain free on bond to appeal the issue of "manifest injustice".

We all believed that when the Supreme Court saw the new character of the offender, they would allow him to remain free.

In January, 1980, my conduct in the case was called to the attention of the Indiana Judicial Qualification Commission. I met with the Commission in the first week of October, 1980, with the Chief Justice of the Indiana Supreme Court chairing the meeting. The matter was examined, in detail, and I never heard another word. I assumed that issue was closed.

In January, 1981, the Indiana Supreme Court dismissed the second appeal without ruling on any of the questions presented and declared all proceedings from June, 1979, forward, to be a nullity. The man was immediately returned to prison where he remained until April, 1983. And the special judge and I were both charged with contempt.

Now, consider "justice" and what happened next:

First, change of venue is a statutory right in indirect contempt proceedings unless it is a charge by the Supreme Court. Thus those who charged me with offending them would be the jury! Does that seem "just" to you?

At the hearing, the Court opened by saying they had reviewed the record and found that a prima facia showing of contempt existed, so they did not have to introduce evidence or prove intent, motive, words or deeds. I stood guilty

unless I could persuade them that they had made a mistake: guilty before trial! Doesn't seem right, in this nation of law, does it?

As my attorney began to question me in defense, the judges interrupted and did the questioning for over an hour. I was prosecuted by those who judged me! Sounds like bias, doesn't it?

They then convicted me and sentenced me without opportunity to speak concerning sentence -- although Indiana law provides for a "sentencing hearing."

The vote was a three to two decision. But the law says the jury, in criminal cases, must be unanimous!

And, what acts of mine were contemptuous?

I was convicted because I gave the offender the 60 day continuance, yet defendants in criminal cases have a right for a sufficient time to adequately prepare their defense.

I was convicted because I removed myself from the case without sending the man back to jail -- yet the State, and the defendant, each have a right to a fair and impartial judge.

Next, there was no place to appeal the ruling as a "matter of right." And the U.S. Supreme Court refused to accept an appeal.

Then, the Indiana Supreme Court ordered their employees to investigate my life as judge and, if appropriate, to bring charges for my removal. The charges would be filed before the Indiana Supreme Court, their employee would prosecute, and the Court would make the decision! Looks like the same firing squad was reloading, doesn't it?

The investigator and Commission, after several violations of the law governing their conduct, filed charges. When their failure to follow the law was called to the attention of the Indiana Supreme Court, the Court refused to order them to obey the law.

I share all of this with you -- believe it or not, while grinning -- because of what I earlier wrote on the matter of justice.

You see, I am just like you. All of my life, I believed in justice. I knew that the place where we find justice is in the law courts of the land. Yet I believe the facts establish that I was denied justice by the very law and system I was committed to uphold and defend.

I share these things because in the process of all of this I have found justice -- and I will discuss this aspect of justice later in the book.

But what I really want you to know, and what is important in all of this to me, is that in 1985 I came to acknowledge that it was right that I be found in contempt. I did hold the law, the system, and all those in authority, in contempt. I believed that contempt was a perfectly proper attitude, for, after all, the law was designed to do justice, and those in authority to oversee justice.

Since that was not taking place, contempt was, in my mind, and with my background, an appropriate response.

You see, my problem had been one of expectation -- expecting from man what only God can provide. When the expectation failed, the respect left.

I had not yet made the connection to what Paul wrote in Romans 13:1: "Have this attitude about you that you be in subjection to governing authorities."

Early in 1985, now with further understanding, I wrote the Indiana Supreme Court, confessed my fault, and asked them to forgive me. I never got an answer, but that is not important.

It used to be that when I would speak of the blow-by-blow legal process against me, I would cry. I don't any more; I laugh. I have been healed of the anger, bitterness and resentment within me towards them and towards the system (Jas. 5:16). I have come to see, and confess, my own fault; and that has allowed me to appropriate God's peace within.

My having come to grips with my sin in the matter is also important because otherwise I may well have remained a rebellious, angry, judgmental, clanging-gong person, screaming for justice.

You might want to know about some other events in the year 1981. I would not wish that year upon anyone, but I praise God that it took place, for that which I became, and am becoming, is more important to me than that which I and my family went through. Yet you need to know more about that year in order to understand subsequent points which I want to make in this book.

In the second week of January, 1981, I found what I thought might be an error in the amount of money which I had been paid by the State in 1980. I called the Treasurer of Indiana and asked them to check the matter out. In the third week of January, they informed me that because of their computer programming error, I owed them $4,800. Repayment method, plus reducing pay to the proper level, meant that we lost one-fourth of our take-home pay, or over $700 per month.

On the last Friday in January, an Indiana State Trooper came to our house as we were eating dinner, and served me with the contempt citation.

Two weeks later, on the second day of our annual ski vacation, Ellen fell, tearing her left knee apart. She underwent surgery and spent the rest of the vacation in the hospital in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, while I skied and told her how great the conditions were.

Upon arriving home, she had me carry her -- she was in a cast to the waist -- to the basement, where she introduced me to two strange, cubicle, white objects -- one had a flap on top, and one had a flap on the front -- one was washer and one was a dryer. She quietly instructed me in their use, since she couldn't manage the stairs. I immediately yelled at her that I had to prepare my defense to the contempt charges. She gently explained that it was important my clothes be clean when I got hanged.

February 25th was the contempt finding, with Ellen, in her cast, standing beside me. When they said, "Thirty days in jail", and before they said, "Suspended," I heard her whisper, "Who is going to drive me home?"

One month later, Ellen got out of the cast. Early each morning, she drove to the office of a member of our church -- a sadist -- who would beat upon her leg. Then she would get home and a friend -- another sadist -- would see to it that she walked her three miles around the block. Then another sadistic friend loaned Ellen an exercise bike so she could bike her three miles each day. Each night, her sadistic husband would sit in the middle of her back and commit assault and battery. She kept asking me to say soft and nice things to her; I asked if she wanted them said before or after I beat her up. I found out that you could test your depth of marriage commitment in this fashion.

Two weeks after Ellen got out of the cast, Richard went into the hospital for skin graft surgery for the fire of 1975. What

was to be a few days turned into three 3 weeks, as his body metabolism refused to allow the leg to heal. Finally, they sent him home, and allowed him to attend school in a wheelchair, so the leg could be elevated at all times. Ellen would, with her unmovable knee, limp and push Richard in a wheel chair into school each day; everybody argued over who really ought to be in the chair.

We put a dog to sleep that summer, and I turned 40. By November the attorney fees exceeded $15,000. I paid by borrowing money from my children's trust accounts, all the time wondering how I would repay.

And worst of all, every waking moment, and many sleepless nights, I spent in thinking of legal strategies to defend myself. I was snarling, growling, and biting anyone who would get close to me. I was full of anger, bitterness, clamor, hatred and malice.

It was late November when I realized that life, which I was always to be in control of, was beyond my control. I recall picturing myself strapped to a train track, without a knife, the train running down hill at full speed, and no one at the throttle.

Chapter 6

"For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which works God prepared beforehand that we might walk in them."

Eph. 2:10

"Hey, God, get me off this track! I've got things to do."

But, what was the work I was to do? Was it as a judge? Was it as an attorney?

I suddenly realized that I had never asked God what it was He wanted me to do. I had never asked if He wanted me to be an attorney. I hadn't asked if He wanted me to be a judge. I hadn't asked if He wanted me to do any of those wonderful things which I had done as judge which were designed to achieve justice, and which merely seemed to have landed me in a pickle. And I had never asked Him if He wanted me to any of those things the way I had done them.

I hadn't even asked Him if He wanted me to defend myself, or remain a judge, or practice law if I were no longer a judge.

Everything I had done, and the manner in which I had done it, had been my personal choice, to satisfy my own needs and sense of things -- not Christ's.

Suddenly His title of "Lord" took on added significance. He was entitled to Lordship over my life, actions, attitudes and emotions. He was having a hard time saving me from myself when I wouldn't let go and allow Him that Lordship.

He was still, quietly, waiting for me to become His "treasure in an earthen vessel" (II Cor. 4:7).

Christ -- God -- was not sovereign; I was.

God couldn't win the battle; I had to do it myself.

Chapter 7

"God has raised us up with Him and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus." Eph. 2:6

"Wait just a minute, train -- you can't run over me if I am sitting in Heaven!"

"You can take my job, you can take my license to practice law, you can take my property, you can throw me in prison, you can kill me -- but you can't hurt me!"

"I do not have to accept that sense of hurt and betrayal."

"I am free to do what Christ asks of me, one day at a time."

Now having seen myself as out of control, and having reached the end of myself and the end of my desire to be in control, it only seemed natural to surrender to Him as Lord, in faith.

I remember sitting in the chair, not asking anyone in the family if they wanted to be any part of this, and mentally wrapping family, possessions, self, judgeship, and law license into a little ball and throwing the ball up into the air. "All right Lord, its all yours."

I started to grin -- boy, oh boy, did He just inherit a bunch of trouble!

I recall thinking, "Lord, if You want me to be a judge much longer, You have a lot of work to do in a big hurry. But if you don't want me to be a judge, just do nothing and I think You'll have Your wish in about 30 days. If that happens, Lord, please tell me what to do when I am no longer judge."

People accuse me of looking like Alfred E. Newman on the front of Madd Magazine -- crazy grin in place.

* * * * *

I am reminded of the serfs of old England who lived and worked the land outside the castle for their lord.

They were subject to attack by robbers and animals. The only protection they had were the knights of the lord.

But they couldn't have the Lord's protection without surrendering their freedom, and placing themselves under the control of the lord.

Chapter 8

The Book of Revelation, according to our Pastor: "Jesus will return; evil will be judged and overcome; God will establish His eternal kingdom; therefore, we win!"

I could choose to trust God, knowing that He would some day, some way, win.

I remembered Christ saying to His disciples, "If you are called to account before the rulers, fear not what you will say; the Holy Spirit will give you utterance." (Mk. 13:11)

And as I looked at the Scriptures, I could not find the name of the attorney whom Christ took with Him before the Sanhedrin, or Pilate, or Herod.

Sure, He ended up on the cross Friday night, but He rose on Sunday.

That fact, the resurrection, is supposed to make a difference. It certainly did to the eleven men who had locked themselves, in terror, away from the world in the upper room.

Fifty days later, they burst forth into the very mobs of people who had crucified Christ, and proclaimed Christ as Messiah, very God, Lord and Savior of mankind.

It was time the resurrection began to make a difference to me.

I called my attorney and fired him, after thanking him for his help and saying I would get him paid, some way.

I then began to think about my defense to the charges.

As I considered this, I realized that the only way I could defend myself -- as we understand the concept of defense -- would be to attack some other people. These were people like me: less than perfect, trying to do their jobs as they believed right, struggling to make sense of an insane world.

Would God have me bite and rip and maim them?

I determined to offer no defense to the charges against me, other than court records, and to call no witnesses. I told the prosecutor about my decision, of my willingness to appear and answer any questions asked of me, and suggested he go ahead and set the matter for trial.

At 40 years of age, after a lifetime in and under the law, I found myself at peace with the law for the first time.

I placed myself in "an attitude of subjection to the governing authorities" and awaited their pleasure and God's will.

It is impossible to describe for you the sense of peace, stability, and comfort which possessed me. I discovered that He is totally sufficient unto every need!

Then, strange things started to happen.

Catherine, one of the ladies of our church, handed me Chuck Colson's book, Life Sentence, and said I needed to read it. Right then, regardless of all this wonderfully spiritual recitation I have just given, I could have cared less about some has-been politician who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

But you would never offend Catherine; you would cut your arm off first. So, I read the book.

I found Colson saying many of the same things which I had been saying about prisons and justice. And I found a committed, genuine Christian, one who had fallen and was now being used by God because of the fall.

So I wrote Colson a letter.

"Dear Mr. Colson: I don't know why I am writing this, but I just finished Life Sentence. What you say is right. If you want to know more about me, the enclosed documents (copies of filings with the US Supreme Court) will tell you. If you are ever in Elkhart stop in and say hello."

Dumb letter. You're probably wondering why I mention it. That's all right; I still wonder why I wrote it.

I also opened the doors of the courtroom, and quietly asked Christ to step inside. I told Him I was done trying to do it myself -- this bringing of justice -- and that if He wanted something done, He was free to make use of me as He saw fit.

* * * * *

Shortly after this, a husband and wife appeared for divorce. But I found myself asking each of them questions which had no bearing on my role as judge. Each question related to how they did or did not understand the driving motives and emotions of the other.

The questions were born out of the, "why don't I do what I ought to; why do I do what I ought not to," cries within me.

They left the courtroom at recess, to seek a counselor. Later, the divorce was dismissed.

What gave me a willingness to ask the questions I will never know -- I can only assume that the Lord brought it to be. I know that neither I nor anyone else can claim any glory from what happened.

Chapter 9

"For every mistake, failure, and shortcoming of the past, there is no condemnation, or need to feel guilt, due to the Lordship of Christ in our life." Rom. 8:1

"For we know that God causes all things to work together for His glory, even from our mistakes, when we acknowledge them, confess them to Him [and to those whom we have wronged], repent of them, and, because we choose to love Him, begin to follow after His purpose for our life in radical obedience to His Word." Rom. 8:28

"And I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing [including our mistakes, errors, and short-comings of tomorrow] can separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Rom. 8:38-39

(Bontrager paraphrases)

The next month, something happened which caused me to believe that the Lord wanted me to resign as judge, so I did.

I somewhat resented that, however, because the job had just become fun!

He also didn't tell me what I was to do after I quit.

I have found that God is often like that; He wants our obedience to be our love response to His love for us, and to be done in faith that His control of things will be better, in the long run, than our control.

So, I resigned effective February 14th, 1982 (gave them a Valentine present).

To my surprise, they dropped all the charges against me. I still had my license but wasn't satisfied, I had not been vindicated; I had not had my day in court; my reputation and name were at issue here! So, I objected to the dismissal of the charges.

The Lord said: "Will you, for once in your life, stop screaming about justice? I am your vindication." (Isaiah 50:8)

I sent another dumb letter to Colson:

"Well, I have quit. Not sure what I will be doing. If you are ever in Elkhart, say hello."

Not knowing what to do, Ellen and I thought of moving back to the mountains. So I put a resume together, got out the attorney listings for Colorado and Wyoming, prepared 33 letters and resumes, sealed them, and took them to the post office.

The Lord quietly said, "No." I stuffed them in the mail chute anyway. Interestingly enough, I got an offer from the community which was our number two choice, 40 miles down the road from our #1 choice (where we live, 17 years later).

But by the time the offer arrived, I had gotten over my tantrum, and knew we couldn't move.

So I was sitting with my court secretary, and she was asking me what I was going to do. The door to the hall was open. From the back of my mind comes something I had read about over two years before -- the historical, ecclesiastical courts that churches once operated. I remembered Ellen and I, at the time, sitting and talking about how that might be a neat thing to do after two terms as judge -- offer to serve the churches in member disputes. The kids would be gone, the house would be paid for, the pension would be vested, and we would be young enough to do something different.

Of course now, 1982, the kids weren't grown, the house wasn't paid for, there was an extra $15,000 of debt, and there would be no pension.

I had started to talk about the church court idea to my secretary when Buddy, the law clerk for the other court, walked by.

Overhearing the conversation, he said, "Judge, that sounds like what Christian Legal Society is doing." "What is Christian Legal Society?," I asked. So he told me.

Well, no other doors being open, I'll go back to the practice of law, in Elkhart. I'll also take Ellen and we'll go to Chicago and see what it is that C.L.S. is doing.

We went, met Pete (now one of my overseers), heard about the program, thought it sounded kind of neat, went back to Elkhart, and had a sign which said, "William D. Bontrager, Attorney at Law". Underneath that was printed: "Christian Arbitration and Conciliation Service."

I sent a letter to every church in the county, telling them about the service ($50 per hour rather than lawyers' fees of $75), and waited for the business to flood in.

I never got a call from anyone for a "church court matter,"even though the sign was on a U.S. highway through town. I think the reason nothing happened was because I lacked any understanding of what a minister of reconciliation was to be, and what a ministry of reconciliation is truly about.

Now 12 years later, I still am trying to figure it out.

One night in late January the phone rang. It was Chuck Colson, calling from Florida. I'm glad he made the call, for it lasted an hour, and I could never have afforded the toll.

We talked about all that had happened, and closed with his inviting Ellen and myself to join him at the Indiana State Prison for Easter Sunday services. Seemed like Catherine and her book got something started.

I started back to the practice of law, looking forward to Easter. But I found things in my practice not quite what I had expected.

First, no clients came flocking to my door. This proved a blessing, as it gave me a lot of time for reading the Bible -- which proved to be a good preparation for what was to come.

Second, the lack of clients made for a lack of money, which God used to teach me that He is our supplier, not ourselves. It even prepared me to later accept a call to a "faith" ministry. (Aren't all ministries for the Lord supposed to be based upon faith; i.e., following His lead rather than our self-determination?)

But the major differences came in the manner in which I chose to deal with my clients. As I worked with them, almost as though with different eyes and ears within me, I came to see that they had deep emotional and spiritual needs, just as I had endured during all the times of my conflict in 1981.

This was also the same pain and need I had seen in the faces of those who had appeared before me as judge, except then I had been unable to place a handle on the source of the pain.

I knew now, from my own experiences, that the law could never meet the needs or ease the pain, but that Jesus Christ, as Lord and Savior, can and does. I knew that my clients needed what I had found -- a peace which comes from radical surrender to, and from equally radical obedience to, the lordship of Jesus Christ.

At the same time, I was haunted by Paul's words in II Cor. 5:17-20, and the implications which they had for me as an attorney dealing with people in conflict and disputes:

"Therefore, if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things have passed away; new things have come. All of these things are from God, Who reconciled us to Himself through Christ, and gave to us the ministry of reconciliation; namely, to proclaim that God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself, not counting our wrongs against us, and He has committed to us this Word of Reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were entreating the world through us."

I began to minister Jesus Christ, and the Word from the Bible, to my clients in their legal and relational conflicts.

And I began to see people healed of anger and bitterness, resentment, estrangement and separation.

But I was unaware of what was happening to me in the process. I still was looking to the law for justice and not finding any, while hating the law and the practice of law. I loved the ministry that I was doing, but not the legal work. I saw myself still in the role of Old Testament prophet, and angry, judgmental, condemnatory, legalistic, and unloving.

In my unhappiness, I was also looking for an escape. This was my condition when we joined Colson on Easter Sunday. I didn't know he also planned to visit Westville, where the offender involved in the contempt proceedings was incarcerated, and I wonder if I would have had the strength to go if I had known.

It is hard to face the person who is suffering for your mistakes as a zealot.

The day ended with Colson inviting us to Washington D.C. for a possible job. Hooray -- I was about to get out of the trap!

By May 1st, I was working part-time in Elkhart as a consultant to Prison Fellowship, convinced that we would be moving to Washington by 1983 on full-time staff. Colson even sent me to New Mexico on a speaking tour: 24 speeches in eight days in four cities.

Many of those speeches were arranged through people involved in a Christian Conciliation Service in New Mexico. The Christian Conciliation Services were ministries set up by Christian Legal Society to help people who were in conflict to resolve matters outside the law courts but within the church.

I got to know these people and the work they were doing. But there was no great interest on my part, for I am not a peacemaker -- and, the "prophet" was headed to Washington!

In December, the door closed to Washington. I tried to kick one down in New Mexico as a Christian legal-aid attorney, but things happened to keep that door also closed.

Then an attorney in Minneapolis, who had obtained my name from the folks in New Mexico, called to ask if I would be interested in being Executive Director of the Christian Conciliation Service of Minnesota. He also told me they had $250 in the bank at the time!

Well, I gave him all my reasons why I knew that CCS of Minnesota was not what the Lord wanted of me -- my being angry, judgmental, etc. While I was doing that, Ellen was reminding me to tell him that it was cold in Ninevah.

But, to show them just how spiritual I was, I acknowledged that if it was the Lord opening a door, I was required to look.

Therefore, with them knowing my feelings, we would come up and talk to them if they wanted, and if they paid for the gas, oil, and tolls. I figured that would end the matter. Somewhat to my surprise, they invited us to come -- which should have warned me.

Second, I hate big (over 60,000) cities, and found Minneapolis the neatest little town I had ever been in -- which should have warned me.

Third, Ellen didn't even comment about the snow drifts we saw there that April -- which should have warned me.

Then, I found the Board of Directors to have the same crazy attitudes about a lot of things that I had -- which should have warned me.

We drove back to Elkhart, convinced that this was not what we were to do. But I had watched doors to other opportunities flap in the breeze for months at a time, without closure. My emotional state was not going to allow for another such time span. Yet, I knew that if Minneapolis was where God wanted us, we had to be open to hearing Him say it, and willing to go.

So when we got home, I quietly said, "Lord, I'll go. You know that is not the issue. The big problem is that I don't hear You too well at times, and I have to be sure. So, if You want me to go, You have to tell me in such a way that it will penetrate my hard head. And You have to do it within one week. If I hear nothing, that means 'No', and I'll sit here in Elkhart and wait for the next door, in impatience but perseverance."

One hour before the end of the week, while working on my Sunday School lesson (might have known earlier if I had worked on the lesson earlier), and while reading Col. 3:12-17, He proceeded to let me in on what He had been doing inside me which I was unaware of: turning the stern, angry, screaming prophet into a weeping one, who now saw that the road to peace is through sacrifice.

And He said, "Go."

And so we drove north, at 2:00 A.M., August 16th, 1983, in a mixture of joy, certainty, fear, and the faint beginnings of understanding.

Oh, by the way, He caused the house to be sold during the day of August 16th, as we were driving. Then the next time we scraped bottom, He rented the law office. The next time the bottom was scraped, He sold the law office. In fact, we have lived that type of ragged-edge existence ever since November, 1981.

I won't claim that it is comfortable or fun, but He has always provided, whatever the situation.

* * * * *

The young man stood charged with a crime which could result in 20 to 50 years of prison. I quietly and simply told him he was guilty before the law and before God. His head hung in acknowledgment and despair.

I explained to him that for his sin warranted death before God. I told him that if we played the normal legal games, 18 months later he would either plead guilty or be convicted.

However, I also told him how a strange thing would have happened by then -- his head would no longer be down, and he would not see himself guilty of anything; it would all be some other person's fault.

I told him that if tomorrow the judge said "five years," he could accept that, because he knew he was worthy of death. But 18 months from now, a night in jail would make the judge a bigot, an idiot, or worse in the young man's mind.

I told him I was interested in the state of his heart -- confession, and repentance -- so that whatever happened, he could be truly free, even if locked in prison. I wanted to see him begin to build a new life in Christ.

He accepted the advice, pled guilty, and began to shed the anger and bitterness which had begun to threaten to destroy him.

SECTION II

Chapter I

"For there must be factions among you in order that that which is approved may become evident you." I Cor. 11:19

I have shared my story because I wanted to lay a foundation from which to study justice and to study how to deal with conflict from God's perspective rather than from man's. I will return to my story later.

You see, the light that was beginning to dawn upon me was that if we are to have any approximation of justice, in any specific situation, then we must have "righteousness"; i.e., right relationship with God and right relationship with others.

We need to be right within ourselves, do right outside ourselves, and be involved helping to put other things right.

Since we only think about receiving justice in situations related to conflict, true justice must be related, in some degree, to how we appear to God when in conflict with our fellow man and how we deal with our conflicts with our fellow man.

"If Christ is Lord at all, He must be Lord of all" -- to quote a familiar statement. That means He is to be Lord of our conflicts.

I have also discovered that if He is to be Lord over some part of our life, He will, in all probability, have given us guidelines for that part of our life in the Bible.

I began to see some light as I began to study what the Bible had to say about how we, as His people, are to deal with conflict. Before looking at the "how", however, allow me to spend some time just talking about conflict.

It has been said that the only thing for certain in this world is death.

But God says, "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts higher than your thoughts." (Is. 55:8-9)

The Bible also says that our ways are mere foolishness to God, and His ways are foolishness to us (I Cor. 1:18-31; 3:19).

Let's see if that is true concerning death, for if it is not, then we must always be willing to reconsider what we hold most "sacred" -- and some of what I will be writing will likely shake some of your cherished ideas.

The Bible says that every individual will have an eternal existence: one either with God, or one separated from God. If so, there is no true death. There may be a physical ending, but not a termination of awareness and existence. Someone said: "I think; therefore, I am." In the sense of thinking, the Bible would say we will always exist and never die.

However, if we want a definition of death as a physical ending, even a physical ending is not guaranteed, for the Bible says that some will be alive at the time the Lord returns for His own, and shall be lifted up and not see physical death.

Finally, the Bible says that we, as individuals, are [spiritually] dead in our sins prior to accepting Christ as Lord and Savior. Once we have accepted Him, we then become alive for the first time (Eph. 2:1-5).

Thus, one of our cherished postulates of life is unmasked as deception!

But, some things are for certain: God is a certainty.

Life with God or separate from God is a certainty.

Our inability to work ourselves into right relationship with God is another certainty.

That we are sinners, in conflict with God, is another certainty.

That we need a Savior, Who is Christ Jesus, if we are to have a right relationship with God, is another certainty.

And that we will have conflict during this life is another certainty.

The reason that conflict is a certainty is that I am a sinner, and you are a sinner; yet we will, in various ways during life, come into relationship with one another. As we relate, my sin (self-centered rebellion) rubs against you, and your sin (self-centered rebellion) rubs against me. Conflict is the result.

If conflict is a certainty of life, then it is a certainty. As such, it is neither good nor bad, in and of itself. Conflict must be, by its nature as a certainty, a neutral commodity. How we deal with conflict may be good or bad -- for ourselves and for others -- but deal with it we must. We can deal with it according to what Christ says, or according to our self-interest -- but deal with it we must.

And we might go so far as to consider conflict as necessary to growth; the butterfly does not develop its wings unless it beats its way out of the cocoon.

Just look at some sources of conflict which are available to us in this life:

Personal relationships: spouse against spouse; spouse against child; sibling against sibling. The divorce courts are full of the first, the juvenile courts the second, and the probate courts the third.

Social relationships: how about a neighborhood fight, or spite fences, or stray cats and dogs using your yard? I know of a case where Party "A" put a "For Sale" sign at the street beside the entrance to their drive. But, they had no spare land alongside the drive, so it was imbedded in Party "B's" yard. Party "B" didn't like it, and filed a lawsuit to prevent it.

Business relationships: buyer/seller, worker's compensation, employer-employee, landlord/tenant, professional malpractice, product liability. Have you ever been personally involved in one or more of these?

Criminal cases: I know most people would not put a traffic ticket in this category, but the law does.

Happenstance relationships: An auto accident. True, you had no relationship before the accident took place, but you will have one afterwards, and the conflict may interfere with your relationship with God. The question to consider is whether the

relationship with the others in the accident will be good or bad, harmful or therapeutic, to you as well as to all others involved.

Church relationships: If you think the church is not fraught with conflict, why do we have 1000 denominations of what was declared, in the Bible, to be "one Body with One Head"? (I Cor. 12:13) Then there was the case where the mother sued the church because her boys, who hid in the church bus, got locked in the bus by accident. And today we have "clergy malpractice" cases.

Then, there are conflicts within each conflict relative to what we argue over:

We can argue over the facts: You did; I didn't; yes you did; no I didn't, etc.

We can agree on the facts, but argue over the methods used: you shouldn't have; yes I should have; no you shouldn't have; yes I should have.

We can agree on the facts and methods, but disagree on the goals: I want peace; you want victory. No, I want peace; no, you want victory.

Finally, you can have conflict over how you choose to deal with any conflict you are in at the moment:

You can run away, common in the marital type of conflict. Divorce is running away. God could have run off to Mars and started a new Garden.

We can do a "freeze out" of the other. Some churches practice shunning forever. God could have never again spoken to Adam, or to us.

We can fight for our rights, over stewardship, over being content with nothing less than total surrender or annihilation of our adversary. Litigation is often this way. God could have killed Adam and Eve on the spot, and won immediately.

We can capitulate, called enabling by the professionals. But Adam and Eve, and we, would still be naked, hiding in the bushes, lost and without hope, if God had not cared enough to confront the issues -- and us.

We can negotiate or compromise: I give here, get there, and break even in the long run. But what if negotiation is merely a means of avoiding the true issues we need to speak about but are afraid to voice? And God chose not to negotiate or compromise -- God chose to die.

We can sue or refuse to sue, defend or refuse to defend.

And we can chose to see conflict as:

An Opportunity To Stand Quietly Before One Another;

A chance to speak quietly with one another;

An excuse for confident expectation that the Lord will be there to assist (Is. 50:8-9a);

As opportunity to be obedient to His Word (Mt. 5:23-24; 18:15-16); and

An expectation that positive change and growth can take place, that the conflict can be resolved, that relationships can be restored, that God can be glorified, and that the world can see a positive behavior pattern to follow.

Regardless of the source of the conflict, the method of dealing with the conflict, or any of the conflicts within the

conflict, God's process for dealing with the conflict never change.

God is an absolute and His ways are likewise absolutes

(Psalms 119:142; Mal. 3:6).

And it is this single fact -- that since God does not change, His ways do not change -- that I find we are continuously refusing to accept when it comes to our conflicts.

I want you to know right now that I have seen God's process work in:

Marriages torn apart through adultery, poor management of finances, homosexuality, physical and sexual violence;

Automobile accidents with monstrous injuries;

Medical malpractice situations;

Business partnerships and contracts;

Criminal matters, including crimes of violence; and,

Internal church warfare.

And I say to you, there is no conflict which can not be dealt with according to God's rules.

I can also say that it has been a joy to shed over 100 bookshelf feet of law books (which cost thousands of dollars every year to keep current) and replace them all with one small volume which has not been altered for 2,000 years.

Well, back to conflict.

What do we normally do when in conflict?

First, when another does towards us an act which lacks love, before God, we have only two options:

(1) Overlook the transgression to the glory of God (Pro. 19:11). Since I do dumb things, and hope others might overlook them, I need to be willing to overlook dumb things others do. Overlooking does not equal stuffing. And true overlooking requires that the existing relationship continues unaltered.

(2) Care-front the other (Matt. 18:15).

But we generally do neither. Instead, we begin to sever the relationship and close down our heart towards the other person. Since we don't deal with that conflict when it first arises, we store it up for later. And a pain begins to grow within us.

On the morning after the wedding, he finds her hairs in the sink -- it drives him to drink. She discovers he squeezes the tooth paste in the middle of the tube -- how rude. Neither confronts "their" issue. Ten years later, there are 1,000 such issues stored up in each. Along comes number 1001, and Mt. St. Helens erupts. It is divorce time.

However, the eruption is always non-specific. When asked why he has filed for divorce, he simply says: "I don't love her anymore."

This type of conflict response mechanism leaves her with no way to change her behavior and gain his love back.

If he were to say, "Her hairs in the sink are driving me to drink," she could modify her behavior. He won't say that, however, because he knows that if she modifies her behavior he will have to modify his attitude, and that means he will have to risk emotional hurt again in the relationship.

Sometimes, however, we find we have to get specific in our answers. When we do, we tend to speak loudly and quickly, covering every accumulated point of life, and end with a Bible verse which spears the other party against the wall.

By now, the pain within us is getting very bad, and we want someone to hear of our pain -- to kiss it, and make us well. The problem is that there is only one person we can tell the pain to and get relief: the one who did the act against us, the one we have severed our relationship with.

But we will not speak to that one, for we have sinned against God and offended the other by breaking the relationship, and we will not confess our sin, which would be a sign of weakness and might jeopardize our legal rights, or our property interests.

Instead, we tell someone else about our pain (that is, we gossip), normally bad-mouthing the other one. We claim we are always willing to talk to them about the dispute but do nothing to start any discussions.

But the pain does not go away, does it?

We also judge the other person's motive. Have you ever stopped to realize when you are in conflict with someone, you will always place upon them a bad motive for all they have done which has affected you -- even if it should never have effected you?

Finally, we are great at passing the buck (avoiding responsibility for our own actions), such as saying, "I have to check with my lawyer."

By this time we are in open warfare to death -- all over some hair and toothpaste.

The questions is: Which way will we choose to deal with conflict? Our way or God's Way?

Chapter 2

"And Peter came and said unto Him, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?" And Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven."

Matt. 18:21-22

There is another conflict resolution style quite prevalent today. It is called mistakenly, I think, "forgiveness."

It takes place when a person enters into his prayer closet, closes the door, bows down, and then says, "Father, forgive Sam for this rotten thing he did to me, and I now forgive Sam from my heart. Amen." Then he gets up off his knees, opens the door, leaves the room, and think all is right with the world. This is not forgiveness but avoidance.

For an understanding of true forgiveness, we need to look at God's model of forgiveness for us.

First, forgiveness must be set in one's heart. God set His heart towards forgiveness even before He went to the garden to seek out Adam and Eve.

Second, one must be willing to offer forgiveness even before it is asked for -- remember, God came to the garden; He did not wait for Adam and Eve to come to Him. It is more common to hear that forgiveness follows a request of the wrong-doer in confession, but that does not comport with the Biblical model of how Christ came to us.

Third, if forgiveness is to have any meaning whatsoever, it must be communicated. God could have stayed in heaven and said in His heart, "They are forgiven." He could have even shouted it to them. But it would have done Adam and Eve no good. They would have continued scurrying through the bushes, looking for more clothes to put on, and would have gotten off the track of doing what God created them for. They would not have known they were forgiven. Physical presence, extending forgiveness, is needed.

Fourth, forgiveness requires confrontation. God came down to the garden and asked, "Adam, where are you?" (Gen. 3:9) The rest of the Bible is the story of God continuously confronting us: through flood, a chosen people, captivity, the law, walks in the wilderness, captivity, judges, captivity, kings, captivity, prophets, captivity, and His Son Jesus Christ on a cross -- and we still remain captive because we will not forgive (Matt. 18:33-35).

Fifth, forgiveness can have nothing to do with relative position or power. In the garden, God was obviously the more powerful and in the better position. Also, forgiveness can have nothing to do with being right. God was absolutely right and Adam and Eve were absolutely wrong; nevertheless, God came down.

Sixth, forgiveness also requires demonstrating it to the one you are forgiving. What we do is sever our relationship with the offender; we shun. After all, "Sucker me once, shame on you. Sucker me twice, shame on me." Or, "I'll forgive, but not forget." Of course, we generally couple such action with a Biblical justification: "Be shrewd as a serpent and harmless as a dove." (Matt. 10:18) In comparison, God evidenced His forgiveness by slaying another of His creatures to provide clothing for Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:21). And, at that moment, Adam's last words had been, "the woman you gave me," and Eve's last words were: "The Devil made me do it."

While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us that we might have a covering. Adam and Eve knew the covering made by their own hands would never do; that is why they hid and still thought of themselves as naked. God saw their need, and He provided.

Eventually, God repeated the process for all of us by spreading forth His arms on the cross and bearing our burden of sin.

Can we seek to bear the burdens of those who wrong us, even if it means a sacrifice for us? Is that a part of what Gal. 6:2 means?

"Bear one another's burdens and thus fulfill the law of Christ."

Seventh, if not accepted at first, forgiveness must be periodically re-extended, re-confronted, re-communicated, re-evidenced. Again, look at God's dealings with so many of His people. Look at His dealings with you: "Or do you think lightly of His kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of the Lord leads to repentance?" (Rom. 2:4).

Eighth, all of this must be done without any expectation of restitution, reward, restoration, or reconciliation. We may do what God wants because we believe that we will recover the $10,000 owed us by the other person. But then we have done it from a wrong motive, a motive of self-interest rather than the motive of God's interest.

Finally, forgiveness entails making promises to the person forgiven.

It means saying to them that you will not bring "it" up again to them, but you will love them enough to bring it up once.

It means saying you won't talk to others about "it" (except in a possible Matt. 18:16 setting, about which I'll say more later).

It means you will not let "it" sit in your mind and stir up your juices when "it" does come back to your mind. God says He casts our sins forth from Him, and remember them not, "as far as the east is from the west". (Psalms. 103:12)

Most importantly, however, if you are truly going to forgive another, it means saying that you will not allow "it" to cause your relationship with this person to be broken. You will, if they will, "live at peace with them." (Rom. 12:18) They may choose to break off relationship, but you will not.

God offered Christ as His sacrifice, to reconcile with us, knowing that those who accepted the sacrifice would sin again, the very next day.

We refuse to offer relationship because we think we might be hurt in the future.

Please notice that in the God vs Man conflict, God's extension of forgiveness, His confrontation, His evidencing, etc. did not result in our reconciliation. It merely opened the door for the possibility. It required the sinner accepting the offer for true reconciliation and restoration to take place.

What we see, as we look at God's model, is that forgiveness is like sending a letter to some one who owes you money and saying, in the letter, "I cancel the debt," while at the same time erasing from your mind the knowledge that there ever was a debt, and then going to the former debtor's home and knocking on the door.

The former debtor opens the door, and quickly shuts it in your face, because he never opened the letter, or he opened the letter and refused to believe it.

So you stand at the door and knock. (Rev. 3:20)

The person who forgives in a Godly manner is then freed of the conflict.

The former debtor remains a debtor to the conflict until he accepts the gift of forgiveness.

The person who forgives has broken his negative cycle that goes from offense to hostility to hatred to violence, and on to a savage response by the other, allowing us to take revenge, followed by retaliation, etc. (see Eph. 4:30-31)

The result, for the one who does not forgive, is anger and bitterness at others, self, and God. There will be a loss of respect for authorities, a paralysis of mind and soul, perhaps medical or emotional problems, and a defiling of many (family, friends, members of the church, etc., Heb. 13:15).

And people who cannot forgive will always be crying out for, and demanding, "justice."

When someone forgives, however, they have begun what can, with the acceptance of the wrongdoer, become a positive cycle leading to reconciliation and true healing.

Now, allow me to offer some thoughts about our willingness or lack thereof to forgive according to these principles from time to time.

First, I would suggest that you can not offer true forgiveness unless you have accepted God's forgiveness through Christ Jesus. If you are unsaved, unregenerate, without God's Spirit within you doing His work, you can never forgive another, for you do not understand what true forgiveness is. If you encounter a person who refuses to forgive, consider sharing the simple Gospel message with them, for they may not know Christ regardless of their profession of Him.

Second, the degree to which you are able and willing to forgive at any moment reflects the degree to which you feel forgiven at any moment (Luke 7:36-50).

Third, the degree to which you will feel forgiven at any moment will reflect upon the degree to which you have confessed your sins of the moment, particularly those sins related to the party you need to forgive or with whom you are in conflict (John 8:3-11).

Fourth, the degree to which you confess your sins of the moment reflects upon your recognition of the horror of sin to God (Mark 15:34; Jas. 1:22-24).

Chapter 3

"Then God said: 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness." Gen. 1:26

We have seen that conflict is a part of life, and, as such, is to be brought under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. We have looked at some various ways of dealing with conflict, including forgiveness. By now, we should be getting a little uncomfortable, and be looking for a way out.

A question forms in our mind: Why, after all, should we be all that concerned about how, as Christians, we choose to deal with our conflicts?

First, we should be concerned because we are made in the image of God. Look back to Gen. 1:25.

Our triune God has just completed creation of the entire universe and all that it contains. God the Father sits down in His swivel chair, kicks off His boots, and leans back, putting His feet on the desk. God the Son sits down on one corner of the desk, and God the Holy Spirit on the other. They have a conversation among Themselves. The Father starts:

"It is good, but it is not good enough. We want something more." (If the entire universe were good enough, we would not exist, and the Bible would end at Genesis 1:25. We humans became the "something more". But why?)

"We want something for relationship which can freely and voluntarily choose relationship with Us and glorify Us." (The only thing which differentiates us from all the rest of creation is this capability for relationship with God and with one another. That relationship is based upon freedom of choice, for otherwise we would be robots, which we are not.)

"There is a problem, however. Such a creation could reject Us. If We are to remain holy, perfect, sinless, and just, what do We do if that happens? An option is to then blot out such creation and start again. Another option is to ignore it and act as if nothing had happened. But those options leave Us with no relationship at all."

You may think that this conversation within God did not take place. I think a conversation like this had to take place, or God would not be "all knowing."

"Hey", says the Father, "I have an idea. If they reject Us, I'll commit to sacrifice the nearest and dearest thing I have -- You, My Son -- in the hopes that they might understand Our love and choose to be reconciled with Us."

When we are in conflict with another, we are made to sacrifice all we have -- property, position, reputation, etc. -- in hopes of resolving conflict and restoring relationship. God did it for you.

"I am willing to be sacrificed," says the Son.

When we are in conflict with another, we are made to lay down our very life in hope of resolving the conflict and restoring the relationship. God did it for you.

"And I will go and live in the lives of those who repent having murdered the Son, and give them peace and an opportunity for a truly abundant life, while bearing their burdens," says the Holy Spirit (called the Comfortor).

When we are in conflict with others, we are made to consider their needs, and to consider meeting those needs at our expense. God did it for us.

Another reason we should seek to understand and practice God's way of dealing with conflict, and particularly when our conflict is with another who professes Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, is found in I Corinthians: "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one Body. (12:13)" "There should be no division in the Body, for the members should have the same care for one another. And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it." (12:25-26)

When we war against another member of the Body, it is like cutting that part off of ourselves. You may think this person is only a big toe, but the body loses balance without the presence of the big toe.

Also, our normal method of resolving conflicts through the legal system places no emphasis on relationships. The system is unable to respond to issues of our vertical relationship with God or our horizontal relationship with each other. If you say to the judge, "Our relationship with God has something to do with this case," he will look at you with blank incomprehension. If you say to the judge, "Our relationship with one another is involved here," he may tell you that you need to go somewhere else for that issue (or he may cry that weekend).

I have discovered that my relationship with God is more important to me than the outcome of the conflict ("What profit it a man if he gain the world and lose his soul") and that my relationship with my adversary is worthy of sacrifice.

Then there is the fact that in conflict our normal focus is on our rights, position, power, or property, whereas Christ determined to give all of those up, along with His very life, as a sacrifice that we might then choose to love Him in return.

The legal system also addresses all the wrong issues, and leaves sin and the weightier matters of the law alone. Review Matthew 23 in connection with this idea.

Moreover, our unresolved conflicts are a very poor w