VENGEANCE IS MINE

---

Let me tell you right off that this is going to be a controversial topic. The way of the world is don't get mad; get even. On the other hand, the Christian community professes that we should turn the other cheek. That is what we profess and yet that is not what we practice in many situations.

 Look, I am not going to be self-righteous and tell you that I am a Christian who always turns away when confronted by another. For goodness sakes, I am a Christian lawyer. (No, that is not an oxymoron and there will be lawyers in heaven). I deal in confrontation in many instances and despite the fact that I try to avoid litigation on behalf of my clients, that doesn't always happen. I am an advocate for those who have been wronged in their view and mine. I assert the rights of others in our judicial system and I try to represent my clients to the best of my ability. I also like to think of Jesus, standing at the right hand of the Father, as our advocate.

 All of that being said, I have a dilemma. I am a practicing Christian lawyer who for the first time in his life finds it necessary to prosecute a lawsuit personally. I have been out of law school for almost 24 years and during that entire period, I have never sued anyone personally. I have filed, prosecuted and defended hundreds of lawsuits over the years but I never felt the need to engage counsel on my own behalf until now. Let me explain.

 For those of you who have read my writings, you may know that I have been through seven major spinal surgeries over the last four years that have left me handicapped. I am crippled due to spinal damage. Consequently, I have to rely upon a personal assistive transportation device in order to get around. In short, I bought and ride a Segway and have done so for the past 15 months. With my Segway, I can be independent; I do not have to rely upon friends or family to help me get from place to place. I spent my time in a wheelchair but I opted for the Segway due to the fact that I can get up on my feet and maintain a standing position. It is healthier for me as it helps strengthen my legs and I think it is safer as I am about 65 on the machine; hence, I can see and be seen. And until recently, my venturing about on my Segway didn't cause a problem.

 Then on Saturday, March 10, 2007, I took my twin girls to see a movie at our local mall. I entered the mall on my Segway as I had done numerous times before without incident when after leaving after the movie, I was stopped by security and told that I could not re-enter the mall, ever again, so long as I was on the Segway despite the fact that I was handicapped. I had been stopped previously (four or five times) by mall security but always explained that I was handicapped and needed the device for mobility. I was somewhat stunned by this information but there was no point in confronting the security guard as he was only doing what he was told. I confirmed this policy decision with the mall manager the following Monday morning who stated that my Segway was not a suitable device for use within the mall. I was told that the only device considered suitable for my use by the mall and its management was an electric wheelchair; I neither own nor desire to purchase an electric wheelchair along with the van or other equipment needed to transport it. (Anyone who spends or has spent time in a wheelchair can tell you that people sometimes treat you as if you are mentally disabled just because you occupy a wheelchair. Further, using a wheelchair would make me dependent upon others and would be very difficult, painful and fatiguing given the rods, screws and pedicles now secured to my vertebral column).

 After much prayer and consulting with legal counsel and a person considered to be an expert on the Americans With Disabilities Act, I found myself embroiled in a lawsuit which has now been removed to Federal Court. The lawsuit asks for permanent injunctive relief against the mall and its management so that they cannot keep me from entering onto the premises (a question of public accommodation) together with monetary damages. It now appears that this lawsuit is one of the first of its kind in the nation and is getting media exposure as a result. Oh, by the way, Disney and other malls in the United States are also apparently banning the use of the Segway device by the handicapped.

 I have encountered widespread support for my position and while the lawsuit is fairly new, there have been positive developments. The opposition agreed to imposition of our requested temporary restraining order so that they could not keep me out of the mall during a health fair that I helped sponsor on April 14, 2007. The bigger battle is set for May 1, 2007 before a Federal Judge in Albuquerque, New Mexico when we will request imposition of a permanent injunction against the mall and its manager during the pendency of the lawsuit.

 Okay, so what does all of this have to do with anything? Well, as a Christian, I want to always conduct myself in such a way that is pleasing to God and honoring to the sacrifice of Christ. Oft quoted scripture as referenced in the first paragraph seems to indicate that we, as Christians, should turn the other cheek and allow those who abuse the opportunity to abuse again. So, what did Jesus mean when He talked about turning the other cheek?

 

Matthew 5:38-45
** New International Version	King James Version
38 "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. 43 "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.	8 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. 41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. 42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. 43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

Verse 38 quotes Exodus 21:24 in reciting the law of retaliation from the Old Testament. This principle which has been a mainstay of juris prudence is that the punishment should fit the crime. However, it was not intended to permit men to take vengeance into their own hands (Leviticus 19:18).

According to Wycliffes Bible Commentary (1962, Moody Press), we are to resist not evil referring probably to the evil man. Jesus shows the Kingdom citizens how they should respond to personal injury. (He is not discussing government's obligation to maintain order.) A child of God should willingly suffer loss by assault (v. 39), lawsuits (v. 40), compulsory regulations (v. 41), begging (v. 42 a), and loans (v. 42 b).

Verse 39 says that we are not to resist evil (or an evil person). However, Matthew Henrys Commentary addresses this verse by stating that the duty of the complainant is to forgive the injury as done to him and to not insist upon the punishment of it than is necessary to the public good. In other words, we are not to be vengeful. This statement does not repeal the law of self-preservation, and the care we are to take of our families. On the other hand, we should avoid evil, and we may resist it, so far as is necessary to our own security but the idea of repaying evil with evil is forbidden. Likewise, we should not bear a grudge or even contemplate how to get even with those that have treated us unfairly or with ill will. Instead, we are to forgive. (Proverbs 20:22; 24:29; 25:21-22; Romans 12:7).

Love is one enduring quality to be exhibited by the believer and consequently, retaliation should be left in God's hands or in the hands of those appointed for such tasks in government when it is necessary for the preservation of the public peace. The act of forgiveness shows that we are true disciples of Christ.

In this instance there are three things which Christ specifies to show that Christians must patiently yield to those who abuse them:

.

(1.) A blow on the cheek, i.e. an injury to the body. "Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek," which is not only injurious, but an affront and indignity (2 Corinthians 11:20)., if a man in anger or scorn abuses a Christian, we are commanded "turn to him the other cheek;" instead of retaliating, we are to prepare for another, and bear it patiently. We do not challenge the offending individual nor do we strike him back. If the public peace is at issue, we are to leave it to the law. This is to follow the example of Jesus, who, though he was the Judge of Israel, did not smite those who smote him on the cheek. (Micah 5:1). The commentator contends that by doing so we will be honored by wise men even if we are scoffed at by fools. Query: By forgiving one injury, can we prevent another? On the other hand, vengeance breeds vengeance and retaliation can lead to more violence. By leaving these situations in the hands of God, we are patiently enduring shame for the sake of Christ and this then leads to a reward of eternal glory.

(2.) The loss of a coat, i.e. a wrong to my material self. (v. 40). There are times when the use of the legal process creates the greatest injury. Even though we expect judges to be just and circumspect, it is possible for judges of poor moral character to literally force disastrous loss upon others. Therefore, there are times when it is better that we do not go to the law in order to exact revenge but instead let him even take thy cloak also. The commentator postulates that if we can afford to suffer loss without considerable damage to family, then it is better to submit for the sake of peace. "It will not cost thee so much to buy another cloak, as it will cost thee by course of law to recover that; and therefore unless thou canst get it again by fair means, it is better to let him take it." (Matthew Henrys Commentary on the Whole Bible, New Modern Edition, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1991 by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.). By this, I surmise that a loss sustained due to the need of another is best left alone. I do not read this verse to mean that as Christians, we are to turn our heads and allow crime to run rampant in society. To do such would simply encourage breach of the peace.

(3.) The going a mile by force was allowed under Roman law even though the Jews taught that the students of the law, were not to be pressed, as others might, by the king's officers, to travel upon the public service. The commentator stated that this command would be I will do it, for otherwise there will be a quarrel and it is better to serve him, than to serve thy own lusts of pride and revenge. The idea was that Christ to not have his disciples insist upon this privilege, but to comply rather than offend the government.

In the verses that follow (v. 42-43) we are instructed to be charitable and giving; we must not only do no harm to others but instead to do all the good we can. We must be ready to give and we must be ready to lend. Lending can be as great a piece of charity as giving; as it not only relieves the present exigency, but obliges the borrower to providence, industry, and honesty. . . . (Matthew Henrys Commentary).

Finally, the final two verses (v. 44-45) of this section set out an extremely difficult commandment for most people to follow. While it is easy and expected by the world for us to hate our enemies, Jesus commands us to love them and to pray for them. The love (agapao) enjoined is that intelligent love which comprehends the difficulty and extends itself to rescue the enemy from his hate. Such love is akin to God's loving action toward rebellious men (John 3:16), and thus is a demonstration that those who so love are true sons of their Father. (Wycliffe Bible Commentary, 1962, Moody Press).

Undoubtedly, these are high standards, standards that help measure the life and commitment of the Christian. Do we meet these standards? Not too often but we can keep trying. How, how do I apply these verses and Jesus teachings to my own situation? After all,

Romans 12:17-19
** New International Version	King James Version
17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord.	17 Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. 18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. 19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

Was an evil perpetrated on me? I think so.

Was the action taken by the mall in excluding me from the premises justifiable? I don't think so.

Am I trying to repay evil with evil? No.

Am I seeking to enforce a judgment against an individual? No. My dispute lies with a corporation and its corporate policy.

By pursuing this lawsuit, am I primarily seeking redress for a personal grievance or correction of an affront to public peace? I think it is the latter.

I was once defrauded by a trusted friend and lost thousands of dollars as a result. While it was extremely difficult and I wrestled with the action to be taken, in the end I did nothing. Others were also harmed by his actions (he was a stockbroker) in a nefarious scheme over a private investment offering. I turned the matter over to God and eventually this person lost his brokers license, his home, his marriage and his job. He left town in disgrace. I followed the teaching of Matthew 5:39 and God took care of the problem.

In this instance, I also want to follow God's teaching and have come to the conclusion that there is a bigger issue at stake than just me being able to take my family to our local mall. This lawsuit concerns interpretation of the ADA and its possible impact upon millions of disabled Americans. All too often, the handicapped are treated as second class citizens and the time has come for that to end.

In my situation I did not ask for reasonable accommodation under the ADA; I only asked for access which was denied for a public accommodation. Is this a fight where I should turn the other cheek? I don't think so because it deals with more than just an affront to my dignity. It is a battle for what is right and I believe it is a battle that is justified. As I enter into the fray, I continue to seek God's direction and His leading.

Should we always turn the other cheek? Often but not always and in this instance, I did not. In the end, when it is all said and done, I trust and pray that the glory will be God's.

** A modern language quote is provided for readability together with the accompanying KJV version which is believed by many to be a more accurate representation of the original scripture.

Comments or questions may be directed to the author at jrhett58@yahoo.com.