In Matthew 5:25 Christ instructs us to agree quickly with our adversary and seems to teach avoidance of the legal system. Does this mean we are to avoid litigation under all circumstances and not bring someone to justice if the situation merits it?

Allan T. Brinkerhoff, attorney and president of the Salt Lake Millcreek Stake. Clearly not. Ideally, court systems and the laws of the land are established for the regulation and protection of all citizens. These should not be considered beyond the reach of a member of Christ’s church.

In the October 1987 general conference, Elder Boyd K. Packer of the Quorum of the Twelve condemned litigation when it is used by individuals to try to cure guilt with self-justification or to transfer blame. But he made it plain that “there is no dishonor in appealing to a court of law for either justice or protection.” (Ensign, Nov. 1987, p. 16.)

In directing his disciples to avoid the judicial system and to “agree with thine adversary quickly,” the Savior might have been trying to steer the disciples clear of the complicated Jewish judicial system, which was made unpredictable and cumbersome by Roman law being superimposed upon it.

More likely, Jesus was probably trying to teach his disciples to become a certain kind of people. His injunction to agree quickly was given in context with other moral mandates that form the very basis of true Christianity:

—forgiving debtors.

—turning the other cheek to one who smites you.

—giving your cloak to one who sues you at the law and takes your coat.

—going the second mile.

—giving to the borrower and to one who asks.

—loving your enemies.

—blessing those that curse you.

—doing good to them that hate you.

—praying for them who despitefully use you and persecute you.

The list, revolutionary then and equally difficult to practice today, was given in connection with the Savior’s denunciation of the then-honored law of retaliation—an “eye for an eye.”

By measuring his actions against these standards, a true disciple of Christ would be an infrequent litigant.

Agreeing quickly with an adversary has much to do with avoiding contentiousness. There were those in Christ’s day, as there are in our own, whose self-appointed calling is to draw a line and then spend their lives seeing that no one steps over it. Such individuals keep their lawyer’s telephone number handy and consult with him or her on issues that should be left to their heart to resolve. They want to know how far they can go, how much they can get away with, how little they can pay, how much responsibility they can avoid, when the tolerable limits of the law will be reached, or when a prosecutor will care. Such individuals seem anxious to substitute legal opinions for listening, communication, common sense, compromise, compassion, understanding, and forgiveness. Their emotions and motives are frequently fueled by pride or desire for vengeance, yet they often justify the spending of their reputation and resources with the claim that they are teaching someone a lesson or stopping someone from “getting away with something.”

There are others, however, who can be equally assertive when issues of principle are involved but who deal with opponents in a spirit of conciliation and peacemaking. When calling an attorney, they are cautious and apologetic. They seek clarification of a legal point instead of trying to manipulate the system. They pause to consider the personal pain that pursuing a course of action may cause. An inner restraint guides their personal relationships, even in an adversarial setting. They often have tried peacefully and persistently to persuade their opponents to no avail, and seeking legal redress is an alternative that they weigh and measure along with other methods of resolving the dispute. Even when such individuals invoke the legal process, which is sometimes necessary to get an opponent’s attention, they are quick to make a reasonable settlement before litigation escalates and destroys themselves or their opponents.

Litigation is always a prolonged adversarial ordeal that offers unpredictable results. Those who have experienced it almost universally comment that it is emotionally, physically, and spiritually unsettling. It requires one, over a long period of time, to remember, repeat, and replay the injury or hurt that is the subject of the suit. The Savior’s statement to agree quickly with an adversary is as much a psychological prescription for inner peace as anything else. Yet it also translates into exceedingly sound economic advice. It is a formula for forgiveness. It is plain and direct encouragement to “move on.” Elder James E. Faust of the Quorum of the Twelve has observed:

“The Spirit—the Holy Ghost—will help us work out our insecurities. For instance, it can help us learn to forgive. There comes a time when people must move on, seeking greater things rather than being consumed by the memory of some hurt or injustice. Dwelling constantly on past injuries is, by its nature, limiting to the Spirit. It does not promote peace.” (Ensign, p. 33.)