This time of the year I am often asked about mediation in religious traditions. While I am certainly not a religious scholar, I will share what I have been told about a variety of religions in this regard and will leave it open for others to correct me.

Religion #1: Judaism

Central to dispute resolution in the Jewish tradition is the concept of shalom (peace). Religious and community leaders are to pursue peace and prevent divisions and conflict in the community. Compromise is seen as an important method for settling civil disputes.

The Shulchan Aruch, the authoritative code of Jewish Law, states that judges should open all civil proceedings by proposing a compromise. The Jewish scholar and philosopher Maimonides promoted mediation and praised any judge who mediated compromises and didn’t have to make a legal ruling in his lifetime.

Jewish tradition does not provide directions for conducting mediation, so most use the standard process acting as an impartial evaluator of the merits of the dispute in confidence.

Overall, though, the Jewish approach to dispute resolution is significantly more formal than that of Christian or Islamic practices. Compared to dispute resolution in Christianity and Islam, the Jewish approach is more formal and can be conducted very much like a secular trial.

Din is the Hebrew word for a formal court proceeding. A Beth Din (or Beit Din) is an official Rabbinical Court. Beth Dins deal with Jewish divorces as well as adjudicating commercial disputes such as between business partners, employers and employees, congregations and rabbis and family members. Beth Dins rely primarily on Jewish law.

In a broad stroke, the Jewish tradition of dispute resolution in comparison to others is more formal and promotes compromise.

Occasionally, I receive calls from volunteer court mediators asking my advice on how to handle unique situations. Actually, many of the questions reflect one concern: How do I deal with a disputant who, for whatever reason, is not as skilled in language and problem solving as their adversary?

Mediators are bound by ethical guidelines and it is just this question that has troubled many who do this type of work. First and foremost, mediators must conduct a session on the principle of self-determination. That is, the mediation must ensure that each party makes free and informed choices as to the outcome. Equally important, the mediator conduct sessions in an impartial manner and avoid any conduct that even gives the appearance of partiality.

Consider a mediation among neighbors in a housing complex where, for whatever reason, one party exhibits limited spoken language skills. Should the mediator assist to ensure that party is better able to present themselves verbally even though it may appear to the other party that the mediator is helping the other?

This may seem like a simple example, but the issue has generated much professional debate and learned papers. The debate is which is more important—impartiality or a fair process? There are strong arguments to be made on either side.

The Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators does contain this language: “…a mediator may need to balance such party self-determination with a mediator’s duty to conduct a quality process.” Each mediator has to address this question for themselves. I have on occasion gone in the direction of helping one party after fully explaining my reasons to the other party in private caucus. In every instance I have done this, the mediation was successful and each party was appreciative of how the process had been modified. In this question, then, I lean toward ensuring a fair process for all the disputants.