No one ever told me that I was supposed to... destined to be a leader. 

Still, I wonder if I always knew it, somehow. Looking back on my middle school years, I recall all the chances and opportunities I was given to step up to one plate or another. Solos in the gospel choir, parts in the school musical, director and writer of our 7^th grade Greek play, first violin parts in the orchestra pieces... perhaps I just didn't see them all for what they were. I never considered myself popular, and certainly not a leader. The most I would settle for is “well known.” I loved the attention, but something held me back. I knew I had to balance the pride and arrogance I felt at my talents with the practical reality that I was not the best at everything. 

I overdid the humility in high school. The most I did was try out for the school one-acts. I saw just how much better everyone was at one thing or another, and so I was content to sit in the background, playing the backup singer to the divas in the school. Where before I was loud and proactive, I became quiet and hesitant. My pride had taken a heavy hit, and so I decided to let those who were “better” take the reins. However, the critical concept that I failed to understand then is that leading was not about being the best or the most qualified. In my mind, it was all about GPAs and awards and recognition; it was about those who had already proven themselves. I completely missed the point. Still, God pushed me forward, letting me test the waters within my comfort zone. I recall leading at least a few Bible studies with our Teens In Prayer club, and I recall a certain eccentric 10^th grade English teacher that regularly picked me to be the “goddess” of one group project or another. 

Perhaps one of my critical lessons I learned was when I entered the Reflections contest in the Writing category. Those of you who are about my age probably remember that contest. There's some theme and they have regional, state and national awards for various forms of art. My passions always has been, and always will be writing (surprise, surprise), so I entered the contest every year. However, my genre of choice has always been fantasy or science fiction. So I wrote what I wanted, and I believe in 11^th grade I received Honorable Mention. My senior year, I wanted to win, no matter what, so I wrote some horrendously cheesy story, name dropping places and locations in the state. It was some typical high school drama about the misfit kid making friends. Completely out of my preference zone, but it did the job. I finally got my first place ribbon. To this day, I still feel a little upset with myself for stooping to that level for the sake of a prize. I hated the story, really, but it taught me that some things mattered more than being “the best.”

 It was with this subdued, backseat mentality that I entered college. However, that mindset didn't last for long. I regained my pride, now tempered with humility and experience, and stretched out of my comfort zone. While making friends and having fun, I began to learn... really learn about just who I was and what I was capable of. To this day, I will never forget the critical moment that came early in my sophomore year. My roommate had been a no-show, so I was being lazy around my room and looked in the mirror before I went out for the time being. I had never forgotten my foundation (although I definitely got a little distracted), so when looking at my reflection, I said to myself “You have been called to live a life of excellence.” Almost immediately, He responded “Why aren't you?”

 Excellence was not about GPAs, talents and skills. It wasn't about the circles I ran in and the work I put into Cornhuskin' props and rehearsals. It was about my mindset and my commitment to His calling on my life. Perhaps that whispered response is what prepped me for my LeaderShape experience where He revealed to me the beginnings of my calling. At LeaderShape, I discovered I could be a leader, and I knew that the only kind of leader I could truly be is a servant leader. Few things make me as happy as when I'm helping others to accomplish a goal that is bigger than any one of us.

 All of these moments have led up to these past three years. There's a calling on my life, undeniable. Only God knows what will happen between this moment and that in the future when this calling is manifested in the natural. However, I can see it...and it makes me smile every time. I went through a period where I wondered if it was too big a plan or if I should alter things or maybe if I should leave it to someone else entirely. But now I am more certain than ever that I can accomplish this goal. Not because of anything I have or anything I know, but because of Who I have and Who I know. He's chosen me to be the vessel for this creation, and so as a mother with child, I will carry this vision to term, taking care that nothing is done to abort it. The labor pains may be long and hard, but it will all be so worth it.

 All He said was “Follow me,” but those words were backed with the power that He exuded and displayed on a regular basis. Watching what He did and what He does...learning to keep an eye on Him as We press forward to bigger and better things...

 I wonder now what kind of leader I will be. Because if I let Him have His way with me, then there is no other choice for me but to lead. It may not be significant in the eyes of the world, but who cares? I've always been a Daddy's girl anyway.

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fist of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Genesis 1:26-28

It seems to me that so many people use their humanity as a crutch to rely on. The saying “only human” is commonly used to excuse shortcomings, mistakes or outright evil intentions. It is a way of reminding ourselves that we are not perfection, nor are we supposed to be.

While that may be true, that is certainly not the whole truth. I believe that Satan has, as with so many of his lies, imbued the image of humanity with just enough truth to make us all believe that our status as “human” is the cause of our imperfection, something that we cannot escape and, therefore, need not take full responsibility for.

 Let us go to the creation story. While most people who acknowledge this story accept the fact that God made mankind, I think it would be safe to say that few stop to really examine the words used here. For those of you who may read my blogs on any regular basis, you know where I'm headed.

 The Bible says two things about mankind: man was made in the image of God and man was made according to the likeness of God. The words for “image” and “likeness” are very similar, but different, and so resulted in different English translations.

 The word used for image is tselem, meaning a phantom or figuratively, an illusion or resemblance. The word can also mean a representative figure, such as an idol. The root of the word means “to shade,” so if we follow that, we can pull out the image of a shadow. A shadow cannot exist without something to cast it and a representative cannot exist without something to represent. The word “image” here reflects God's intention that mankind be permanently linked to Him, an extension of Himself rather than a completely separate entity.

 The word used for likeness is d^emûwth, meaning “resemblence; concretely model, shape; adverbially like,” as in manner or similitude. The word comes from dâmâh, which means “to compare; by implication, to resemble, liken, consider.” We were meant not only to look like God in a physical sense, but also in a figurative sense. God made man so that those who would look upon men could be forced to see, to consider Him because of the similarities.

 When looked at through this light, it is no small surprise that the crime of murder was dealt with so severely. If a man could intentionally kill another man, who was made to represent and resemble God, then a man could not possibly be far from disrespecting God Himself.

Mankind was not made to be just a servant or some tool to be used by God; mankind was made to be close to God, both physically and figuratively. A shadow is connected to the one who creates it. If one continues to look at the story as both Adam and Eve are created, we see that God physically handled Adam and provided for them. He removed Adam's rib to create Eve, He walked in the cool of the day searching for them, and when they were ousted from the garden, He created clothing for them.

Such was mankind's original place. God made us to have a close, intimate bond with him, to resemble Him and to represent Him and all that He was. It was God who gave authority to man over not only all animals living within it, but the earth itself (Ge 1:26). An owner does not give just anyone a management position. The owner is either sure in the person's abilities or has equipped the person with all the tools s/he needs for success. Since man obviously had yet to prove himself worthy of anything, then it must be the latter. God breathed life into man for the purpose of exercising authority over the earth.

 Also note that when man screwed up by disobeying the one command given to him, God did not revoke that authority. God made the job less easy for both Adam and Eve, but He did not say “Thou shalt no longer rule over the earth and all that is in it.”

 Psalms 8 says

“When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers,
The moon and the stars, which You have ordained,
What is man that You are mindful of him,
And the son of man that You visit him?
For You have made him a little lower than the angels,
And You have crowned him with glory and honor.

You have made him to have dominion over the worlds of Your hands;
You have put all things under his feet.” v. 3-6

Even if you were to make the argument that these passages refer mainly or solely to Christ, are not those who are born again made to sit in heavenly places in Christ Jesus? (Eph 2:4-6). That simple preposition, “in,” makes all the difference, and the Hebrew word denotes a fixed position, be it in time, place or state. In other words, that's a permanent position in which those who are saved are placed into. The only way that can be changed is if someone takes us out of it, and you will be hard-pressed to find a verse that suggest that such an act is even possible.

 So with that being said, perhaps it is time for us to redefine what it really means to be human. While the angels may have come before us, God did not make the earth for them, nor give them dominion over it. God did not make a way for the angels to be brought into the family of God. Yet we speak of them as though they are superior to us in some manner.

 God made mankind with a special purpose in mind for a special position in this universe. And thanks to the blood of Jesus, we have regained that original position and purpose. Being “only human” is not such a bad thing after all...

Duc was 16 years old when he entered the criminal justice system. Whether or not he came from a good home is arguable because of some physical abuse he received from his father. He ended up in foster care, trying to push ahead the best he could. No prior arrests, relatively good kid with aspirations of going to college. He was driving with some friends in the backseat of his car when one of them fired a gun out the window. On the stand, he claimed to have not known the minor who actually pulled the trigger, instead saying that it was the friend of a friend. Although no one was injured in the shooting, he was tried as an adult and eventually convicted of attempted first degree murder. Because the attempted shooting was found to be gang affiliated, Duc ended up with a harsher sentence and is now serving 35 to life.¹ Is that really justice?²

In this context, can we even decide what justice really is? This semester, we have been struggling to put a proper definition to “justice,” and I think we are still hard pressed to say what it definitively should look like even if we could agree on one. However, given my English background and my obsession with the use of words, the very least I can do is lay out what will be the first of many definitions for the purposes of this paper. The most prevalent forms of the word “justice” and “just” in the Old Testament are derived from the primary root tsâdaq, which generally means to be or make right in a moral or forensic sense; to cleanse or clear the self; to be just or do justice; to justify self; and/or to be or turn to righteousness.³ The word for “just” used in the New Testament mean equitable in character or act; by implication innocent; holy.⁴ Given these two definitions, while we cannot fully merge them, to act justly seems to require both inward character and outward actions. By our own means, we can only try to make right our wrong, attempting to create order and place things back into their proper place. So, at the risk of stating the obvious, real justice is something man can aspire to, but never fully attain.

As important as justice for the victim is, I feel that we can lose our focus if we only seek the justice for those who are wronged when we discuss the criminal justice system. In her book, Sisella Bok argues that lying harms both the liar and the one being lied to.⁵ There is no doubt that a sin, regardless of the target, ultimately harms the sinner and takes him/her further away from God. Jesus chastised the Pharisees, telling them that they had “neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith.⁶” While it is not always feasible for the justice system to show mercy to criminals, we can certainly combine justice and faith and see where such a mindset leads us.

We know that punishment must play a role in this equation. There are consequences for every action, and the Lord disciplines those He loves.⁷ However, punishment, whether divine or secular, is more the natural course of action. A society without consequences for disapproved behavior can only end in chaos, so criminal punishment must be present in some form, regardless of whether one cares for the well being of the criminal on any level. As Christians, we have been called to a higher standard than just playing by the rules the world sets in place. When asked why He chose to associate with sinners, Christ's response was that it is those who are sick who need the physician, that it is the sinners who need the call to repentance.⁸ If Christ laid the ultimate example for His disciples, present and future, then what do His words mean for us? What do we owe, if anything, to the sick and the sinner?

Defining Rehabilitation

You'd be hard pressed to find the word “rehabilitate” in that exact form within the Bible, so I'll have to turn to the generic dictionary for help with this one. To rehabilitate can be to “restore to a condition of good health, ability to work or the like; to restore formally to former capacity, standing, rank, rights, or privileges.⁹” The concept of restoration is a key part of rehabilitation. Two of the definitions of restore are to “bring back to a formal, original or normal condition” or “bring back to of health, soundness or vigor.¹⁰” Simply put, rehabilitation is restoration with a specific purpose or goal in mind.

Restoration is a concept that is near and dear to God's heart. One could very well argue that since the Fall, God has set things into motion to restore mankind to its intending place – an intimate relationship with Him. Looking at Genesis and Revelations, the similarities between Adam's position with God and the Church's position with God can be seen. God walked with Adam in the cool of the day, and when there is a new heaven and a new earth, God will again dwell among His people.¹¹ Everything in between demonstrates, in various ways and with various words, that God has man's original position in mind. Christ did many miracles during His time on earth, most of the more well known ones in the forms of restoring either health, life or sanity to people.¹² Christ did not discriminate between those who were in that state perhaps because of their sin and those who were in that state so that Christ would demonstrate His power; He performed His miracles through the faith of those that requested to be healed. He then tells his disciples that whoever believes in Him will do greater works than those He did during His time on the earth.¹³ Arguably, all Christians have access to the restorative power that Christ displayed through the power and giftings of the Holy Spirit.

The concept of restoration undoubtedly has a place within Christianity. There can be quite a difference between the one-on-one interactions that we have with those that God places into our path and the large structure that is the criminal justice system. While we can choose to exercise mercy whenever and however (in terms of how much mercy to extend to the trespasser) to whoever, we almost do not expect our justice system to do the same thing. At the very least, we certainly expect the system to punish those who commit crimes, regardless of whether the crime is a sin on its face or by virtue of the secular law.¹⁴ So can there be a secure place for focused restoration in the form of rehabilitation within the criminal justice system? While the answer was once found to be no, this paper will briefly explore the former justification for punishment and the ensuing shifts that came within the criminal justice system. Next, it will reconsider rehabilitation within the criminal context. Finally, it will ask what role Christians should and can play within the realm of criminal rehabilitation.

Three Strikes: Shifting Justifications and Multiple Offense Statutes

Once upon a time, the primary goal of criminal punishment was rehabilitation. The new found faith in the sciences resulted in the prevalent viewpoint of the criminal as the mentally or physically sick individual, requiring treatment in the form of incarceration¹⁵. Statutes allowed for indeterminate sentences in order to allow the criminal enough time to be “cured,” the parole boards serving the function of deciding when the criminal was well and could be again released into the general population.¹⁶

In due time, the pendulum began to sway once more, having apparently reached its peak with the marriage of rehabilitation and the criminal justice system. The shift away from the rehabilitative model started to pick up speed during the 1970s, at least in some small part due to the decision in Powell v. Texas.¹⁷ While the case did not directly relate to the rehabilitative model of criminal punishment, it does demonstrate a prevalent mindset that existed in the nation as well as the concerns about that pattern of thinking. The case revolved around Powell who was arrested for being intoxicated in public¹⁸. His defense was that since he suffered from the disease of alcoholism, he did not appear in public out of his own free will, and therefore, punishing him for being diseased was cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the 8^th Amendment¹⁹. The court issued a plurality opinion, determining that the conviction was not cruel and unusual punishment²⁰. In the discussion about how to deal with the details of alcoholism within the context of the case, Justice Marshall wrote that there are “conceptual difficulties inevitably attendant upon the importation of scientific and medical models into a legal system generally predicated upon a different set of assumptions.²¹” Furthermore, he stated that “this Court has never held that anything in the Constitution requires that penal sanctions be designed solely to achieve therapeutic or rehabilitative effects, and it can hardly be said with assurance that incarceration serves such purposes any better for the general run of criminals than it does for public drunks.²²” The concurring opinion continues the critique of the presumed goal of rehabilitation by recognizing that criminal law has other purposes.²³ Neither opinion denied the fact that alcoholism was a disease and did require treatment; the concern centered around what place such considerations really had within the realm of criminal punishment. The fact that the opinion was issued as a plurality demonstrates, and perhaps mirrors, the public feelings towards the rehabilitative model at that point in time.

Some of the criticisms of applying medical concepts of rehabilitation to criminal punishment made within this decision already existed in other conversations about the rehabilitative model. Voices, conservative and liberal alike, complained about everything from how the current model did not include a concept of moral accountability to the cruelty of indeterminate sentencing to the criminal.²⁴ Viticello gives the reader a picture of a system where judges were given broad discretion to determine the sentence of a criminal but next to no guidelines on how to make that decision²⁵. A man-made system of justice is inherently flawed and prone to both abuse and incorrect judgments, but one without clear guidelines can only be more so. Ultimately, the cry for a more evenhanded system of sentencing seemed to be the last straw against the rehabilitative model.

The death of this model of criminal punishment was imminent with the passing of the Sentencing Reform Act in 1984, which was a part of the larger Comprehensive Crime Control Act. This act eliminated parole in the federal system and established the United States Sentencing Commission.²⁶ Under the USSC, determinate sentencing based on the seriousness of the crime began in the federal system.²⁷ It was merely a matter of time before the states began to follow suit, at the very least doing away with indeterminate sentencing and moving to a more concrete set of guidelines.²⁸

Although it is clear that the shift was away from the rehabilitative model, there is still a fair amount of debate on what the current model is and should be founded upon. The development of habitual offender statutes has only added more fodder to that discussion. Most states have enacted some sort of version of this law, and California's is commonly known as “Three Strikes.”

Three Strikes was codified in California Penal Code § 667 in 1994, and the name derives from 667(e)(2)(A), which states that a defendant with two or more prior felony convictions covered by the statute will receive an indeterminate term of life imprisonment. Three strikes, and you're out. The statute covers what it labels serious or violent felonies, including mayhem, lewd or lascivious acts, arson, extortion, burglary and carjacking.²⁹ The California law does not allow for consideration of the length of time between the prior and present conviction, requires certain defendants to serve consecutive rather than concurrent terms and increases the jail time of the second conviction that falls within the guidelines of the statute, strike number two.³⁰

Vitiello mused that the appearance of and interest in habitual offender statutes “signals another dramatic shift from retribution to incapacitation and, to a lesser degree, deterrence as the primary justification for punishment.³¹” He goes on to say that from a utilitarian point of view, both incapacitation and deterrence are valid reasons.³² The advent of other laws, such as the increased sentence time that a judge is required to place on cases where the crime was gang-affiliated, seems to support the idea that the shift is heading towards incapacitation and deterrence as the primary goal of punishment.³³ The unspoken question within his observation is can we settle for a “greatest good for the greatest amount of people” rationale when we're talking about punishing people, sometimes for life. Even if we concede that Three Strikes has accomplished the goal of deterring crime from happening, I still think that we are challenged with the question of whether or not we could make the system more “just,” particularly in the Biblical sense.³⁴

The removal of the rehabilitative model from the criminal justice system has solved the specific criticisms attributed to the system, such as indeterminate sentencing and unclear sentencing guidelines, but in its wake remains a question regarding what the goal of criminal punishment should be and how that goal can be achieved. The general consensus is that the primary purpose is that of retribution, but what other goals are considered legitimate, and in what relation to retribution?

Second Chances: Another Glance at Rehabilitation

The concern with bringing up the term “rehabilitation” within the context of criminal punishment is that it also tends to bring into mind images of leniency on the criminal. Some key concerns with the rehabilitative model were those of providing systematic fairness for that same criminal. I believe that both can be addressed without necessarily losing the retributive aspect of criminal punishment.

One British study done examined the question of whether rehabilitation and retribution were as opposed as people seem to make them out to be.³⁵ The authors came to the conclusion that they are not, and in fact share some similarities in that both focus on the inner nature of the criminal.

[...R]epression rests on the assumption that human beings are evil by nature, whereas rehabilitation's ambition to socialize people into new identities and lifestyles relies on the assumption that human nature is essentially pliable, open and undetermined. Repression assumes that the causes of crime reside within the criminals, who are seen as essentially evil people who need to be punished for their misdeeds. Rehabilitation instead assumes that criminals can be reformed, because human nature is essentially open and pliable: bad social circumstances can make any person a criminal, just like favourable conditions can transform a criminal into a decent citizen. Those contrasting beliefs about human nature underlie the deep-rooted conviction that repression is the converse of rehabilitation.

While debating whether the premises laid out here line up with the ideas of retribution and rehabilitation, we as Christians can at least agree with the premises themselves. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, but we can also do all things through Christ who strengthens us.³⁶ Man is capable of great evil but can also be pushed towards a life of nobility, and any number of factors can and do play a role in determining which path an individual will take at any given moment. Agreeing that the inner man inherently drives the outer man seems to be the easiest hurdle to jump over in this discussion.

I would argue that rehabilitation and retribution could coexist, so long as we would be willing to acknowledge the fact that not everyone can be rehabilitated. Even Christ did not force Himself on anyone, giving the freedom to refuse to answer His call. There will be those whom, through their actions or their own mouths, would refuse a chance at rehabilitation. Habitual offenders may well fall into that category, as would those warranting the death penalty.³⁷ Still, in a world where peer pressure and the desire to live up to arbitrary standards can weigh heavily on the hearts and minds of the masses, rehabilitation could be a key role in keeping small-time criminals out of the prison system once and for all by providing a clearly valid alternative to the life that the criminal may have been living.

Jordan J. Ballor discussed a particular theory, that of restorative justice, as one that embraces rehabilitation. He explains that “restorative justice is a theory of justice that emphasizes concepts such as reconciliation, forgiveness and healing,” continuing to say that if the theory fits in with classical definitions of justice, then these concepts are owed to people left in the aftermath of a crime.³⁸ If perhaps that statement felt a little strong to you, we can shift to the perspective offered from a Catholic standpoint. In 2000, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops issued Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice. Joseph L. Falvey, Jr. wrote an article critiquing the statement, which argued that protecting society and rehabilitation are the primary purposes of punishment.³⁹ He argued that the traditional Catholic viewpoint of the “principal and justifying aim” of punishment rested on retribution.⁴⁰ Relying on Aquinas and natural order, Falvey goes through four ends of punishment in order from greater to lesser.

The primary end of punishment is to redress the disorder the offense introduced in the moral order as a whole. The secondary end of punishment is the restoration of the public and civil order. The tertiary end of punishment, which is closely related to the second, is the defense of public safety. Finally, punishment offers the rehabilitation of the offender himself, which is the restoration of the order within the criminal soul.⁴¹

His primary gripe with the statement by the USCCB was that he felt they did not affirm traditional Catholic teaching and placed too much emphasis on the individual's good rather than the common good.⁴² Still, did say that the statement “affirms certain perennial truths about punishment, such as the existence of free will as the basis of responsibility, the importance of providing opportunities for the criminal's reforms, the need for social protection and crime prevention, and the necessity of a stable family life as an element to reducing crime.⁴³”

I believe that a major problem with the previous rehabilitative model of criminal punishment was the fact that rehabilitation was the primary goal. Placing retribution as the primary goal allows for a theoretically equal playing field for all who enter the system. However, leaving rehabilitation out of the picture entirely results in a rather dire situation for the one punished, as there is no chance or concern for the criminals reformation.

What I found particularly noteworthy about California's Three Strikes statute is the decision to include juvenile adjudications if the crime would have fallen under this category and the minor was at least 16 when s/he committed the crime^.44 As the traditional purpose of the juvenile justice system has been (and generally remains) the rehabilitation of the youth, the fact that the California law cuts out this corner of that page to incorporate into the adult justice system could signal a shift away from the rehabilitative model for youth as well. Across the nation, statutes have been put into place that make it easier for youth to be tried as adults and subjected to adult prisons, and therefore, adult situations.⁴⁵

The documentary, Juvies, looks into the lives of several youth who were tried and convicted as adults. Elizabeth, a girl who had already been in adult prison for seven years, talks about the difficulties of growing up in the prison system. She briefly explains how she ended up dealing in drugs and being sexually involved with another woman, both activities she'd never done prior to being incarcerated. She tells the camera “I am what I swore I wouldn't be.” The narrator states that men sent to prison tend to look to gangs and violence to cope while the women tend to look to drugs and lesbian relationships to maintain their grip on reality. Given the advent of habitual offender statutes and the imposition of harsher punishment on gang-affiliated crime, more and more youth are being caught into this system and this world behind bars.

Now, we could spend time arguing over being the masters of our own fate and accepting the consequences of our actions, all which would include many valid points. However, while society and the victim may have received some form of justice, should a Christian be content with leaving a person in the squalor of not only their own sin, but perhaps sanctioning the immersion of the sinner into even more sinful conditions than the criminal could ever have imagined. While we know that blessed is he who endures temptation, it is undoubtedly that much more difficult to guard one's mind and heart when one is up to the proverbial neck in sin.⁴⁶ That thought leaves us with the question of what, if anything, should or can Christians do for those who have violated laws and deserve punishment. Is there a proper Christian perspective on criminal rehabilitation?

First Stones: A Call to Restoration?

If both God and Christ were concerned about the restoration of man, then can we construct a valid argument that Christians should not be? If justice, mercy and faith are crucial aspects of the law, and Christ did not abolish but fulfill the law, should we not still be concerned with all three? Well, enough of the rhetorical questions.

The Book of John gives us the story of the adulteress.⁴⁷ The scribes and Pharisees brought forth a woman caught in adultery, attempting yet again to test Jesus. He tells them “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.⁴⁸” While ultimately a lesson in mercy and just one example of Christ handling those who sought to challenge him, there is, as with most stories in the Bible, many deeper layers. The first worth pointing out here is that the punishment could have gone forward, so long as a sinless man cast the first stone. As He phrased it, the sentence could have been carried out should He have chosen to cast that stone. However, He did not. He waited until those who would stone her had left before speaking with the woman.⁴⁹ Telling her that He would not condemn her, He instructed her to go and sin no more.⁵⁰

The word “condemn” used here means to “judge against” or “sentence” as well as the actual word for condemning and damning.⁵¹ If the system was under Christian control, then I believe we would have the same authority to condemn or not, to find guilty or acquit as the case warranted it. While only Christ knows what exactly was within the heart of the adulteress in that moment, there was the clear call to sin no more. If she was under our criminal system, she would have simply been given her sentence and sent to jail with no concern for her spiritual well being. This example is only one of many within the Bible of a moment when punishment is withheld so that mercy can be given and a call to live to a higher standard is issued.

Rehabilitation could provide us with a framework in which we could extend a form of mercy and/or call the criminal to a higher standard, so I stand firmly in view of support for criminal rehabilitation. The real debate is how that rehabilitation should look. Let us revisit the theory of restorative justice. Ballor suggested that there are generally four basic positions that seem to represent how Christians view restorative justice in conjunction with the criminal justice system: complementarian reformists, instrumentalist reformists, separate radicalists and abolitionist radicalists.

I will briefly sum up each position as put forth by Ballor. Complementary reformists want the criminal justice system to move towards restorative goals while not necessarily doing away with the punitive aspects.⁵² At the very least, retribution and restoration should coexist, although some under this position may argue that restoration can even take the place as the primary aim of punishment.⁵³ Instrumentalist reformists believe that punishment is only valid if restorative justice is the primary focus.⁵⁴ Any punishment that is not designed with the goals of restorative justice in mind is not legitimately administered.⁵⁵ Separatist radicalists stand firmly on the belief that “punishment, retribution, coercion or force” are at odds with “the principles and practice of restorative justice” and would prefer a system apart from the current criminal justice system to dole out restorative justice.⁵⁶ Abolitionist radicalists take that concept to the next step and argue that...you guess it...the criminal justice system should be dismantled, with all that such a position would imply.⁵⁷

These positions can translate themselves into how we feel about the role of rehabilitation within the current justice system. Should it be incorporated, placed in a position of primacy, dealt with apart from the State or drive the destruction of the status quo? A separate paper would be needed to fully explore the Biblical (and otherwise) arguments for and against each position as well as how each position might translate into a practical application. What I can do is touch on some practical suggestions and some practical movements that have been made regarding criminal punishment and rehabilitation.

In his article, Vitiello argues “an offender's transformation, like his culpability, is relevant to morally appropriate punishment. If that conclusion is sound, then consideration of an offender's transformation is not impermissible on equality grounds.⁵⁸” The concerns with playing fair that existed in the previous rehabilitative model could be rectified by carefully constructed guidelines. Unfortunately, Vitello does not follow up the statement with any ideas of how such consideration would look in regards to the punishment aspect of the criminal justice system. Theoretically, it could be done, using a system of recommendations, observations about behavior post-arrest and possibly during incarceration to establish a fair system of evaluation that would recognize a criminal's potential to be reintroduced to society as a law-abiding citizen.

Another movement regarding rehabilitation and criminal punishment is the rise of faith-based prisons and religious programming with in the prison setting. Lawtey Correctional Institution in Florida was converted in 2004 to an institution focused on cultivating faith and character within the male prison population.⁵⁹ All the prisoners were informed and given the option to transfer, and prisoners from other institutions were given the chance to transfer to the newly established prison provided that they had been “without any discipline problems for a least a year prior to the transfer” and were approaching their release date.⁶⁰ The institution offers programming in all faiths, but most of the inmates and volunteers are Christian.⁶¹ A female version was soon set up at Hillsborough Prison, also located in Florida.

Other than converting entire institutions to a faith-based model, there is the other option of designating an area of the existing institution to a faith-based focus. InnerChange Freedom Initiative (IFI) occupies an entire wing of the institution, putting into place religious programming using private donations and volunteers.⁶² IFI exclusively teachers Christian doctrine and also a “reentry program”, and the inmates that participate receive greater resources and are subject to greater disciplinary requirements, including a rigid schedule which starts with praise and worship at 6am.⁶³

Both of these models have come under heavy criticism, including questions of Constitutionality and whether inmates are professing conversion simply to escape the environments of the rest of the criminal system. While not discrediting either question, given the context of the paper, my primary concern with these models is that they only reach a small portion of the criminal population. Both programs only handle prisoners who are approaching release. Prison Fellowship, the organization which heads IFI, does have a prison outreach ministry, and such programs can certainly be a solution. This still leaves the question of what to do for those who may not be approaching release anytime soon. The old saying goes that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and it is undoubtedly better to keep those not already inclined to misconduct from engaging in it once within prison. As mentioned above, the environment can be toxic and corrode the spirit of those within it. Undoubtedly there will be those that bite the hand that feed them and those that will outright refuse rehabilitation from any perspective, let alone a Christian one. Still, I strongly feel that merely telling prisoners to stay out of trouble and not give into the darkness is like telling the poverty-stricken to be warm and filled.⁶⁴ Faith and love are both empty without actions that confirm it and I believe that both call us to do more for those that are incarcerated. We can point at all the wrong that a person has done, but we as Christians should pause and consider that there was a time when we all were lost, awaiting to be found. Perhaps we should let the system throw the first stone, which it certainly loves to do, instead of being so quick to follow up with our own.

Conclusion

Rehabilitation and criminal punishment certainly experienced a rough breakup. Perhaps the system was indeed broken and needed some readjustment. However, if the system is still seeking justice for all, then it may well be time to reintroduce rehabilitation to criminal punishment. Regardless of which theory of Christian restorative justice you may subscribe to, there is no reason that many of the options discussed here could not coexist within our current system. If someone was feeling particularly ambitious, they could tackle the entire system. Christ tells us that we are no better than the rest of the world if we only love those who love us.⁶⁵ He challenges us to a higher standard, to love those who wrong us, those who would be our enemies.⁶⁶

When asked what he wanted people to know about him, Duc responded with this statement:

What do I want people to know about me? There's not much to know. You know, I'm human just like you. Just because I'm locked up doesn't mean I'm just some, like, horrible guy. I like to read. I like to write. I want people to love me for me. Not because of what people tell them, but to give me the opportunity to sit down with me, and just to get to know me and talk to me. If so, maybe you'll find out that I'm really not a bad guy after all. That I'm not a lost cause.⁶⁷

I cannot help but feel that when we simply refuse criminals a chance at rehabilitation, systematically or otherwise, we are telling them that they are a lost cause. Even in the midst of His punishments, God extended mercy and showed immeasurable patience with His people. Cain received a second chance at life; although condemned to never enter the promised land, God still provided for Israel with manna and quail; despite handing Israel over to her enemies, He promised to make her prosper even in captivity. We should all understand that God is a God of second chances. He may have a special heart for the widowed and the orphan, but we know that God's heart goes beyond just those two groups. It certainly does not mean that we are allowed to write off the incarcerated just because they have committed a crime.

Debates will undoubtedly happen over what form rehabilitation should or can take, but in order to get to a point where such debates could even be fruitful, we must reach an understanding that rehabilitation is a goal of punishment worth keeping in mind. If we believe that it is God's desire that no one should perish, but that all should come to repentance and be part of what could arguably be the greatest rehabilitation program in the history of mankind, then perhaps at least a chance at rehabilitation is something that we, at least from the Christian perspective, do owe criminals.⁶⁸

People always complain about customer service operators when trying to get a question or concern addressed about a phone, computer or software that was purchased. Imagine how much easier your life would be if you can conference call the people that made the product and get all the answers you needed rather than someone who had been crash-coursed into the business?

We have that option to the most complicated creation in existence: ourselves.

I was taking a class at church, and the last class was on our inner image, how we see ourselves and how that image was shaped by our experiences during childhood. The bulk of the message was focused on dealing with negative self-images that had been produced by traumatic events during childhood or harsh upbringing by parents. As I sat in the class, I tried desperately to recall any sort of discouraging message I had received from either parents or authority during my youth. Honestly, I drew a large blank. The few memories I could dredge up had either been countered by an abundance of love and support from others or I had already developed my relationship with God to the point where His love protected me from the negativity. Having accepted Christ at 11, although I wasn't completely sure what it meant at the time, God still extended His protection to both my mind and heart.

So, I asked God to reveal to me if and where the areas of my stunted growth remained. Praise God for praying family, because I am convinced that it was such prayers that covered me despite any turmoil that my parents may have been experiencing. On those few occasions where I didn't feel love, God revealed to me that it wasn't me to blame, and so I never grew up with any sort of feelings of inadequacy or rejection. It is this feeling...this sense of identity and strength that I hope to pass on to the youth some day...

But that still leaves me and my mess. While blessed beyond reason to not have those areas to struggle with, I am not foolish enough to believe that I have no areas to struggle with that weren't birthed in my childhood. And it was at that point when he revealed that one of my greatest assets was also my greatest weakness

Growing up a Navy brat, I learned that friends come and friends go. Due to my God-given intelligence and mental capacity, I never really needed to rely on the help or advice for teachers during my younger years, often getting things on the first or second time around if I cared to get them at all (Chemistry was a HUGE exception). I had never really needed anyone, settling for a lot of acquaintances and maybe one or two deep friendships which I held onto as loosely as a bubble. While not being an emotionally cold or apathetic person, I had the rather startling revelation that I had perhaps a handful of relationships with any real emotional depth to them. Even the vast majority of my romantic relationships (present company excluded, of course), I had loved anything and everything but them, it seems.

Even now, as I write this, I can hear so many truths about the depths of my soul that I'd never thought of confronting, let alone dealing with. In seeking to deepen my relationship with God, I've been looking to Him as a friend, as a lover, as a husband, as a parent. But when I look at the way that I treat those that I have and do call such...I can't give God that... This halfhearted, “just enough” mentality...I can't give the God that so loved me that. Heck, I can't give the rest of those around me that, knowing that He so loves them.

I know in my knower that this revelation is a major turning point for me. Satan has been struggling to keep this knowledge from me, telling me that I don't need people or that those I have are more than enough. When I think back to my younger days, I loved deeply and passionately, as both a friend and a mate. I did what I could to hold on to those bonds I thought were precious rather than let them slip away. It is time for me to learn to do so again, starting with my relationship with God.

So, to those friends, both old and new, I apologize for being less than. I cherish you all for putting up with me thus far. I'll be learning to be the best friend possible from the greatest Friend the world has ever known!

Lately, I've been on this baby kick. While working in the Children's Ministry at church gets me a healthy fix of adorable little ones, I still long for my own. So, as I was fighting off the incessant ticking of my clock yesterday, God pricked me in the way only He can. It was a short, simple message, but it struck home powerfully. He just said “Wait for your Isaac.”

Abraham had two sons, but only one was the promised child of God. Ishmael was born out of Abraham's own attempts to bring about God's promises. Isaac was the miracle child, and the one in line to take humanity one step closer to Christ. It is no hidden fact that Muslims claim Abraham through Ishmael as Christians and Jews claim him through Isaac. An innocent enough action and an innocent enough result sent ripples that because crashing waves generations later.

We can never truly know the full consequences of any action we take, no matter how insignificant it may seem in our own eyes. Words and actions of many people haunted me years later, and while they no longer haunt me, I still remember them. Who would have thought that Abraham's impatience would have such a result?

Would I choose an Ishmael over my promised Isaac? We do it so often without thinking. The simple thought has echoed through my mind and made its way to every aspect of my life. God's got a whole lot of Isaacs just for me...that perfect job, perfect house, perfect city to live in...and all in His perfect timing. I don't want to rush any of it, but I must also be still and quiet long enough to hear what instructions I need to hear. God told Abraham that the promised child would be fruit of him and Sarah. So, it could be no other way, for God will not go against His own word. A lot of my thinking has been restructured. What has God said about the thing I'm hoping for? How can I position myself to get it? Gotta learn to listen to Him, through word and prayer, in order to be sure of which path to take.

The clock is still ticking, but I'll wait for His timing. He knows what He's doing, and I choose to trust Him. I want my Isaac.