In suspect of Institutions

I have said many times that I don't really care what politics and the world are doing. They are never going to agree with Christianity or live up to its worldview, nor should we expect them to. That is what the gospel is for. I do care when people speak as if Christians and grossly undermine its teachings. I do care when people misrepresent Christ and his church.

I was watching video of a prominent "christian" professor saying that he is in suspect of christian institutions. Now this is fine for a person to believe on his own, but what he was doing was embracing all sorts of social views in opposition to the Bible. This is also fine for a person to believe on their own but not as someone one supposedly believes in Christ. The other problem is the applause of the audience which furthers this notion that as long as Christianity is about paying lip service to Jesus it is cool, but the minute it is institutionalized it is a problem. Institutionalized means it becomes an organization it adopts methods, it has structure, rules, ways of operating, and people buy into them. Oh No!!

People like to include Jesus until he says something that excludes. So what they mean is they like Jesus but they do not like theology. This is why about 70% of Americans claim to be Christians but less than half than that do not know what being born again means. So if it has theology it is now opposed to Jesus? This silly notion that somehow Paul and Jesus are opposed theologically or worse yet Paul was all about theology and creating an institution whereas Jesus wasn't interested in theology.  Hmmm....

So is this true?   Let's take a look.

It is a popular phrase to say "I am spiritual but I don't like organized religion." I get it, the whole Catholic thing definitely did some damage back in the day. Some have seen the modern church do some as well. But what does spiritual even mean? As a Christian I know what it means. It means having to do the with the Holy Spirit who indwells us. It means allowing him to guide and thrive in your life, He is present and active. But if he doesn't and isn't why use the term?

What are you trying to communicate? Might it be that you are interested in the idea of God, but perhaps you want him on your terms?

True some people backed slavery, some backed Nazi Germany at first, some backed the Inquisition, and the Crusades and the Witch burnings. Sure some did this and sometimes it was an organization that did it. But many did not, certainly not all did. Should we really distance ourselves from theology because some have misused it? Should we really ignore large sections of the new testament because some of it has been used poorly in the past?

Jesus said it was to our benefit that he goes away so that his Spirit would come and lead us into all truth (John 16:7-14). This is what we get in the New testament. So is Jesus and the Spirit at odds as well? Jesus' instruction in the great commission was to teach all things that he taught but much still had to be delivered with the advent of the Holy Spirit.  

If we put societal whims above the pages of scripture then who really is God in this scenario?  If we say we just want Jesus but don't want any of those rules then we do not really understand Jesus at all. If you think something is not important because Jesus didn't say it directly himself then get out your scissors and trim down the new testament quite a bit.  Furthermore why buy into the Gospels? They were also written down, but not by Jesus, but by his disciples. So is it only direct quotes that count, is that what we really believe? Then cut out all the black letters from the Gospels as well.

This line of thinking is hardly Christian nor does it by any means honor Christ.

Jesus tells his disciples that his Spirit will come and lead them all into truth. This is the backdrop to the writing of the rest of the cannon. In other words Jesus is comfortable leaving the building of his church in the hands of his disciples. They are after all instructed by his Spirit; saying that this was the better set up. So to have people come along later who are undermining this organization set in place by Jesus is to not understand the Gospel or the Kingdom. It sounds more like the term institutionalized is used because we don't want to deal with all those hard verses, we just want to have only love talk and Jesus. 

But, If we care about Jesus' words, we will put stock in his church.  They may have some mess-ups in history, but that is precisely why we need all his teachings, for bringing balance. That is exactly why we need, may I say it? Fundamentals. The teachings that he left to come later after his departing, he let it be delivered from the Spirit to his apostles.

Jesus has this discussion with Nicodemus in John 3. John tells us that some people believed in Jesus but Jesus himself did not put his trust in them. He knew that people were about lip service to him but when it actually came to following him people often would walk away. Jesus starts to get at this with Nicodemus. If you think I am a good teacher and possibly the messiah and are interested in the Kingdom (an institution)  then understand you need to be born again (a rule). To follow Christ means to come to him on his terms. He gets to decide if his kingdom is a free-form, rules free, love fest or if it actually has doctrines and practices that are important. If you read the new testament you will see that he does in fact favor one over the other.

Coming to Jesus is always on his terms not on whether or not his followers have crafted a following that you find appealing or not. If we decide to distance ourselves from institutions then it should be because they have strayed from his words, not because his words form doctrines and those doctrines contain some fundamentals, because they do. If you want to extract Jesus from the Bible then fine but you are left with one of those other Jesus' that even the Bible mentions as not worth following. Think I am making this up?

1 Corinthians 2:11

1I wish you would bear with me in a little foolishness. Do bear with me! 2For I feel a divine jealousy for you, since I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ. 3But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 4For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough.

Even Paul admits that this line of thinking is silly. But we have people wanting the name of Jesus but not the historical man from the pages of scripture given to us from the testimony of the mouth's of his followers. So here we are. The question becomes how do you know if the Jesus you follow is the actual one? Well, you better become familiar with the one proclaimed from the Scriptures by his followers.

So If you are suspect of the institution of the church perhaps you should double check who your headmaster actually is, hmm? Because even Dumbledore was friendly, powerful and worth following, but he didn't die for anyone's sins making peace with God. He was also fiction.

thanks

Sermon: Trusting me, Trusting you?

This is a sermon I gave June 28th about struggling through my life long challenge and journey with Proverbs 3:5-6. Sometimes it is easy to trust. Sometimes it is difficult to trust. Sometimes we don't even understand what it even means to trust. With a little help from C.S. Lewis, I am working on it.

Trust in the Lord with all your heart
Do not lean on your own understanding
In all your ways acknowledge him
and he will make your path straight.

Easy, right?

https://archive.org/details/TrustingMeTrustingYou 

thanks

A Lack of Clarity (all those versions part two)

The reason I wrote the first blog about this subject was because of a tendency I have seen to write off the Bible because "You know the Bible has changed and been re-written over the years by many different people right? You do realize this right?" In other words you are foolish to put too much stock in its pages.

I cannot tell you how many times I have seen someone post this on comment sections about anything that has to do with Christianity. I know, why read the comments, it is the bane of our existence?! 

But I wrote that last one to point out that actually we have extremely accurate Bibles that highly reflect authorial intent which Christians believe were God breathed.

2 Timothy 3:16 
14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it 15and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

But I didn't address the other line of argumentation fully which is also used just as often: that the Bible is just not that "clear". Well I have mentioned this in passing a few times and after having read yet another article about how we all need to chill because the Bible is not that clear. I felt the need to stand up once again and defend Gotham. Not that Gotham needs my defending, nor am I Batman but the church has a history of good theology and I don't want that to go away with a flood of misinformation. Louder voices on the internet are not always good ones.

So in my response I wish the Christians would admit about the Bible though difficult can be understood with study and practice. Maybe not to full complete understanding or liking but that is why humility is important in knowing God. I may not understand everything fully but let's stop tossing babies around in bathwater.

Relevant Magazine had an article about things people need to admit about the Bible and they are right ; to undermine the scriptures is a great way to undermine the Christians faith which is very relevant to enemies of God. So I will respond to their five points.

Point 1 The Bible is not magic but a collection of Books with different Genres. Good, true point.

Point 2 The Bible isn't as clear as we'd like it to be. Um sometimes it isn't but I think that this is more of a passing blip than a point. It is awfully clear on many things. It is awfully clear on many things that people do not like. Just because we do not like something doesn't mean it becomes unclear. Let's not let the little ambiguous ones undermine its authority. It's little foxes that spoil the vineyard afterall. Well we are at it let's talk about the one you think are so ambiguous that you think we should create a principle that actually undermines its authority. See I have seen this point but people don't want to discuss it.

The example used the point of violence as God commands against it but at other times uses it as judgment. Why is God so inconsistent? It must be unclear. Well to understand this point apply your first one. In one way God is commanding obedience for his people to act as judgment on the nations, and in another he is commanding no personal vendettas. God says vengeance is mine. It is not inconsistent for him to carry out such vengeance with the hands of his people who he actively governs over. See distinctions which come about through study shouldn't make us conclude that the Bible is too difficult to make assertions, but that is always what this line of argumentation wants to argue.

Jesus often spent a lot of time quoting from the Old Testament saying it is written for his line of reasoning. It as is if he put a lot of stock in what was recorded in ink. Jesus even combated his own temptations with the words of scripture, but Satan tried to do the same. Jesus didn't throw up his hands and say "You are right Satan we are both using the same scriptures, it is just so unclear!" No, he seemed to believe that the words long written down had meaning when properly understood and applied. 

This point should be the Bible doesn't always ask easy things of us; but a lack of understanding does not mean a lack of clarity. 

Point 3 The Bible was inspired by God not dictated by God. True so what are you getting at? It seems since this was not fleshed out into any real reason, that this is simply to undermine the authority because  "You know God didn't directly say it? This is that same argument that "You know it's not in red letters so Jesus doesn't believe that!" The Bible does give testimony on what its' readers should believe about it. 

The Bible acknowledges that many people will rise up and misuse the word and that false teachers will abound. The answer is not to throw up our hands in hopelessness. No, the answer is to study to show yourself approved.

2 Tim 2:15
14Remind them of these things, and charge them before God not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers. 15Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

Point 4  We all pick and choose the Bible we Believe, Preach and Defend. Well, some may I guess, but largely as a whole no we don't. But as you have displayed, the weak Bibliology that is being build on this premise will conclude from the flimsy foundation you are building with points 2 and 3.

People will do this if we continue to uphold a view of the Bible that is so grounded in man's own ability to comprehend God. But when we ground our view in the Bible's own testimony, that it does come from God then there will always be someone to point out that the Bible does in fact say something worth listening to. If this is really the truth about Christianity then we are a stupid people indeed. In fact if my Bible is simply the version that I like then who is to say who is right, or if anyone is? And for that matter why not go find one that is a little better, perhaps the book of Mormon or the Koran? See, if we have this little regard for the Bible than we really have no right to use it to make lists of 5 reasons that others should pay attention to.

Point 5 God is bigger than the Bible. Again true, to the point of obvious. But this is usually meant to mean that being spiritual is as and if not more important that understanding God's revelation. But then if you are not willing to submit to his own revelation about himself, if you are not willing to acknowledge that his delivery system was also for a reason, than who is now even bigger than God? Well, you are. All world religions believe this. They believe God is bigger than the pages of scripture so they inevitable leave them to find him elsewhere, and we get another religion. So which one will you let define your God? I will rely on the revelation that he gave from his disciples inspired by God himself. You can rely on your world experiences if you want to.

We live in the internet age where everyone is welcomed a comment. Ok sure, even I am using that privilege. But just because somebody writes something doesn't make it true, just as my own words are subject to scrutiny. I used to tell my students in ministry no speaker, no writer, no pastor, no blog, nobody is better than the word. Every speaker, writer, blogger, pod-caster whatever on matters of Christianity, God , Theology, everyone is this area is only as good as they are submitted to the word. Even Paul didn't just say "Well because I say so!" he commended the Bereans who went out studied what he said. Don't let someone convince you of something just because they are eloquent or they have a platform. Search it out, submit to God and he will lead you into truth. Solomon said it this way

Proverbs 25:2
It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out.

If the truth sets you free, it shouldn't lead into a bondage of ambiguity. Because the author is right about this thing; everyone does have their version of the truth. The question is does it reflect God's or not? Is it submitted to God? People waver, people change, people fight, people argue, people disagree, but that is people not God's testimony. James gives a warning on this matter in his third chapter.

Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.
 
The clarity questions is really about accurately reflecting God's word or not. So take the time to make sure you are.

thanks

Do we really need to fight the Avenger?

With another law passed from the supreme bench in our country some have started to speak out more about rebellion. But what is all this rebellion business about?

The obvious example is the civil war but is that what we really want? 

Well the question is of course at what point should the church stand up to a corrupt government? You know because of Nazi Germany? Well how about instead of going to that extreme which may be a legitimate barometer for a culture to at least reference, let's instead ask how should a Christian think about this?

I am not so interested in how a republic should respond to this type of losing of its rights; I will leave that aspect to the political scientists. Since the government is not a Christian institution how should it act fair in this instance? How do you legislate for a people of differing values? differing worldviews? How should both anti-discrimination laws and free speech work? It can become so nuanced that someone is going to feel violated at some point; probably making an executive judicial ruling in favor of one over the other without the input of the people is not such a great idea, but here we are. I am no lawyer so I can only speak to the faith of those who feel like they are living in an increasingly sinful world with no help from a system they thought would help them.

So if using the system doesn't work as many feel in this case what does a Christian do? Do we grab our guns and religion and start a revolution? I sure hope not, and here's why.

We should always look at how those who resisted in the Bible did it. We are called to live at peace with everyone after-all. Christians do not go to war for their rights. They do not even go to war over the Gospel, they peacefully present it and they accept the consequences.

But even Biblically speaking there is precedent to run for our lives but never, never to kill for them. We have too many times in history taken principles in the Bible and have turned them into reasons to kill for and quite frankly we have been wrong every time. Vengeance is God's.

We have to of course deal with what Jesus said to Peter about the sword. In preparedness Jesus told the disciples that a time was coming where they may need to buy swords, but was this for going on the offensive? When the time came for Jesus to be taken away one of the disciples decided that that was the purpose of the sword and rose to the occasion. But what was the outcome?

When this account happens in John:

Jesus said to Peter, "Put the sword into the sheath; the cup which the Father has given Me, shall I not drink it?"

It was more important that God's will be done even when they were threatened with physical violence.
Luke records the same event. Luke 22:47-53
This time Jesus rebukes his disciples when this happened and even goes so far as to heal the man's ear.  He did not want his disciples engaging in acts of violence and even restored the person.  

Mathew records it this way.
52Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. 53Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels?

Jesus teaches that if one wants to live in such a way that he takes justice into his own hands then he will be opening himself to that kind of death. He also reminds Peter of God's own sovereignty and plan.

So yes he did tell them to obtain a sword, but was it to go on the offense? It seems that this was not what he was getting at. It seems he was simply acknowledging it may be dangerous out there and be prepared, an object lesson perhaps?

So let's understand the context they are in the process of putting Christ to death and he was not at all interested in the self-righteousness of even his own protection from this with acts of violence from his followers. Ah but that was for a pivitol time in redemptive history, what about when something not as essential as Jesus dying on the cross is happening? Well if the answer is not already in the question then let's look at the New Testament. 

Paul writes to the church is Rome. Now when we hear Rome we think of cool ruins and exotics locals over in Italy and that awesome movie Hudson Hawk. Nice.  But think about what that culture was really like. I was just in Italy last year I walked the halls of the Vatican, strolled over the canals of Venice, and the stood in the middle of the Roman Colosseum. The Roman Colosseum was a system in place for the sport and entertainment of the people. But the sport was brutal fights to the death, often with Christians and simple slaves trying to stay alive. Not only this but the system supported cults, temple prostitution, and yes homosexual lovers was common. You could also be jailed with no supply or care for your lively-hood for speaking against the Caesar. He used Christians as human torches for his garden parties and blamed the fire of Rome on Christians to incorporate open and free persecution of them. There were so many religions and gods that if you violated one of them you could bring the ire of the whole community down on you. You could say sin abounded. In fact Paul points out the state, not of just humanity, but of Rome in the beginning of his letter to the Romans.

So let's understand the context that Paul writes when he pens Romans 13. 

1Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.

Remember this is the government that eventually puts Paul to death. To further the example the new Jewish converts had to live through John the baptist being beheaded, James the brother of John being beheaded. Phillip the evangelist being stoned to death and let's not forget Jesus was put to death as well, he rose again thankfully. If you read Fox's book of martyrs the traditions are that almost all of the disciples had their end in this way. But the persecution was never a reason to get organize and raise the capitol. In fact the disciples had a reputation of rejoicing when they were persecuted for the Gospel's sake. The only other response that came about from persecution was a scattering and a spreading of the Gospel. 

The resurrection took the power out of violence. What is the point of physical striving with arms when there is a resurrection of the dead to look forward to?

In other words the response of Christians to a corrupt government is a doubling down on the preaching of the Gospel. The message is reinforced by Paul telling the people to "Owe no one anything except love." Now love did have stipulations for living for sure, but for Christians. We see in the rest of chapter 13 that the responsibility was to display love nonetheless. I mean Paul reminds them to keep paying taxes. It would be nice that if I can't go to war at least I can stop supporting them financially. But Paul seems to think that the Christian should continue to love and support God's avenger. 

If part of our system of government is to allow dissent then we are still in fullfillment of Romans 13 by using the system as given to us. This is what Paul did in appelaing to Rome, he did not simply let the system silence him he used it for the gospel's sake. But when a system changes for the worse all we can do is thank God for time that he gave us to establish his kingdom in the way we were able to do and then continue to do so under a stricter hand. 

Part of the rub for us I know is that we live in a society that grants us a voice of dissent. In fact our free society was based on a voice of dissent. We are blessed to live in a country that started out honoring God and thus adopted some tenets of freedom. But unrestrained and undefined freedom will always consume itself. It will leave behind all those good intentions of the people who believed that man was somehow better than he actually is. 

See if our anthropology is that people are basically good then we will think that ultimate freedom will lead to utopia.  But an anthropology that reflects true human nature reveals that when we are given more freedom we use it selfishly, sinful humans with ultimate freedom leads to more moral decline and the collapse of society or at least one that wants to live in opposition to God. That is why our founding Father's though wanting to establish a free society still recognized the need for laws and even laws to protect the people from the newly instituted government. The separation of church and state as Thomas Jefferson penned it, not in the constitution I might add, was to prevent government interference with religion not prohibit it. Now somehow it is interpreted backwards. But if God's deems our plight worthy of an exodus then he will provide his own Angel of Death, he doesn't need us for that role, but if not and probably not, we must continue to be faithful and humble ourselves. All we can do is pray for our leaders to change or for the Maker to return.

If our prayer leads us to anger and temptation to rise up then our focus is wrongheaded and we are not resting in the one who has both the power to raise up kingdoms and bring them down.   

Daniel 2 reminds

“Blessed be the name of God forever and ever,
to whom belong wisdom and might.
21He changes times and seasons;
he removes kings and sets up kings;
he gives wisdom to the wise
and knowledge to those who have understanding;

When commanding Jeremiah the prophet God tells him of his power over the nations

1:10See, I have set you this day over nations and over kingdoms,
to pluck up and to break down,
to destroy and to overthrow,
to build and to plant.”

Psalm 75 is also about this. 

The last point is simply this. We are not Israel, so we are not a true theocracy and we do not get to act as his sword. He did that under a different covenant for judgement, but at this point in history he has reserved all judgment to the Son, who when he returns will administer it all. As I said before all we can do is know that they will give account, even the very avengers that we had a hard time living under that God allowed for a time.

This is a hard truth no doubt. It takes humility to let God handle his own affairs in the realms of men but they are his affairs. His affairs are justice, mine are obedience. The only warfare Christians wage are on their knees humbly before God.  So maybe we should we should enact some warfare: take it to the Lord in prayer. 

thanks
 

God's Avenger

The fourth of July is here and it is a very testy time to say the least with the government and Christianity.

On everyone's mind right now is the role of government. What did it do? What should it have done etc? How should Christians react? Paul gives an interesting summary of the purpose of the Government and he calls it God's avenger. This doesn't so much hit on the ruling yet but setting some ground work for the discussion to happen. I know that Paul's discussion doesn't quite get to what everyone is so mad about right now. This isn't the hot topic of the day right now, but, the reach of the government is. In order to get there though we need to see what its purpose is supposed to be. We need to look at Romans 13.

I started writing about this honestly because I occasionally see someone comment about how Christians shouldn't be for the death penalty because we are pro life and believe we are made in the image of God.  Rightly so, we are.  But so much has happened historically that this will be a two part-er.

On more reflection on my previous needing a hero blog and our desire of justice, it got me thinking about another hero. Or rather an anti-hero The Punisher.  I was familiar with the comic book character and so I watched the movie a few years ago and I remember struggling with a line in the movie where he says "It is not vengeance but punishment." In other words he was justified because it was not a personal vendetta but administering the due desert.

At the time I remember struggling with how it was any different, mostly because he was entirely spurned on by the personal loss of his family. But I do understand the intent. Vengeance in the our typical sense is reactionary despite justice, whereas punishment is in direct response measured by desert.

Any vengeance is in a sense retribution but our typical vernacular tends to be more along the lines of a personal tit for tat, or payback with righting the wrong of personal feelings. True desert involves righting the wrong as in restitution, it is a measured response to the wrongdoing. The problems of vengeance tend to be emotional and thus the solution may be greater than the crime.

For example: "He should be in prison, but I want him dead."

This as I have said before is why God instructed the rule "An eye for an eye". So the punishment is measured.  God is about just measures, remember?

So at the time I didn't understand it for the movie, I am not sure if it conveyed the idea well, but I do understand the difference in principle. The idea is that sometimes people escape through the system and true justice cannot be levied so the Punisher brings the desert for the crimes.  This is the very premise of the Steven Seagal movie Above the Law (1988).

Now while I can grant them the premise for the fictional comic book character and for a movie, this doesn't work in real life. When real people do this they also have to give account.

A more realistic yet still fictional story tried to portray this as well.  The movie A Time to Kill (1996) from a John Grisham book dealt with this exact premise. A Father whose daughter was brutally raped knew that the accused were going to be let go because of racial tension so he took it upon himself to punish them. He shot them both dead and the movie plays out about his own trial. Despite his own obvious guilt he feels justified because the system failed. His guilt is undeniable the question becomes should he be prosecuted? In the end he isn't because the jury realizes he acted as probably any father would because he was himself denied justice. A very good movie.

But the obvious point is sometimes the system isn't enough.  Now this system is in fact what God has left behind to be his own avenger. Romans 13 calls the government a servant of God for the common good. The government is referred to as his avenger who carries out God's own wrath on the wrongdoer. In other words God is about punitive desert.

So what are the common responses?

People are the image of God. God told us we are made in his image and he believes in the death penalty. God enacted the penalty many times and had his people do the same. God is not so concerned about his image bearers that he refrains from snuffing them out when they corrupt his image by offense. But that was the Old Testament. Well in New Testament rightly so that responsibility has been handed over to God's Avengers: the Governments. Their primary purpose is to restrain evil and this is done by the sword (by force). But what about the woman caught in adultery? The scenario was that the mob wanted Jesus to allow them to put her to death. They actually didn't have the right under Roman law to act such. There was no formal trial and the man was mysteriously absent. But primarily Jesus' purpose was to save lives not destroy them. Jesus reminds his own disciples this in Luke 9:56 when they wanted to call down fire on his opponents. His purpose was to bring the gospel, his mission from God was to spread news of the Kingdom. It was not his responsibility to act under Old Testament laws when the New Covenant was being put in place. However he did teach Paul to instruct that Governments did hold that power as his servants.  Why do we kill people to show that killing people is wrong? Because death is a great message. Really it is. The death penalty serves as an object lesson for sure but first and foremost is a just desert. It is also to curb evil. God gave us the example of punitive justice.

I would further point out the punishment for our sins was punitive; the death penalty. Furthermore when reading the New Testament at this point God is delaying punishment til his return for the purposes of showing mercy 2 Peter 3:15. God wants to grant grace in forgiveness through his Son. But a time will come when he shows up and the time for mercy will have expired. This is why everyone wants to put a date on the apocalypse. Read the New Testament about the Day of the Lord. God's justice is about the death penalty. The wadges of sin is death. God does offer a way out but if people don't take it then they deny the savior end up paying it themselves.

Now the purpose of this blog is not to defend the death penalty, but to advance the notion that sometimes justice is punitive. Justice doesn't really care about the rehabilitation, that is for a separate office. Rehabilitation is on the individual. A system can be put in place to help, but rehabilitation is not justice. Rehabilitation is necessary for a society to function but it is a luxury. A luxury that we all very much hope that people take advantage of, but it cannot take the place of just desert. God demands justice, he is not as much interested about his avenger creating programs to reintegrate the people into society, the avenger's job is justice. Rehabilitation is the Church's job. It is called the Gospel.

Before we get caught up in the why's of this or that tragedy let's not skip over the just desert. When we skip over desert we compound the trespass, multiply the victims, and encourage repeat offenses. The punishment must fit the crime after-all.

Without punishment we breed lawlessness. And thus we get a country that hates accountability and screams for little more than anarchy. If we need to change the system we should use the system lawfully or else our own lawlessness brings about more sin. Again in chapter 13 of Romans we are told to not resist the government as they act as the avengers or else we are found to be fighting against God himself.

If the Avengers go bad, they will give an account to new governments and ultimately to God. Avengers will give an account. Just as God punished those he used to punish Israel. Avengers are not above the law as Steven Seagal taught us.

Thus we leave punishment to the government and we leave the government to hands of God. But what about when they violate God's law? Well we can look at that next time.

thanks