110 Sermon Illustrations on Justice

Article: Operation Greylord was an ambitious federal sting in Chicago to uncover crooked judges. Judges John J. (Dollars) Devine routinely took $100 to fix drunk driving charges. His bagman told clients: "Here I am. Fill me up." Police sergeants were allowed to stand in for judges during "bum call." One sentenced a bum to death.

Judge Devine: "Thanks are nice, but they don't go very far. For those who help you, you should show your appreciation."

Judge Wayne W. Olson: "I love people that take dough because you know exactly where you stand."

Other verses on bribery:

EXO 23:8 DEU 10:17 DEU 16:19 DEU 27:25 1SA 8:3 1SA 12:3 2CH 19:7

JOB 15:34 JOB 36:18 PSA 15:5 PSA 26:10 PRO 6:35 PRO 15:27 PRO 17:8

PRO 17:23 PRO 21:14 PRO 29:4 ECC 7:7 ISA 1:23 ISA 5:23 ISA 33:15

EZE 22:12 AMO 5:12 MIC 3:11 MIC 7:3 ACT 24:26

Christian values applied to modern criminal justice system. (Following 2

articles talk about victim-offender reconciliation, and a policeman's

perspective.)

#984

*

Sermon in 1 Corinthians series: 6:1-8 Focus is on Christians and lawsuits.

1. Lawsuits are important in American culture.

2. The Corinthians were tied down by lawsuits.

3. The case against lawsuits.

a. Pagan courts have this-world perspective.

b. Christians must have future-world perspective.

4. The case for lawsuits.

a. Old Testament practice.

b. Teaching of Jesus.

c. Life of Paul.

d. 1 Cor. 6 is limited to Christian-on-Christian lawsuits.

5. Difficult passage for modern Christians.

a. We don't want to be defrauded.

b. We are materialistic and this-world oriented.

6. Christian view of legal rights.

7. Lawsuits can't bring happiness.

8. Being on trial for being a Christian.

Charles Colson was a tough lawyer who worked for President Nixon at the height of Watergate. He was successful, but he still felt empty.

One afternoon a friend shared his faith in Christ with him, and a short time later Colson became a Christian. Comic strips like Doonesbury ridiculed him. Soon Colson found himself in prison because of his previous activities during Watergate. They were the worst 2 years of his life, but he kept his faith.

He was appalled at the prison conditions and how prisoners came out worse than they went in. Today his organization has 15,000 volunteers who disciple prisoners for Jesus Christ.

One reform he proposes is to allow non-violent offenders to redeem themselves by making restitution. Instead of going to jail, they pay back those they have wronged. Such criminals are more likely to be rehabilitated. It is a principle found right in the Bible.

[Also see Christian History mag, #26, (IX,2), page 34]

The real Vigilance Committee in San Francisco was born in 1851. They elected Sam Brannan president, drew up a constitution and set up parliamentary rules. Williams in “Vigilance Committee of 1851” describes them as:

“A group of responsible citizens, bound together by a permanent

organization, with the declared purpose of protecting lives and

property in emergencies where lawful means prove ineffective.”

The first official act of the group was to arrest John Jenkins, who had stolen a safe out of Long Wharf and dropped it into a boat. Tried in Brannan’s office before a committee jury, Jenkins was declared guilty. When the committee seemed reluctant to execute Jenkins for stealing a safe, even though grand larceny was punishable by death under the 1851 statute, William D. M. Howard threw his cap disgustedly on the table and cried:

“Gentlemen, as I understand it, we came here to hang somebody.”

Even the resourceful William Coleman could not stop them by pleading a wait until morning. The whole town was in the streets, summoned by a tapping of the California Engine Company bell. Surrounded by a solid phalanx of armed committee members, Jenkins was marched to the old Plaza and hanged.

Lloyd H. Steffen wrote in The Christian Century how when King Frederick II (the Great), an eighteenth century king of Prussia, was visiting a prison in Berlin, the inmates tried to prove to him how they had been unjustly imprisoned. All except one. That one sat quietly in a corner, while all the rest protested their innocence.

Seeing him sitting there oblivious to the commotion, the king asked him what he was there for. "Armed robbery, Your Honor."

The king asked, "Were you guilty?"

"Yes Sir, " he answered. "I entirely deserve my punishment."

Then king then gave an order to the guard: "Release this guilty man. I don't want him corrupting all these innocent people."

==============

Another version:

The story is told that one day Frederick the Great, King of Prussia, visited a prison and talked with each of the inmates. There were endless tales of innocence, of misunderstood motives, and of exploitation. Finally the king stopped at the cell of a convict who remained silent. “Well,” remarked Frederick, “I suppose you are an innocent victim too?” “No, sir, I’m not,” replied the man. “I’m guilty and deserve my punishment.” Turning to the warden, the king said, “Here, release this rascal before he corrupts all these fine innocent people in here!”

=============

Another version, with a different king:

In the early part of the reign of Louis XVI, a German prince traveling through France visited the arsenal at Toulon where the galleys were kept. The commandant, as a compliment to the prince's rank, said that he was welcome to set free any one galley slave whom he should choose to select. The prince, willing to make the best use of the privilege, spoke to many of them in succession, inquiring why they were condemned to the galleys. Injustice, oppression, false accusations were assigned by one after another as the causes of their being there. In fact, they were all injured and ill-treated persons.

At last he came to one who, when asked the same question, answered to this effect: "Your Highness, I have no reason to complain. I have been a very wicked, desperate wretch. I have deserved to be broken alive on the wheel. I account it a great mercy that I am here."

The prince fixed his eyes upon him and said: "You wicked wretch! It is a pity you should be placed among so many honest men. By your own confession, you are bad enough to corrupt them all; but you shall not stay with them another day." Then, turning to the officer he said, "This is the man, sir, whom I wish to be released."

Forgiveness is illogical and unjust, but the only alternative to endless bloodshed and hatred.

I. "The Sunflower" by Simon Wiesenthal.

A. SS soldier Karl asks for forgiveness.

B. 30 troops had been killed by booby traps in Dnyepropetrovsk,

Ukraine, and so 300 Jews where herded into a three-story

building and set ablaze.

"I am left here with my guilt," Karl concluded at last." In the

last hours of my life you are with me. I do not know who you are,

I know only that you are a Jew and that is enough. I know that

what I have told you is terrible. In the long nights while I have

been waiting for death, time and time again I have longed to talk

about it to a Jew and beg forgiveness from him. Only I didn't know

whether there were any Jews left.... I know what I am asking is

almost too much for you, but without your answer I cannot die in

peace." Simon Wiesenthal, an architect in his early twenties, now

a prisoner dressed in a shabby uniform marked with the yellow Star

of David, felt the entire weight of his race bearing down on him.

He stared out the window at the sunlit courtyard. He looked at

the eyeless heap of bandages lying in the bed." At last I made up

my mind," he writes, "and without a word I left the room."

A. Haunted by the hospital scene, he asked 32 people of various

faiths and backgrounds to comment.

"What would you have done in my place?" he asked.

"Did I do right?"

1) Out of 32 writers, only 6 said he had done wrong.

2) He had no authority to forgive on behalf of others.

3) The crimes were too enormous to be forgiven.

a) "Let the SS man die unshriven. Let him go to hell."

4) The whole concept of forgiveness is wrong.

a) It is merely an act of sensual pleasure.

II. Unforgiveness has a terrible, crystalline logic.

A. In a world of unspeakable atrocity, forgiveness seems

unjust, unfair, irrational.

1) Philosopher Herbert Marcuse said, "One cannot, and should

not, go around happily killing and torturing and then,

when the moment has come, simply ask, and receive,

forgiveness."

B. There is conflict between justice and forgiveness in Christianity.

1) Some, like Luther, assign justice to Caesar and forgiveness

to the church (and individuals).

2) Is it too much to expect high ethical ideas to be transferred

to the brutal world of politics and diplomacy?

III. Comparisons with Bosnia.

A. Forgiveness has one thing going for it - it is the alternative.

1) Where unforgiveness reigns, essayist Lance Morrow has pointed

out, a Newtonian law comes into play:For every atrocity

there must be an equal and opposite atrocity.

2) Serbs are following the terrible logic of unforgiveness.

a) The Nazis tried to "cleanse" the Serbs in WWII.

b) Serbs kill tens of thousands; Croats killed hundreds of

thousands.

3) One major flaw in the inexorable law of revenge: it never

settles the score.

a) The Turks got revenge in 1389, at the Battle of Kesovo;

the Croats got it in the 1940s, now it's our turn, say

the Serbs.

b) If everyone were to follow the "eye for an eye" principle

of justice, said Gandhi, the whole world would go

blind.

c) "As long as you cling to 'justice' you will never be

guiltless of injustice... In reality, insistence on

justice is servitude. Only forgiveness frees us from

the injustice of others." Theologian Romano Guardini

B. Examples of law of unforgiveness in history:

1) "Godfather" trilogy.

2) IRA bombings because of atrocities committed by Cromwell.

3) Republics of Soviet Union.(Chechnya)

4) Iran's plea for apology from President Carter.

IV. Forgiveness in the arena of nations.

A. Germany and reparations to Israel. East Germany followed.

B. 1983 mass by Pope John Paul II in Warsaw, with throngs of

worshippers passing the Communist party's Central Committee

Building and chanting in unison, "We forgive you! We forgive

you!"

C. Civil War in America. Tecumseh Sherman and "scorched earth."

D. Racism in America shows that forgiveness in itself does not

undo injustice. Yet blacks voted for George Wallace.

V. Forgiveness focuses on individual, personal acts.

A. The cure, like a vaccine, must be applied one person at a time.

1) Martin Luther King, Jr., in Birmingham jail.

2) Corrie Ten Boom.

3) John Paul II went into the bowels of Rome's Rebibbia prison

to visit Mehmet Ali Agca, a hired assassin who had tried

to kill him and nearly succeeded. "I forgive you," said

the Pope, as video cameras whirred.

4) There will be no escape until our hearts are changed.

B. The Pope is an image of one who did not survive an

assassination - Jesus.

1) Pilate, soldiers, etc, were "just doing their job,"

similar to excuse of Nazis.

2) The Cross put an end to the law of eternal consequences.

3) The leap from personal forgiveness to corporate forgiveness

crosses a deep chasm.We need only to look at Christian

history after the Cross.

C. Forgiveness can be a powerful weapon in the making of peace.

[see also HolwickID #986 and #17244]

Mushy ideas about God's righteousness spread wrong questions and bad theology.

1. The justice of God is tied with his righteousness.

"It is sometimes said, 'Justice requires God to do this,' referring to

some act we know he will perform. This is an error of thinking as

well as of speaking, for it postulates a principle of justice

outside of God that compels him to act in a certain way."

2. The love of God.

"Equating love with God is a major mistake."

3. The holiness of God.

"The natural man is blind to divine holiness. He may fear God's power

and admire his wisdom, but his holiness he cannot even imagine."

Sermon in Joshua series. Cities of Refuge. Joshua 20:2-9

===============

A PLACE TO HIDE

===============

I. Hiding from dad.

A. The dilemma of blood vengeance.

B. God demands justice, but he also provides for mercy.

II. Cities of refuge.

A. God provided a safe place for unintentional killers.

B. The beginnings of due process. 20:4

III. Spiritual insights.

A. Cities are chosen by God himself. Exod 21:13

B. Protection is only for accidental murder. Deut 19:11-12

C. Refugee had to remain in city.

D. Available to Gentiles as well as Jews. 20:9

E. The death of the high priest secures final deliverance. 20:6

IV. Jesus is the ultimate city of refuge.

V. Ledgewood Baptist as a refuge.

A. Churches should be places we can run to for refuge.

B. We should be like the "Smiles" Go-Go bar.

===============

Related passages: Exod 21:12-14; Num 35:6-34; Deut 19:1-13

DEAD MAN WALKING's gripping portrayal of a man on death row made it one of the most powerful films to come out of Hollywood in recent memory. But believe it or not, it only told half the story -- and it left out the best part.

The power of DEAD MAN WALKING was its portrayal of the inherent dignity and value of even a hardened criminal. But the story behind the story -- the story of the victim -- goes even further, depicting the uniquely Christian message of forgiveness.

Sixteen-year-old Debbie Morris was out on a date with her boyfriend, Mark, one Friday evening. After pizza and a movie, they stopped for milkshakes.

But when a stranger put a revolver to Mark's head, their pleasant night out turned into several hours of torture, rape, and attempted murder. It ended with Mark shot, but alive, and Debbie deeply wounded. But Debbie would not find true healing until she was able to comprehend and embrace the forgiveness only God can provide.

Although the film DEAD MAN WALKING depicted Debbie's kidnappers as one man, there were actually two: Robert Lee Willie and Joe Vaccaro. They kidnapped and robbed them, leaving Mark for dead. Before releasing Debbie, they tormented and raped her repeatedly.

When the two men were captured, Vaccaro received five life sentences and, as the film showed, Willie was executed for his crimes -- he eventually admitted involvement in several murders, including butchering another girl.

But Debbie's anguish did not end when Willie was sentenced to die. Despite those who urged her to "get on with her life," her emotional ordeal continued. As Debbie writes in her book, FORGIVING THE DEAD MAN WALKING, "Justice doesn't really heal all the wounds."

It was when Debbie found the grace to forgive Robert Willie, the day he was to be executed, that she finally knew release from suffering. In prayer -- for herself and for Willie -- she discovered that only God's grace is sufficient to bind up the wounds of the human heart.

Forgiveness, you see, is much more than telling ourselves that an offense just doesn't matter anymore. On the contrary, forgiveness recognizes the debt for what it is.

And it doesn't just liberate the debtor from his debt -- it transforms the heart of the one who forgives. In fact, forgiveness is an imitation of God's own act of forgiveness on the Cross. By forsaking what we are legitimately owed, we recognize that we, too, have been forgiven a debt we can never repay.

And that's why true forgiveness is both a beacon and a scandal to the secular mind.

Secular society has nothing that resembles the forgiveness that the Gospel makes possible, what Debbie Morris experienced.

And it simply cannot make sense of parents who would forgive the killers of their children, like those murdered at Columbine, so much in the news this week. Remember those scenes, so vivid on television? Of the parents forgiving Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris. Of the crosses on the side of the hill. Their forgiving witness is an unmistakable presentation of the transforming love of the Gospel.

We may never be called to forgive an offense as grave as that inflicted on Debbie Morris -- or the families of Littleton, Colorado. But we must be prepared to forgive, not only for our own sakes, but for the sake of our Christian witness.

And when we do, we give the world something better than a good movie plot -- we give them a glimpse of The Greatest Story Ever Told.

___________________

Copyright (c) 2000 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

Many prefer the principle of "an eye for an eye!" We like to see wrongdoers pay! But it is not always that easy. Ibn Saud, king of Saudi Arabia (1932-1953), once had a woman demand the death of a man who had killed her husband. The man had fallen out of a palm tree while picking dates and fell on her husband, fatally injuring him. Woman persistent and asked for the man's death, as was her right as a Saudi citizen. Finally the king said, "It is your right to ask for the man's life; it is my right to say how he should die. The man will be tied to foot of a palm tree. You will climb the tree and fall on him, killing him." Eye for an eye, tooth for tooth!

When President Bush turned to Joe and Jennifer Balsarotti of Clayton, Mo., in January 2003, to represent families and business owners who would benefit from his tax cut plan, the strategy was one which politicians of all stripes strive to employ -- putting a face on public policy. The president framed the issue with the words “fair” and “right.” He sought to convince Congress and the public that “federal spending should not rise any faster than the paychecks of American families” (State of the Union, 2003).

Bush's tax proposal re-ignited the classic debate over the proper role of government in a $10 trillion economy. Nearly a century ago the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution (1913) enabled the government to legally redistribute wealth under a law code touted at the time as just and fair. The amendment accomplished this goal through direct taxation on income. Proponents of the income tax defined justice in terms of forced compliance that would level society and create social equality. Opponents of the income tax saw it as theft by statute -- a confiscation of wages earned through the effort of hard work. Both sides understood something: Government policies have a far-reaching influence, for good or ill, on society. To impose a policy on the wages of workers -- rich or poor -- was a new level of intrusion that had only been used thus far in U.S. history for national emergencies such as the Civil War. Such an action could not help but have a dramatic effect on the country's future.

A theological conundrum still surrounds the definition and use of the words justice and virtue as applied to taxation. Both words have religious and political meaning. Defining these words, therefore, becomes the critical issue. Private ideas that emerge into public policies spring from worldviews grounded in some semblance of truth. The start determines the finish, and careful attention always should be given to the genesis of any idea. Taxation is no exception. While competing interests work to dictate the definition of a just tax, past differences form present debate.

Modern tax policy presupposes certain truths about human beings. As innately sinful creatures, those individuals entrusted with governmental power must be checked by processes preventing them from authorizing a system of suffocation and tyranny through arbitrary and excessive taxation. Combining federal, state and local requirements, taxes now consume a large share of the national economy, and the fact that government now reaches into virtually every area of life should signal that perhaps the current tax code should be reexamined. Chief Justice John Marshall aptly stated in 1819, “the power to tax involves the power to destroy.”

Ecclesiastes gives notice that power is often on the side of oppressors who arbitrarily use coercive tactics to legitimize vice (Eccles. 4:1). The Hebrews were forbidden from perverting justice by showing partiality or favoritism (Leviticus 19:15). Jesus denounced the religious establishment for what was clearly an unjust use of power both to tax and influence behavior through discriminatory practices (Matthew 21:12-13; Mark 11:12-17). Among the first fruits of Zacchaeus' conversion was his willingness to return money obtained through excessive taxation (Luke 19:1-8).

Taxes, when viewed under Scripture's guidance, are laden with theological significance. Understanding this, the framers of the Constitution crafted principles for a moral fiscal code. Prohibiting direct taxation of income blocked off many blind alleys of escape for those who might later seek to use the law as a means for private gain at public expense. With the passage of the Sixteenth Amendment, an inevitable expansion of government has taken place, and with it, a certain shaping of the nation's soul. Government is now seen more as a savior and less as a servant. The federal bureaucracy is so large and the tax code so complicated that even the likes of Albert Einstein once declared, “the hardest thing in the world to understand is the federal income tax.”

As the debate on the tax bill moves from committee to the floor of Congress, the church should watch and listen for the number of times the words justice, fairness and equity appear in amendments, speeches and television commercials. The use of these words will signal various understandings of justice that should be carefully evaluated. The Bible gives no prescription for a definitive tax rate, but the lower, the better. For the American republic depends on the stern virtues of a citizenry who define justice in terms of honest labor, thrift, deferred gratification and self-denial -- all of which characterize a biblical worldview. When the government becomes an agent of interference with these virtues to the point that these attitudes are undermined through excessive taxation, then justice, by definition, will be theft by legal means.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #1081]

A MAN had an Ass, and a Maltese Lapdog, a very great beauty. The Ass

was left in a stable and had plenty of oats and hay to eat, just as

any other Ass would. The Lapdog knew many tricks and was a great

favorite with his master, who often fondled him and seldom went out to

dine without bringing him home some tidbit to eat. The Ass, on the

contrary, had much work to do in grinding the corn-mill and in

carrying wood from the forest or burdens from the farm. He often

lamented his own hard fate and contrasted it with the luxury and

idleness of the Lapdog, till at last one day he broke his cords and

halter, and galloped into his master's house, kicking up his heels

without measure, and frisking and fawning as well as he could. He

next tried to jump about his master as he had seen the Lapdog do, but

he broke the table and smashed all the dishes upon it to atoms. He

then attempted to lick his master, and jumped upon his back. The

servants, hearing the strange hubbub and perceiving the danger of

their master, quickly relieved him, and drove out the Ass to his

stable with kicks and clubs and cuffs. The Ass, as he returned to his

stall beaten nearly to death, thus lamented: "I have brought it all

on myself! Why could I not have been contented to labor with my

companions, and not wish to be idle all the day like that useless

little Lapdog!"

Some Christians complain that sinners go unpunished by God while good

people suffer. Well, we must not concern ourselves with God's Justice

since in the end, both the righteous and sinners will get exactly what

they deserve: one eternal rewards and the other eternal punishment!

When Illinois Gov. George H. Ryan commuted the death sentences of all 156 inmates on his state's death row, he reopened the debate about capital punishment in America. The apparently thoughtless way he opened the discussion was a grandstand play. It worked; Mr. Ryan got some headlines and resurrected hundreds of opinions among writers and professional spokesmen.

George Ryan did not add anything new to the discussion or actually make any compelling argument by his action. He just applied a blunt instrument to a complex issue.

Christians need to take matters of life and death more seriously. Matters related to God's character are pertinent to this discussion. We also have a stewardship over the making and practice of law in our nation. We must start by affirming the things we know to be true.

First, capital punishment is not unbiblical or extra-biblical. In fact, we can reasonably say that it is a biblical mandate from Genesis 9:6. Old Testament commandments consistently exalt the sovereignty of God over the lives of men. The New Testament does not vacate those commandments and priorities. As Genesis 9 establishes the role of human government in the administration of justice, Romans 13 continues that theme in the New Testament.

Second, capital punishment in America is not fairly administered. Some victims are more emotionally compelling than others. Some of the accused also have greater luck tugging at the hearts of jurors. Additionally, the poor often lack the resources to obtain competent legal defense. Those who oppose the death penalty for these reasons have a valid point.

How do we address this point, though? Inequity is more likely to acquit the guilty than condemn the innocent. Poor legal defense could result in a false verdict. Some say we should ban laws and penalties being badly administered. Alright, but the tax code is not applied fairly either. Some get away with paying too little, some ignorantly pay too much. Too tough to fix? Let's ban it, too. And so it goes with traffic laws, welfare and a lot of other things that we will not do away with.

Better that we do the hard thing. Put the blindfold back on justice and provide adequate defense for all the accused. The burden must remain on our legal system to provide equal treatment under the law. Doing away with problematic penalties (and they all are, to some degree) takes the burden to reform off those we have assigned to do just that thing.

It also seems that a sentimental concern for the possibly innocent does not properly include the certainly innocent -- the victims. One problem with sentiment is an unreasonable focus. Sentimentality causes us to make judgments based on matters irrelevant to truth. It is sentiment that causes us to grant leniency to those like us or pitiable to us and harsh justice to those fearsome or different. It is sentiment that causes some to suspect that capital punishment is about revenge. To some it is about revenge and it shouldn't be.

This brings us back to the biblical mandate. God told Noah that a reckoning for bloodguilt was demanded by the image of God in the victim. It is thus the person of God who is offended by murder whenever man wrongly takes the prerogative of God on himself. God specifically assigns this mandate to governments in Romans 13:1-7. We should not, in anger or sorrow, despise the image of God to spare our own feelings. A nation that determines a penalty for a crime and does not regularly assign that penalty breaks faith with its people and the God who established it.

Think of the substitutionary atonement. God is holy and thus, by nature, offended by my sin. He must be. God also tells us that only the shedding of blood can bring the remission of sins and my sin requires my own death. Every man must die for his own sin, then. It sounds good to us that God would just grant us all pardons. Who would God be then? Not holy, not just, only the merciful grandfather that most people hope he is. Instead, he made a way for the only perfect, innocent man to pay for my sin so that I might be justly forgiven. He doesn't wipe out the penalty, he provides for its payment in the only way that lets me live.

Christian nation or not, a government owes its authority to the only God who lives. Even natural revelation demands that the ruling authority of a land be just and, yes, holy. Don't the people of every nation want their laws to be better and more righteous than even the people who administer them?

Capital punishment makes me squeamish. I know my own faults and the idea that I would approve the death of another sinner seems hypocritical. It's not about me or about my feelings, though. It's about law, God's law written on our hearts and on the books of most nations. The death penalty will always be administered imperfectly. This does not justify our surrender to imperfection. Neither does it mean that the only moral high ground belongs to the abolitionists. Conservatives must never stop demanding equitable justice for all men. Liberals need to be less dismissive of the sound biblical foundation for our law's ultimate penalty.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickId #2961]

"Forgiveness is a beautiful word until you are the one who has to forgive," said Debbie Morris, who was brutally raped as a 16-year-old by Robert Lee Willie, the prisoner whose life was chronicled in the 1995 movie, "Dead Man Walking," starring Susan Sarandon and Sean Penn.

Sharing her testimony, Morris said, "Forgiveness is a difficult thing to do sometimes. It takes courage. It takes faith."

Morris, now living in Mandeville, Louisiana, with her family, was kidnapped along with her teenage boyfriend, Mark, taken to a remote area in south Alabama and viciously attacked.

Morris recounted her thoughts when she was raped for the first time, while her boyfriend was confined in the trunk of their car.

"I would survive, no matter what I have to endure," she remembered thinking, acknowledging her resolve had to have come from the God she had accepted two years before.

She also remembered wanting to remember every single detail, the look of her captors' faces, so that she could later help convict her attackers. "I was so filled with hate and with the need for revenge," she said.

While she was repeatedly raped over a 24-hour period, her boyfriend was taken into the woods, hung on a tree, shot in the head and stabbed in the side, his neck slashed, and left for dead. Miraculously, he survived and is married to another woman.

Morris recalled thinking in the midst of the attacks, "Where is God right now -- the God that I love? Does he even exist?"

That answer would come much later for Morris when Willie was seated in the courtroom answering for his actions.

"Why did you let her go?" Willie had been asked. "I know it was a stupid thing to do," he responded. "But there was something different about her. When I looked into her eyes, I saw love."

Morris could not believe her ears. Love? Disgust, contempt, hatred, but surely not love, she said.

"When I thought that I had been abandoned by God, he really was there," she said. What Willie saw was not her love, she said, but the love of Jesus Christ in her, who was looking back at him.

After long, grueling trials, Vaccaro and Willie were sentenced for numerous crimes. Willie was given the death penalty, which at that time in Louisiana meant the electric chair.

"Even with the revenge that I felt," Morris said, "[the punishment] was a heavy burden for a 16-year-old to carry into life."

Though justice had been served, and it was time to go on with life as it was before, Morris felt bitter and scared and her whole world was turned upside down. "It didn't matter to me anymore whether I was a cheerleader or homecoming queen," she said. "It didn't matter if I even passed."

Fearing the state psychiatric hospital in a nearby city, Morris kept her depressed feelings to herself, which eventually led her to drop out of high school, where she was once an honor student.

She turned to alcohol, like her parents, even after promising earlier in her life that she never would.

When the time came for justice to be carried out through Willie's execution, Morris realized that all she wanted was peace. "I had held on to this hope that once justice was served, I would be healed" and experience peace and resolution.

"There's no justice in this world," she recounted. "There is no justice in our justice system. We answer to a much higher justice system."

Morris realized that the people, alcohol and other things she had tried did not give her that peace. Instead, she asked God to reveal himself to her again, to help her forgive the man who had done these terrible things to her.

The morning after Willie was executed, Morris admitted that she was not healed immediately, but she did feel a burden lifted from her. Knowing that forgiveness was a process, Morris set about to learn about complete forgiveness.

"I learned that I had turned my back on the Lord, and I needed his forgiveness," she shared." Forgiveness is something I did for me," she said. "Robert Lee Willie did not benefit that night because of my forgiveness. He died in the electric chair that night. But I got new life when I forgave."

Morris recounted how later, one night when she was nursing her newborn son, she began to think of Willie's mother, who had aided and abetted her son in escaping from prison on a prior conviction, and who had lied about her on the witness stand.

"I began to realize that there was a time when Robert's mother held her newborn son in her arms, dreaming of the life ahead for him," Morris said. "For a moment, I felt a bond with her. For the first time, I understood a love so strong that we might do something wrong to protect that love.

"God softened my heart toward this mother," Morris told the WMU audience.

Later, when Morris saw the movie "Dead Man Walking," she saw the scene when Willie's mother visited her son for the last time before his execution. She had to say goodbye without wrapping her arms around her child one more time.

"Our hearts must go out to these women," Morris said tearfully.

She related how she later had a burning desire to go to her rapist's mother, to ask her for forgiveness for holding a grudge against her, but found that she had died from cancer.

"I realized, again, that I was the one who needed forgiveness," she said, noting that forgiveness has different outcomes. "God's may not always include restoration, but forgiveness is for everyone. "Though she had understood that intellectually, it wasn't until she went on TV to share her story that she realized there was still a part of her that felt Willie did not deserve to be in heaven.

She has since understood that God's love is boundless and his mercies are unfailing for all people. Though there was no evidence that Willie ever repented or accepted Jesus Christ as his Savior, Morris said that if he did accept Jesus in the final minutes or seconds of his life, she will welcome him in heaven, where she knows she will be.

"As a Christian, I realized that I was required to forgive," she said, before challenging her audience to examine their own lives.

"Look at the co-worker who received the promotion you deserved or your husband deserved. Look at the committee member who always thinks their ideas are the best. Even in our churches, look at the catty gossiping that takes place. Think about the people who have children on the same sports teams as your children. Think about your husband's ex-girlfriends or new wife.

"God is very clear about how we should treat these difficult people," she said, drawing from Matthew 5. "We are to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us.

"It takes courage to love those who seem unlovable. It takes faith to forgive in our humanness those we declare as unforgivable.

"Will you accept the forgiveness of someone else or forgive someone today?"

A woman who was called to jury duty told the presiding judge that she was not qualified to serve because she did not believe in capital punishment. The judge said, "You don't understand, madam. This is a civil case involving a man who spent five thousand dollars of his wife's money on gambling and other women." To which the woman replied eagerly, "Well, in that case I'll be happy to serve on the jury, and I've changed my mind about capital punishment."

Submitted by Paul Groves

Homosexuals in Namibia were in fear for their safety yesterday after President Sam Nujoma ordered police to “arrest, deport and imprison” them. In an outburst seemingly prompted by figures showing a sharp increase in Namibia's AIDS infection rate, the ageing president said homosexuals and lesbians should be purged from society. Members of the gay community predicted that they would be forced to flee the country, probably to neighbouring South Africa where freedom of sexual expression is protected by the constitution.

Mr. Nujoma told students at the University of Namibia: “We do not allow homosexuality or lesbianism here. Police are ordered to arrest you and deport you and imprison you too.” He blamed “foreign influences” for homosexuality in Namibia, which he said threatened to destroy the nation. Independent legal experts in Windhoek said they were unsure what action the police could take to carry out the presidential order.

Jerry Ekandjo, Namibia's home affairs minister, caused similar confusion last year when he urged newly graduated police officers to “eliminate gays and lesbians from the face of Namibia.”

Ian Swartz, co-ordinator of the gay lobbying group the Rainbow Project, said his office had been swamped with inquiries about emigration. His movement had about 1,000 members but there were “many more Namibians who are afraid to reveal their sexual orientation.”

Is it possible to forgive a wrong done to someone else? Should only those who repent be forgiven? Is forgiveness a selfish act, a way to make ourselves feel better? Greg grapples with these issues and more after a local community forgives a high school student who slew three classmates.

My comments today are in response to an article entitled "The Sin of Forgiveness" written by my colleague, Dennis Prager, published in THE WALL STREET JOURNAL. Dennis expresses his deep concern about the knee-jerk tendency of many Christians to simply forgive egregious crimes committed against someone else.

Dennis cites a couple of examples. In one case a Christian pastor invited Americans to forgive Timothy McVeigh, found guilty of murdering 168 people in the Oklahoma city bombing. In a second case, Michael Carneil, a freshman at Heath High School in West Paducah, Kentucky, gunned down three students attending a prayer group on campus. A few days later the students erected a banner saying, "We forgive you, Michael."

Dennis's article makes three points. First, only the one who is wronged can forgive. These students weren't the ones wronged. The ones murdered were wronged. Therefore, the students are out of place presuming to forgive.

Second, Prager argues that according to Jesus' teaching, only those who repent are to be forgiven. It's wrong to automatically forgive everyone who sins against us when repentance isn't demonstrated.

Third, it's selfish to offer forgiveness merely because of the psychological advantages it gives to oneself. Forgiveness isn't for someone else; it's for us, some hold. It makes us feel better. Dennis argues that this turns out to be selfishness disguised as idealism.

What may surprise you is that I agree with most that's been said by Mr. Prager in this article, though I think some qualifications need to be made, especially to his last point about selfishness. Let's take them one by one.

First, only the one who is wronged can forgive. Dennis writes, "Only those they sinned against have the right to forgive, and those they murdered are dead, and therefore cannot forgive them." He adds, parenthetically, "That is why I believe that humans cannot forgive a murder." Forgiveness is obviously not available on this view because the only person who can forgive a murderer is now dead.

I'm not sure if this last means that even God can't forgive a murderer, therefore a murderer can never be forgiven. If that's what Dennis means, then I think he's mistaken for reasons I'll make clear in a moment.

I think Dennis is right when he says that only the one who is wronged can forgive. Such a statement seems self-evident. What does one forgive except a wrong against himself? If someone punches your neighbor in the nose, you can't forgive that crime; the offense wasn't against you. Therefore, it does seem presumptuous for these students to forgive Michael Carneil on behalf of their classmates who were killed.

Two caveats need to be made, though. First, all moral crimes are first of all crimes against God and only secondarily against man. If you recall Psalm 51, David -- who had committed adultery and killed a man in the process of trying to cover up that adultery -- says to God, "I know my transgressions and my sin is ever before me. Against you, you only have I sinned."

Even though this was a sin of adultery against a woman and a sin of a murder against a man, David saw the sin principally as a sin against God.

This is especially true of the crime of murder. The central issue of murder -- a violation of the sixth commandment -- is not simply that someone has his life taken from him. That's actually a violation of the eighth commandment, "Thou shalt not steal."

Rather, the central crime of murder is the destruction of one who bears the image of God. As you recall in Genesis 9:6, God said to Noah in instituting capital punishment, "Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man."

This tells us something very important. It gives us the foundational principle of all human rights and all human dignity, and all other rules, commands, or laws that naturally follow, including the commandment not to murder. Humans are valuable in that they are image bearers. This distinguishes them from all other beings on the planet -- or in the universe, for that matter. Human beings bear God's image.

Now, you might not have thought of this, but do you remember when Jesus was asked about paying taxes? He asked whose image was on the coin. What did He say then? "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." Right?

That applies to this situation. Human beings bear God's image and therefore belong to Him. So the crime of murder is first a crime against God, and therefore the most important forgiveness must come from Him because He is the principal One wronged.

By the way, God is the One most worthy of obedience and He is the One whose justice and punishment is ultimate and most severe. This is why He's the principle subject for forgiveness and not just humans who were the object of the crime committed.

The second caveat I need to add to this concept -- that only the one who is wronged can forgive -- is that God and the students who were killed aren't the only ones this crime was against.

I think a case can be made that there's an indirect crime done to others. For example, 17-year-old Jessica James was cut down that day. Though she lost her life, her parents also lost a daughter and her classmates lost a dear friend.

This is why condolences go out to family and friends of the deceased. We try to comfort the others in their loss . This is something Dennis even suggested we do, send warm condolences. But such an act is a tacit admission of a crime committed against those other than the deceased.

We comfort someone in their loss because they lost something. Something that was theirs was taken from them. If this is the case, then, it seems also the case -- since they've suffered a loss, too -- that they in some sense are in a position to extend forgiveness. These killings were not only crimes against the murder victims, but also crimes against the family and the community. From that perspective, forgiveness on some level from members of the community seems appropriate.

But that needs to be qualified by the second point Mr. Prager brings up in his article, that, according to Christianity -- the teaching of Jesus -- only those who repent are to be forgiven. He quotes Luke 17:3-4, "Be on your guard. If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, 'I repent,' forgive him."

In Matthew 18 a slave was forgiven a large debt. When someone who owed that slave a much smaller amount wanted forgiveness for himself from this slave who'd been forgiven such a great debt, the slave instead threw him into debtors prison. Of course, Jesus had very harsh words for that man. Point being, if we've been forgiven when we've asked for forgiveness, when others ask us for forgiveness we should forgive them in like manner.

Scripturally, this is a little bit of a mixed bag because there are other verses that don't mention the repentance issue and talk only about forgiveness. It does seem, though, that the Luke 17 passage qualifies those other verses such that repentance is an important requirement. It doesn't seem to be that God has commanded us to forgive everybody without qualification, because we see these occasions when the qualification is made. (Incidentally, even God doesn't forgive everyone without qualification.)

There's a third thing Dennis said that I want to respond to. He claimed that it's selfish to give forgiveness in order to gain psychological relief for oneself. He writes, "This, too, is selfishness masquerading as idealism. The argument being, though I do not deserve to be forgiven, and though you may not even be sorry, I forgive you because I want to feel better." I disagree with the letter of Dennis's statement here, though I think I agree with the spirit behind it.

Part of the process of healing from tragedies like this involves releasing anger, bitterness, and resentment connected with the wrong done. Often, when people forgive, that's what they're doing, letting it go.

On the other hand, I don't think that means acting as if no crime has been committed. I think that's Dennis's concern. Moral outrage is appropriate and should be expressed by all parties involved. However, as time goes on people need to let go of these things. Hanging on to injury over time is just another way of continuing to punish the offender -- Carneil, in this case. In the long run, though, those that refuse to let crimes against them drop are the ones who are going to suffer.

I don't think this is selfishness masquerading as idealism, but rather a healthy step in the healing process, as long as (and here's my caveat) the egregious nature of the moral crime doesn't receive the short shrift in the process. This, I think, is Dennis's deepest concern, the real spirit of his objection.

(It may be -- and I was thinking about this yesterday -- that statements of personal forgiveness should be done in private so that it doesn't appear that the crime is taken lightly. Save the public statements for condolences to those who lost their children and friends.)

I think the biggest offense that someone like Dennis Prager feels about this is the apparent denial of the harm done and the immediate focus on forgiveness instead of on the appropriate punishment, which would be a function of justice.

In New York a while back a woman almost died when she was badly beaten and raped in Central Park in an act of "wilding." The young men who had committed the crime were caught and jailed. Later they were visited by the Catholic Archbishop and told that God forgave them.

Now, the Archbishop should have mentioned that forgiveness is available from God on God's conditions. But this should have come only after another truth was made clear: As the writer of Hebrews said, "It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God." Hell is a real place where moral criminals are punished for their crimes against God and man.

That's what should be told those criminals who did that terrible crime. Only then should they be told about the mercy that God will offer, on His conditions. First the bad news, then the good news.

__________________

This is a transcript of a commentary from the radio show "Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only. ©1997 Gregory Koukl

For more information, contact Stand to Reason at 1438 East 33rd St., Signal Hill, CA 90755

(800) 2-REASON • (562) 595-7333 • info@str.org • www.str.org

There are three words that came together at Calvary: Justice, Mercy and Grace.

1. Justice is getting what we deserve.

2. Mercy is not getting what we deserve.

3. Grace is getting what we don’t deserve.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #6265]

He has shown thee O man,

what is good,

and what the Lord

requires of thee;

He has shown thee O man,

what is good,

and what the Lord

requires of thee;

But to do justly,

and to love mercy,

and to walk humbly

with thy God.

I recently took care of a friend's kids, and I was reminded of how stubborn children can be. As I tried to get the four-year-old boy to put on his shoes, he insisted that he must do it himself. The problem, however, was that he wanted to put them on the wrong feet. Unable to take into account that I have been putting shoes on feet much longer than he has, he would have argued with me all morning if I had let him. The scenario reminded me of the way we sometimes argue with God. We are convinced that we know how things ought to be, forgetting that He has been around so much longer and is unfailing in his wisdom. Sometimes He shows grace to us by letting us wear our shoes on the wrong feet until we figure out we were wrong all along. Sometimes He lovingly takes the shoes out of our hands and puts them on the right feet.

When children argue with their parents, they will often invoke the value of “fairness” to show the validity of their complaint. If an older child gets to stay up later, the younger children protest, “That's not fair!” When a rambunctious class of school children loses the privilege of recess, they protest, “You promised we could go outside. No fair!” As children we tried to make sense of the world by looking for fairness everywhere from the size of our dessert to the number of our friends. Yet part of maturity is learning that life is not fair.

Most adults have learned the difference between justice and fairness. I tend to think that justice is a better ideal to strive for than fairness. Communism was a radical attempt at fairness, but it fostered a society in which justice was nearly impossible. Hardworking people were denied reward, while slothful people received more than they deserved. The “fairness” of communism proved to be a disincentive working against many of the natural desires that foster community.

But for children, it may be that fairness is the embryo of justice. As they grow in wisdom and understanding, they may discover that their craving for fairness was really a hunger for justice. The child who measured the size of his slice of cake against his sister's may become the lawyer arguing before the Supreme Court against racial discrimination. It is essential, however, for adult understanding to move beyond the value of fairness to evaluate arguments and actions on the basis of justice. The two are related, but not equivalent. A person whose moral development is arrested at the “fairness level” will go through life feeling like a victim, blaming others when life isn't fair.

Yet even those with a highly developed sense of justice are sometimes troubled by God's idea of what is just. Some people are troubled by the fact that God could condemn anyone for eternity. Others are bothered by the thought that God would allow murderers into his kingdom. I have heard more than one person, when confronted by some of the difficult aspects of God's character, exclaim, “If that is what God is like, I don't want anything to do with Him!” But if we take time to consider the magnitude of God's character compared with ours, we see that we should trust his sense of justice above our own. The justice of God may be as far superior to the justice of man as your sense of justice is to a four-year-old's. Although it may humble us, we must believe God when he claims, “'For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,' declares the LORD. 'As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts'“ (Isaiah 55:8-9).

We can be thankful that God does not condemn us for our feeble attempts at justice. Just as a parent patiently takes into account a child's immaturity when he wants to wear his shoes on the wrong feet, God is patient with us. But we should not revel in our humanity or seek to exalt our ways above his; as we grow and mature in the faith, the righteousness of all God's ways will be increasingly apparent.

__________

Copyright © 2004 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

*

[Original illustration here was a duplicate in HolwickID 25837-26027]

The doctrine of hell has recently come under vicious attack, both from secularists and even from some evangelicals. In many ways, the assault has been a covert one. Like a slowly encroaching tide, a whole complex of inter-related cultural, theological and philosophical changes have conspired to undermine the traditional understanding of hell. Yesterday, we considered the first and perhaps most important of those changes -- a radically altered view of God. But other issues have played a part as well.

A second issue that has contributed to the modern denial of hell is a changed view of justice. Retributive justice has been the hallmark of human law since pre-modern times. This concept assumes that punishment is a natural and necessary component of justice. Nevertheless, retributive justice has been under assault for many years in western cultures, and this has led to modifications in the doctrine of hell.

The utilitarian philosophers such as John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham argued that retribution is an unacceptable form of justice. Rejecting clear and absolute moral norms, they argued that justice demands restoration rather than retribution. Criminals were no longer seen as evil and deserving of punishment, but were seen as persons in need of correction. The goal -- for all but the most egregious sinners -- was restoration and rehabilitation. The shift from the prison to the penitentiary was supposed to be a shift from a place of punishment to a place of penance, but apparently no one told the prisoners.

C. S. Lewis rejected this idea as an assault upon the very concept of justice. “We demand of a cure not whether it is just but whether it succeeds. Thus when we cease to consider what the criminal deserves and consider only what will cure him or deter others, we have tacitly removed him from the sphere of justice altogether; instead of a person, a subject of rights, we now have a mere object, a patient, a 'case.'“

Penal reforms followed, public executions ceased and the public accepted the changes in the name of humanitarianism. Dutch criminologist Pieter Spierenburg pointed to “increasing inter-human identification” as the undercurrent of this shift. Individuals began to sympathize with the criminal, often thinking of themselves in the criminal's place. The impact of this shift in the culture is apparent in a letter from one 19th century Anglican to another:

“The disbelief in the existence of retributive justice ... is now so widely spread through nearly all classes of people, especially in regard to social and political questions ... [that it] causes even men, whose theology teaches them to look upon God as a vindictive, lawless autocrat, to stigmatize as cruel and heathenish the belief that criminal law is bound to contemplate in punishment other ends beside the improvement of the offender himself and the deterring of others.”

The utilitarian concept of justice and deterrence has also given way to justice by popular opinion and cultural custom. The U.S. Constitution disallows “cruel and unusual punishment,” and the courts have offered evolving and conflicting rulings on what kind of punishment is thus excluded. At various times the death penalty has been constitutionally permitted and forbidden, and in one recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, the justice writing the majority opinion actually cited data from opinion polls.

The transformations of legal practice and culture have redefined justice for many modern persons. Retribution is out, and rehabilitation is put in its place. Some theologians have simply incorporated this new theory of justice into their doctrines of hell. For the Roman Catholics, the doctrine of purgatory functions as the penitentiary. For some evangelicals, a period of time in hell -- but not an eternity in hell -- is the remedy.

Some theologians have questioned the moral integrity of eternal punishment by arguing that an infinite punishment is an unjust penalty for finite sins. Or, to put the argument in a slightly different form, eternal torment is no fitting punishment for temporal sins. The traditional doctrine of hell argues that an infinite penalty is just punishment for sin against the infinite holiness of God. This explains why all sinners are equally deserving of hell, but for salvation through faith in Christ.

A third shift in the larger culture concerns the advent of the psychological worldview. Human behavior has been redefined by the impact of humanistic psychologies that deny or reduce personal responsibility for wrongdoing. Various theories place the blame on external influences, biological factors, behavioral determinism, genetic predispositions and the influence of the subconscious -- and these variant theories barely scratch the surface.

The autonomous self becomes the great personal project for individuals, and their various crimes and misdemeanors are excused as growth experiences or “personal issues.” Shame and guilt are banned from public discussion and dismissed as repressive. In such a culture, the finality of God's sentencing of impenitent sinners to hell is just unthinkable.

A fourth shift concerns the concept of salvation. The vast majority of men and women throughout the centuries of western civilization have awakened in the morning and gone to sleep at night with the fear of hell never far from consciousness -- until now. Sin has been redefined as a lack of self-esteem rather than as an insult to the glory of God. Salvation has been reconceived as liberation from oppression, internal or external. The Gospel becomes a means of release from bondage to bad habits rather than rescue from a sentence of eternity in hell.

The theodicy issue arises immediately when evangelicals limit salvation to those who come to conscious faith in Christ during their earthly lives and define salvation as anything akin to justification by faith. To the modern mind this seems absolutely unfair and scandalously discriminatory. Some evangelicals have thus modified the doctrine of salvation accordingly. This means that hell is either evacuated or minimized. Or, as one Catholic wit quipped, hell has been air-conditioned.

These shifts in the culture are but part of the picture. The most basic cause of controversy over the doctrine of hell is the challenge of theodicy. The traditional doctrine is just too out of step with the contemporary mind -- too harsh and eternally fixed. In virtually every aspect, the modern mind is offended by the biblical concept of hell preserved in the traditional doctrine. For some who call themselves evangelicals, this is simply too much to bear.

We should note that compromise on the doctrine of hell is not limited to those who reject the traditional formulation. The reality is that few references to hell are likely to be heard even in conservative churches that would never deny the doctrine. Once again, the cultural environment is a major influence.

In his study of “seeker sensitive” churches, researcher Kimon Howland Sargeant notes that “today's cultural pluralism fosters an under-emphasis on the 'hard sell' of Hell while contributing to an overemphasis on the 'soft sell' of personal satisfaction through Jesus Christ.” The problem is thus more complex and pervasive than the theological rejection of hell -- it also includes the avoidance of the issue in the face of cultural pressure.

The revision or rejection of the traditional doctrine of hell comes at a great cost. The entire system of theology is modified by effect, even if some revisionists refuse to take their revisions to their logical conclusions. Essentially, our very concepts of God and the Gospel are at stake. What could be more important?

The temptation to revise the doctrine of hell -- to remove the sting and scandal of everlasting conscious punishment -- is understandable. But it is also a major test of evangelical conviction. This is no theological trifle. As one observer has asked, “Could it be that the only result of attempts, however well-meaning, to air-condition Hell, is to ensure that more and more people wind up there?”

Hell demands our attention in the present, confronting evangelicals with a critical test of theological and biblical integrity. Hell may be denied, but it will not disappear.

[see HolwickID #28805 for part 1]

________

R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., is the author of a major essay published in “Hell Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents Eternal Punishment,” edited by Christopher W. Morgan and Robert A. Peterson, published by Zondervan. Mohler's essay, “Modern Theology: The Disappearance of Hell,” is the compilation's first chapter.

Rwanda. A lot of Americans had never heard of that African country until, a few years ago, it became the scene of horrific bloodshed and a tribal war that left thousands of Rwandans brutally slaughtered. With this awful season of attempted genocide, Rwanda became a word written in blood. And now the challenge is to attempt to heal the nation. Leaders who helped South Africa reconcile its years of apartheid violence have come to Rwanda to help them find a healing road. Out of this struggle has come a story I will not soon forget. The son of a lady named Deborah was murdered in an act of ethnic vengeance. Months after the killing, a young man visited Deborah with this amazing confession - and request: “I killed your son. So take me to the authorities and let them deal with me as they will. I have not slept since I shot your son. Every time I lie down, I see you praying, and I know you are praying for me.” As extraordinary as that young man's words were, Deborah's response was even more amazing. She said, “I do want you to restore justice by replacing the son you killed. I'm asking you to become my son. When you visit me, I will care for you.” Today that young man is an adopted member of her household.

I'm Ron Hutchcraft and I want to have A Word With You today about “Open Arms and No Closed Door.”

I know a little bit of how that young man must feel. I've been accepted as part of the family by someone from whom I deserved only punishment and rejection. After all, I had a part in the death of His Son. But, then, so have you. The Son's name is Jesus - who was nailed to a cross for your sins and mine. God has every reason to throw the book at us. But this very day, He's offering you instead a chance to join His family and live with Him forever.

God gives us a beautiful picture of this amazing possibility in a story from the life of King David, the one from whom Jesus was descended. In 2 Samuel 9, our word for today from the Word of God, David has become the king after the previous King Saul's all-out attempts to have him killed. It was the custom of kings then to exile or execute the families of those who wanted them dead, so they wouldn't become part of a future rebellion or plot. But there was one man left of Saul's family. His name was Mephibosheth, and he was crippled in both feet. King David had Mephibosheth brought to him, and Saul's grandson was scared to death.

“'Don't be afraid,' David said to him, 'for I will surely show you kindness for the sake of your father Jonathan (who was Saul's son and David's friend) ... I will restore to you all the land that belonged to your grandfather Saul, and you will always eat at my table.’ ... and Mephibosheth ate at the king's table like one of the king's sons.”

That's what God wants to do for you even though you have, like all of us, rebelled against His kingship and run your own life. It's that rebellion that could be paid for only with the blood of God's Son. Which means you and I were part of the reason God's Son died. But He stands ready, no matter what you've done, to throw open the door and welcome you into His family and into His heaven when you die.

The only way you'll ever be allowed into God's heaven is on the basis of your personal relationship with the person God loves most - His one and only Son, Jesus. So where you stand with God and where you'll spend eternity depends totally on whether or not you have welcomed the Son of God into your life as your Savior from your sin. You can do that today and God will cancel the hell you deserve and give you instead the heaven you could never deserve.

Like me, you deserve the punishment for your sins against the King of all kings. But He's ready to welcome you into His family today and you will “eat at the king's table like one of the king's sons” because He wants you with Him forever!

________

Copyright © Ron Hutchcraft Ministries, Inc., PO Box 400, Harrison, AR 72602. Used by permission. Written by Ron Hutchcraft. "Practical Answers to Real Life Issues"

*

When poor judging or refereeing denies an athlete his rightful victory, fans readily sympathize with his hurt. After all the effort and the pain that goes into preparing for competition, it is no doubt a disheartening sight to find limited judgment, or worse, dishonesty robbing the reward.

Although such a loss is merely part of athletic competition, it points to how important being just really is. This truth is one of the most pertinent in any civilized society. Was it not Plato who said that justice is the firmest pillar of good government? His student Aristotle went even further. He said: “Justice is not part of virtue, it is virtue entire, nor is the contrary injustice a part of vice but vice entire.”

One does not have to fully agree to note the power of what is being said. Justice is virtue entire? Being just is the sum and substance of good morality? Well, think about this. Suppose you say you love somebody but you are unjust in your dealings with them. How would that person respond to your words, “But I love you”? Or what if you tell somebody that you will always speak the truth, but that there are times you will be unjust in dealing with the truth? You see the point, don't you? Justice is an intrinsic part of virtue.

God in His nature is pure and just. His justice meets the demands of the law that must be met if you and I are to be recipients of His mercy.

To the Christian Good Friday is a very special day because on that day two thousand years ago, a pure and just God paid the penalty for our separation from Him and made the way to be forgiven and to live in a loving relationship with Him.

There is one verse in the Bible that occurs three times: once in the book of Hebrews to the Hebrew church, once in the Book of Galatians to the Asian church, and once in the Book of Romans to the European church. Each time it is a thought quoted from the Old Testament prophet Habakkuk. The verse says simply: “The just shall live by faith.”

What this really means is that perfection cannot get us into heaven, but our faith in the Perfect One can. His justice comes hand in hand with love. And neither ever violates the other.

________

Copyright © 2004 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

*

It was centuries ago, when all of North America belonged to its Native people. One nomadic Indian tribe in the Great Plains was blessed with a chief that was beloved and respected by everyone who knew him. He was known as a man who deeply loved his people, and he showed it - and a man of absolute justice and fairness and he showed that. One day some braves brought a very troubling report to him; there had been several mysterious thefts from people in the tribe. The chief wanted to nip this kind of stealing in the bud so he announced a severe penalty for the thief. He would be tied to a post when the sun was high, his back laid bare, and he would be beaten with a whip twenty times. Then the chief set a trap. He asked two of his trusted braves to leave some animal pelts in front of a teepee one night and to watch all night from another teepee. It was the middle of the night when one of those braves awakened the chief with the news, “We've caught the thief.” “Then bring him in,” the chief ordered sternly.

You could see the reluctance and even the pain on the braves' faces as they brought the thief into the chief's tent that night. The chief was stunned to see who they had caught. It was his own mother. The next day, when the sun was high, everyone in the tribe gathered around the pole in the center of the village. There was heated discussion about what the chief would do. Would he sacrifice his love for his mother for the sake of justice and fairness? Or would he sacrifice his justice for his love?

Now it was time. Very sadly, two braves marched the chief's mother to the whipping post and they tied her there as two women bared her back for the whip. “The chief is putting his justice above his love,” the people whispered as the warrior with the whip raised his right arm to administer the first lash. Suddenly, the chief emerged from his teepee and he shouted, “Stop! Let her go!” As the people turned to look at their chief walking toward the whipping post, they began to say, “His love is greater than his justice. He's letting her go unpunished for what she did.” The chief untied the thief he loved, and then to the shock of everyone, as he removed his buckskin shirt, he said, “Tie me.” Hesitantly, the braves tied their chief to the post. Then he barked out his final command, “Begin the whipping.” There, before all his people, their honored chief took the full and painful punishment for the crimes of the one he loved.

I'm Ron Hutchcraft and I want to have A Word With You today about “The Chief and the Thief.”

That story is my story, and that story is your story. The chief is no one less than the Prince of Heaven, the Son of Almighty God. The one who has broken the law and deserves the punishment is me - and you. God's justice could not be compromised; all our sinning against Him, all our defiant choices that have ignored what He wanted had to be paid for. And the penalty established long ago is death. Because of His justice, your sin had to be punished.

Because of His love, He didn't want you to have to pay it. So He stepped into your place and, on a blood-stained cross, took all the hell for all your sin.

Isaiah 53:5-6, our word for today from the Word of God, “He was pierced for our transgressions ... the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him ... we all, like sheep, have gone astray ... and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.” Today, Jesus is coming to you where you are, offering to give you the pardon He secured for you with His blood. But you have to take it or you will face the punishment He died to save you from. Please, don't wait another day to make things right with God. Tell Him, “Lord, because you died and rose again for me, I'm putting all my trust in you.” That's how you trade death for life.

Don't walk away from the One who took your place and took your punishment. He's your only hope and He loves you. He really loves you.

________

Copyright © Ron Hutchcraft Ministries, Inc., PO Box 400, Harrison, AR 72602. Used by permission. Written by Ron Hutchcraft. "Practical Answers to Real Life Issues"

*