I dare say that probably a majority of church-goers would not want sex offenders to be in their presence. Also, I would say that failure to adequately protect children on the church premises could result in horrific liability issues should something go wrong.

At issue is the presumption that a sex offender is a danger to the public. While certainly, some sex offenders are a public menace, others are clearly not. The matter at hand is not to analyze the scope of sex crimes or those crimes that should or should not require registration. I think the issue is whether a sex offender has any human rights at all once the offender’s sentence is carried out.

In theory, any person who was convicted of a crime should face no institutionalized discrimination once their sentence is served. This concept is becoming more of a fantasy, however, in a society that prefers to stigmatize and ostracize offenders in general and especially sex offenders. Why?

Our text begins with no small stir: A debate had developed and attracted a large group of spectators. As we proceed through this passage, we learn that the scribes were questioning the occasion of the disciple’s inability to help a father’s afflicted son. We could stop right here and learn that every time we as Christ’s followers are ineffective and fail to accomplish that which we ought to accomplish, the religious naysayers are apt to pile on accusations and bring a very public and open humiliation upon us.

In Matthew chapter four, as Jesus was being tempted by the devil, he was taken up into an “exceeding high mountain,” from which he could see “all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them” (verse 8). To accurately assess this passage of scripture, we must make some observations: The location of the [...]