In his book The Kingdom of God in America, H. Richard Niebuhr described disenchanted world created by abandonment of a religious vision for America during post-Civil War era in favor of one based on secular, progressive logic. Caught up in optimism of age, liberal Christians heralded America as land of promise and greater bliss seemed available than was afforded by extension of American institutions to all world. With some derision, Niebuhr concluded that this conception involved no discontinuities, no crises, no tragedies or sacrifices, no loss of all things, no cross and resurrection.(1) As science replaced mystery, as an autonomous, rational ethic replaced saving grace, and as psychological treatises replaced scriptures, nation's understanding of criminal justice, or what David Garland prefers to call penality,(2) seemed secure and confident in rehabilitative mission, a confidence that would prove to be relatively short-lived. The wise insight Niebuhr offered seems, once again, apropos since much attention been directed by heirs of Progressivism to a renewed discussion of merits of rehabilitative ideal which, as Ted Palmer states, has fought its way back from artificially created, near-illegitimacy of previous years.(3) One can scarcely open a journal or scan list of newly published monographs related to criminology before encountering a study on either benefits, futility, or utter ambiguity of rehabilitation. This development may well strike a chord of irony in interested historian or ethicist, not merely due to nature of discussion but especially in light of its underlying presuppositions and limits of its methodological focus. In this essay I shall argue that revival of interest in rehabilitation much of the right thing for wrong reason about it, that improvement in character and virtue by means of rational analysis and psychological and medical treatment begs religious question, and specifically question of conversion, and thus eliminates a key factor in solving riddle of wilful human rejection of law and behavioral norms. Put another way, it appears difficult to distinguish social and ethical assumptions, not to mention programmatic emphases, of today's rehabilitative faithful from those offered when late nineteenth century Progressives inaugurated reformatory. In both, realities of religious faith and conversion are sidestepped, and we hear, yet again, that therapeutic technique and/ or rational self-interest provide necessary means to span chasm that separates who one is from whom one hopes to be. I The Idea of Rehabilitation Much can be gained by surveying how concept of rehabilitation is understood by those who have attempted to analyze it. In his well-known study, Francis Allen offers following description: the rehabilitative ideal is notion that a primary purpose of penal treatment is to effect changes in characters, attitudes, and behavior of convicted offenders, so as to strengthen social defense against unwanted behavior, but also to contribute to welfare and satisfactions of offenders.(4) Barbara Hudson argues that rehabilitation implies determinism.(5) Concurring with both Garland and Rothman,(6) she presents essential propositions of this new discourse as determinism, individualism and pathology, and image of powerful and benevolent state, not only empowered but obligated to intervene in lives of inadequate citizens and thereby rescue them from delinquency, depravity, and deprivation.(7) Prior to concurring with Allen's definition quoted above, Cullen and Gilbert state: Since individual cannot be cured of his criminal tendencies through his own efforts, it is for good of society as well as for offender's own good that state undertakes to rehabilitate him. …