I Support the Death Penalty Because All Lives Matter

In my last article, I walked the reader through what the Bible says about the death penalty for murderers, rapists, and child molesters. I also responded to several questions and criticisms. You can read that article here.

In response, Tyler Lee Conway, graduate of Truett Seminary, sent me an article written by Dr. Matthew Arbo entitled Why I Oppose Capital Punishment, published through The Gospel Coalition (TGC also featured an article entitled Why I Support Capital Punishment by the late Chuck Colson). Dr. Arbo is a professor of theological studies at Oklahoma Baptist University and an elder in his church. He's also a Research Fellow in Christian Ethics for the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention (ERLC).

In his article, Dr. Arbo gave both philosophical and theological reasons why he is opposed to the death penalty. For the sake of brevity, I'm not going to engage Dr. Arbo's philosophical reasons. Besides, I don't believe it serves our primary purpose for coming to a biblical understanding of what the Bible has to say about capital punishment. We must have a biblical basis first, since God's Word is our ultimate authority; then we can talk about the practical implications.

As for his theological objections, Dr. Arbo offered three. I will break them up under the headings of FIRST, SECOND, and THIRD for ease of reading. Dr. Arbo's comments will be in bold, and my responses will follow.

FIRST

"First, if one wishes to justify capital punishment on the Old Testament's lex talionis (eye for an eye) principle, then one must demonstrate how death as a punitive measure is morally right, since the civil and ceremonial elements of the law have been fulfilled in Christ."

I believe I did that in my previous article. I did not begin with "eye for an eye" as it first appears in Exodus 21:24—I began with Genesis 9:6 and showed how "eye for an eye," or the law of retaliation, is an extension of a binding moral principle that God has established and imposed upon every living creature, even animals (Gen. 9:5, Ex. 21:28), before the Law was given. The Lord has said, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in His own image."

I'm confused as to what Dr. Arbo means when he says "since the civil and ceremonial elements of the law have been fulfilled in Christ." Too many rip Matthew 5:17 out of context and use it as an excuse to pull an Andy Stanley and unhitch from the Old Testament. As I commented on my podcast on Friday, there are many that recoil at Stanley's "unhitch" comment, yet they follow it practically when they remain ignorant of the Law, its purpose, and its application.

In Matthew 5:17, Jesus said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." But don't miss verses 18-19, when He says, "For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be great great in the kingdom of heaven."

Note, "whoever does them and teaches them." It is imperative that we read, understand, and teach all of the law. (The word "relaxes" in the Greek is luo, which means [gasp] to unhitch!) Respectfully, Dr. Arbo does a poor job of teaching the law in his article and gives far more weight to philosophical reasoning than biblical reasoning. He makes several biblical references, but he doesn't walk his readers through them. Still on his first point, he says:

"In doing so, Christian advocates of capital punishment will also have to reckon with Jesus's instruction in Matthew 5:38-41, where He makes clear this retaliatory interpretation of the law was incorrect. If one is subject to wrongdoing or injustice, Jesus implores forebearance and charity, dismissing any reading that justifies vengeance. It is especially difficult in practice to disentangle vengeance from retribution in capital punishment."

So what? Please hear my tone—I'm not trying to be a dismissive brat. Why is "It is especially difficult in practice to disentangle vengeance from retribution in capital punishment" a reason not to enact the death penalty? The Apostle Paul calls the governing authority that exercises capital punishment on the wrongdoer an "avenger," meaning by definition that he enacts vengeance (Romans 13:4).

If a couple weeks ago you read about John Todt in Orlando who killed his wife and three kids, and your reaction was, "What a monster! That guy should die!" what's wrong with that reaction? That is a right and moral response. If you felt brokenhearted and sorrowful, that would also be a right response. If we were emotionless and indifferent to such atrocities, that would be a big problem.

This is not to dismiss Dr. Arbo's point. We are all responsible for the thoughts we think and the motivation in our hearts; that in all things we are for the glory of God and not man; that we be in service to His divine justice, not according to our own biases, prejudices, or corrupt and vindictive wills. Psalm 4:4 says, "Be angry and do not sin." However, as with his passing reference to Matthew 5:17, I do not believe Dr. Arbo is considering verses 38-42 in their proper context.

Jesus said, "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' but I say to you, do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you."

In this passage, Jesus was not saying that we unhitch from the principle, "eye for an eye." He's the one who made that Law, and it was given to prevent unjust punishment. Here in Matthew 5:38-42, Jesus is rebuking those who abuse the law, applying a personal vendetta to otherwise trivial matters when they should also have a heart for love and mercy. If someone reads in this text opposition to the death penalty, they are imposing onto Jesus's words something that is not there (eisegesis). Jesus was confronting the heart of man, not the civil laws of God. Mr. Arbo continues:

"Governing authorities are sometimes required to use force to uphold the law and secure peace, of course, but nothing constrains them to kill offenders in order to do so. The same idea is presumed in the logic of Romans 13: the political authority may, but is not required, to impose a penalty of death. Neither is the Christian insubordinate or disrespectful in pleading for measured clemency."

I support the death penalty, I support a police officer having to use deadly force to stop an assailant, I support a soldier following the orders of his superior officer, and I desire clemency (leniency or mercy). This moral position can exist in the same person. In fact, it must. Micah 6:8 says, "He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?" So we must love justice and mercy.

SECOND

"A second theological point, offered long ago by Augustine, is this: Once the condemned is put to death, that person is no longer eligible for evangelization and conversion. Clemency better allows for the possibility of rebirth in Christ. It doesn't guarantee conversion, obviously, but execution certainly shortens the chance. I sense the early church took this particular opportunity to heart."

Dr. Arbo's point is certainly agreeable to an extent, but it's not a reason to oppose the death penalty. I disagree with his point here in a few ways, but I'm going to stick with making one point since it's the basis for the argument: Augustine of Hippo wasn't opposed to the death penalty. In his commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, notes on Matthew 5, Augustine said:

"But great and holy men... punished some sins with death, both because the living were struck with a salutary fear, and because it was not death itself that would injure those who were being punished with death, but sin, which might be increased if they continued to live. They did not judge rashly on whom God had bestowed such a power of judging. Hence it is that Elijah inflicted death on many, both with his own hand and by calling down fire from heaven; as was done also without rashness by many other great and godlike men, in the same spirit of concern for the good of humanity."

Augustine was also in favor of overthrowing tyrants, and he spoke of exercising corporal punishment upon heretics by having them flogged in public. So hearkening to Augustine really doesn't work in Dr. Arbo's favor. He risks demonstrating a careless piece-mealing of biblical and extra-biblical sources in order to argue for a predetermined position.

THIRD

"Third, the Christian faith is fully and entirely pro-life—beginning to end. This commitment has broad enough scope even for the condemned. Every human being has dignity, and no one, not even the monstrous, can lose his or her dignity altogether... If Christians take human dignity seriously, we should criticize any penalty that fosters attitudes of contempt toward the condemned."

In my previous article, I said that it's because I am pro-life that I am in favor of the death penalty. These perpetrators have taken lives. In capital punishment, we consider more than the life of the offender. We consider also the lives he has destroyed.

Now, Dr. Arbo began his article talking about Dylann Roof, the young man who in 2015 killed nine people in a South Carolina church shooting. Dr. Arbo obviously sympathized with the families of the shooting victims, so I don't want to come across suggesting that he lacks sympathy. But I just don't understand why someone opposed to the death penalty places so much emphasis on the life of the perpetrator and less consideration for the lives that have been destroyed.

Consider a story I mentioned in my previous article. Christopher Watts killed his pregnant wife, Shanann, and his two daughters, Bella (4) and Celeste (3), by strangling them to death. One of his daughters begged him, "Please, daddy!" and he killed her anyway. When he was arrested, he lied and said his wife was the one who killed his daughters, and he killed his wife in retaliation. But later, after he cut his deal to avoid the death penalty, he confessed he did the whole thing. He had been thinking about killing his wife for weeks, and even tried to poison her to end her pregnancy. His wife found out he was having an affair, and he killed her and his girls.

What should happen to this man? He should be put to death. You know he deserves to die. As I argued from Genesis 9:5-6, this is a moral principle that is naturally binding because God has established it as such. Not only do you know in your heart this man deserves death, the Bible says he deserves to die. The conscience and the Word of God bear witness that justice in this case is death.

So tell me—How is it undignified to put this man to death? If society were to say he owes his life for theirs, wouldn't society consider with more human dignity Shanann and her unborn child, Bella, and Celeste than Watts did? Is God's word undignified when it says in Deuteronomy 19:21, "Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot"?

Instead, how has society responded to this monstrous killer? He is being given food, clothing, shelter, medical care, security, pest control, and more, paid for by the taxpayer for the rest of his life, for putting his wife and three children in an early grave. I would argue that's undignified for a civilization to let such violent criminals live and live off the system. This is not justice. It's a perversion of justice.

CONCLUSION

"Those are my objections and explanations. I put them frankly knowing many will vehemently reject my arguments. I understand the feeling; I ask only that you consider whether capital punishment actually gives the condemned what they deserve, or whether it simply assuages the anger, however justifiable, of those with relation to the slain—who then equate 'justice is served' with 'the one who killed my loved one has been killed.' Many so-called Christian defenses of capital punishment are, I fear, more utilitarian than theological."

That last sentence seems oddly inconsistent, considering that Dr. Arbo found it necessary to make his practical arguments first and his theological arguments second. His closing argument exposes the flawed approach to his reasoning: The death penalty is not beneficial, therefore we should oppose it.

I say we must love justice because God does, and we must consider what He calls justice according to His word, not what we want it to be or how it makes us feel. If people love the justice of our holy God, then they will be satisfied when it is accomplished, no matter how heart-breaking the circumstance may be. Even if it doesn't by human reasoning "satisfy," we must do justice anyway.

Ultimately, our sufficiency is to be found in Christ. All have sinned, and the wages of sin is death. But the free gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord (Romans 3:23, 6:23). We all deserve the death penalty, but Jesus took that penalty for us with His death on the cross and resurrection from the grave. Let us look to God and be fully satisfied in Him. His will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

Proverbs 28:5 says, "Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the Lord understand it completely." Proverbs 29:26 says, "Many seek the face of a ruler, but it is from the Lord that a man gets justice."

What the Bible Says About the Death Penalty for Murderers, Rapists, and Child Molesters

An Indiana man named Michael Middaugh was sent to prison in 2006 for child molesting. He was released from prison last year. He failed to register as a sex offender, and a warrant was issued for his arrest. Before he could be apprehended, he raped an Amish wife and mother while she was home alone.

A London man named Reynhard Sinaga was sentenced this month to life in prison for the sexual assault of nearly 200 men and having committed 136 anal rapes. The case against him was easy to make as he had videos of almost all of his assaults which he kept on two cell phones.

A Colorado man named Christopher Watts was sentenced to life in prison for killing his wife and three children. At first he claimed his wife killed their kids, and he retaliated by killing her. But three months after being sentenced, he admitted that he had an affair and his pregnant wife found out about it, so he strangled her to death and then his two daughters—with his bare hands.

If you love what is good, pure, and loving, then you hated to read these three stories. They probably turned your stomach and rang in your head. Maybe your face became flush with anger, or your heart became filled with sorrow. What would be a just punishment for these evil, sordid, and perverse men? I hope your answer was "death." You might be concerned about where your moral compass is pointing and your sympathy for innocent victims if that's not the thought you had.

Deuteronomy 22:25-27 says that a rapist "shall die" because rape "is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor." According to God's Law, rape should be tried the same as murder, and justice for murder is the death penalty. Numbers 35:16 says, "The murderer shall be put to death." Numbers 35:17 says, "The murderer shall be put to death." Numbers 35:18 says, "The murderer shall be put to death." The avenger of blood shall execute him (Numbers 35:19).

But when I stated this on Twitter earlier this week, many Christians demonstrated confusion about these issues. That's not terribly surprising since God's Law is seldom taught in our churches. What I said was this: "I don't believe rapists and child molesters should go to jail. I believe they should go to their graves (Deuteronomy 22:25-27). Convicted rapists, molesters, and murderers deserve the death penalty. They get a few days to make peace with God, and then they're sent to meet Him."

Can a man be forgiven a sin as heinous as murder, rape, or pedophilia? Absolutely. The grace of God covers all sin by faith in Jesus Christ, the shedding of His blood as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Preach the gospel to victims and victimizers! Don't withhold this message of saving grace from anyone. But that doesn't mean they won't face earthly consequences for their actions.

We are obligated—commanded—to exercise justice. Deuteronomy 1:16 and Proverbs 31:9 says, "Judge righteously." Jesus also said, "Judge with right judgment" (John 7:24). Christians especially should understand this. We worship a just and holy God, whose "work is perfect, for all His ways are justice" (Deuteronomy 32:4). We should want our civil laws to conform with God's perfect Law.

But Christians on Twitter either didn't understand this concept, or they disagreed with it altogether. (It's bad enough if one is ignorant of the law, far worse to disagree with it.) Here are just a few of over a hundred responses that I received:

"What about those guilty of adultery? Should we kill them, too?" 
—Jimmy (Charlotte, NC)

"Should we also execute anyone who doesn't obey the Sabbath?"
—Matt (Albuquerque, NM)

"Should we give stubborn and rebellious sons the death penalty also?"
—Joshua (Archdale, NC)

Notice the similarity in all three responses. If we're going to give someone the death penalty according to Old Testament law for murder, rape, or pedophilia, shouldn't we also give them the death penalty according to the Old Testament law for adultery, Sabbath breaking, and lazy drunkenness (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)? I do have an opinion regarding justice for adulterers and sluggards. For now, to these three questions I will answer "No." Here's why.

Keep in mind that the Law equates rape with murder. The two are to be tried the same. Hundreds of years prior to giving the Law to Moses and Israel, God said the following to Noah in Genesis 9:5-6: "For your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of a man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in His own image."

In other words, a life for a life is an absolute principle bound up in nature, a moral law defined by the Creator God and imposed upon every living creature. Man has been made in the image of God; therefore, the death of a man by any other man or living creature is the same as an assault on the image of God Himself. If a man kills a man, the murderer is to be put to death. If an animal kills a man, the animal is to be put to death. And who is obligated to carry out this justice? "By man shall his blood be shed." To not carry out justice would be to blaspheme God and not hold sacred that which is made in His image—namely, the inherent value of men and women, boys and girls.

Carrying this principle of fair justice forward, God also established this in His Law: "It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot" (Deuteronomy 19:21). This is why, I would further argue, we would understand the death penalty for adultery, Sabbath breaking, or lazy drunkenness to be in a separate category of laws that are not naturally binding moral laws. A person who breaks the Sabbath is not guilty of taking anyone's life. The Sabbath Laws met a different criteria than moral laws and laws of just measures (Deuteronomy 25:13-16).

By the way, that principle in Deuteronomy 19:21 comes right after it is said that if someone is falsely accused, then the one who accused falsely gets the penalty that the accused would have received if he were guilty. So if a woman falsely accused a man of rape, she should get the death penalty. This not only ensures justice for victims, but it also helps to prevent false accusations.

Many who oppose the death penalty say they are against it because too many people have been falsely accused. I would argue that one of the primary reasons false accusations happen is because the law isn't fair. If those who falsely accuse were to receive the sentence of the one they tried to frame, false accusations are less likely to happen. False convictions will still happen—we are, after all, a sinful and flawed people. But these unfortunate occurrences are no excuse not to do justice. As image bearers of God, we must exercise the justice of God.

"How do you fit thought crimes into that equation? Reference 1 John 3:15, whosoever hates his brother is a murderer."
—David (PA)

Jesus most prominently spoke of this in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:21-30): if a man hates his brother, it is the same as if he murdered his brother in his heart. But Jesus said this so that you may know that you are not righteous, for God will judge even the thoughts and the intentions of the heart. Turn to Jesus Christ, and you will live. No where does Scripture impose upon man to give a person the death penalty for thought-crimes. Judicial consequences are given for wicked actions, not unexpressed thoughts.

"Once I saw a pastor who forgave another Pastor/Missionary who in his old life had raped/killed his family in front of him. He was a member of an Irregular army in Central America. They serve together now. If Jesus judged these things in a different way, why should we do it otherwise?" 
—Victor (Bogota, D.C., Colombia)

I think we've all heard stories of someone who committed a violent crime and received forgiveness from gracious Christians. Last year, the world saw a young man named Brandt Jean hug his brother's killer in the middle of a court room, and he shared the gospel with her. I think also of the story of Nate Saint, who was killed with four of his missionary friends when they tried to evangelize the Huarorani people in Ecuador. The man who speared Nate eventually became a Christian and was forgiven by Nate's son, Steve. The story is told in the film End of the Spear.

But what does this have to do with trying murderers, rapists, and child molesters in a court of law? Surely you're not arguing that we shouldn't try anyone for anything at all. You say, "If Jesus judged these things in a different way..." Well, Jesus is the supreme Judge, and He gave us the Law. He was not absent from Mount Sinai when the Law was given. Jesus is the one who said, "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea" (Matthew 18:6).

At the final judgment, He will destroy all murderers and the sexually immoral who did not repent and believe in Him (Revelation 21:8). It is through His apostles that He said the government is the avenger of blood, given authority by God to punish wrong-doers (Romans 13:4). To be a Christian in favor of abolishing the death penalty would be to desire to live in God's kingdom but not be in favor of all of the King's laws. Is that where you want to land?

"What about people who deny the Son of God three times? What about Pharisees who kill Christians?"
—Stephen (Indiana, PA)

This of course is in reference to Peter (who denied Jesus three times) and Paul (who killed Christians before he became one himself). It's funny that Stephen singled out those two men because Peter and Paul wrote in favor of the death penalty (see Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-17).

The incident concerning Peter doesn't have to do with the civil law, although we would certainly deserve death for denying Christ. Jesus said, "For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels" (Mark 8:38); and, "Whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 10:33). As we know, Peter repented with tears, and Jesus forgave and reinstated him.

As for the second example, Paul knew the Law better than anyone and said he'd accept a just sentence of death. In Acts 25:11, he said, "If then I am a wrongdoer and have committed anything for which I deserve to die, I do not escape death." But the thing he was being tried for, he was not guilty of. Paul said it was by the grace of God he was made an apostle (Romans 1:5). But again, this does not excuse us from our responsibility to try murderers, rapists, and child molesters in a court of law.

Stephen, it turns out, is a pastor and an author, whose writings have been featured through both The Gospel Coalition and Desiring God. Knowing this, I expected a little more thoughtful interaction from him than most others. I complimented his bio, and I asked him, "Biblically, why should a murderer not get the death penalty?" But Stephen didn't seem interested in pleasantries. Rather than engaging the subject, he blew me off and accused me of "odd proof texting" and "wonky" exegesis. If this is the way pastors and Bible bloggers engage this subject, it's no wonder our people are ignorant.

"This is the most anti-Jesus post I've seen in a while. No one is beyond redemption. Jesus tells those people to go and sin no more, not to go to your graves. We are called to forgive. Ending the life of another image bearer is not consistent with the heart of God."
—Kenny (Silverton, OR)

Yes, and like I said, even for sins such as these, a person can still receive forgiveness. That doesn't mean we don't do justice. If a man raped and murdered your sister, and he received the death penalty for his crime, and while awaiting his execution he repented of his sin, you must forgive him. But the just sentence of death should still be carried out, and this is not ungracious, nor does it nullify your forgiveness. The grace of God is demonstrated in that the man's sins have been forgiven by faith in Christ, and upon death he will live forever with God instead of burning in an eternal hell.

Kenny's Twitter was full of a lot of "anti-Jesus" rhetoric and imagery. So he really had no place to accuse anyone of being "anti-Jesus."

"Yikes. Paul would’ve had a short ministry. David wouldn’t have seen much of his Kingly reign. Moses wouldn’t have ever been called to free the Israelites. If you allow them to 'make peace with God,' and I'm assuming you mean repentance, then those sins are wiped away."
—Jillian (MO)

So if a person says, "I repent," and gives their life to Christ, we should commute their sentence? I would say that Jillian is pitting God's love against God's justice, but her approach is driven by personal feelings, not the love of God.

I find it odd that people seem to be a whole lot more concerned with the preservation of violent criminals than for the broken, shattered victims they leave in their wake. If I may be so bold, I'd be willing to wager that this is virtue signalling, and these concerned persons are not actually visiting prisons to share the gospel with violent criminals.

Go back up to the introduction and read the story of Michael Middaugh. He was in jail for 13 years for child molesting, got out, and raped again. Had God's justice been rightly exercised by the people made in His image, that woman would not have been raped. To love God's justice is to love people. To not care about God's justice is to not care about people. Proverbs 17:15 says, "He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the Lord."

"Would you be willing to pull the trigger? I don’t necessarily disagree with your sentiment. One of my closest friends was on death row, he gave his life to Christ, is now living in the community, and has contributed to the salvation of many others. Writing all off isn’t the answer."
—Eric (Australia)

Praise God. And I hope your friend has an even greater appreciation for God's grace than most of us—knowing what he deserved yet God gave him another chance. But tell me—why does this mean that we should not give a murderer the death penalty when God told us that is what we should do? How do you justify that biblically? Would you tell God, "Look, I had this experience with a friend that contradicts what you've commanded"?

Would I be willing to pull the trigger? Absolutely. I own a gun for the purpose of protecting my family. I would have no problem putting down an intruder, and according to Exodus 22:2, there would be no blood-guilt on my hands for it. Because I care about people in light of the Law and justice of God, that is why I hold the views that I do—punishing the wicked and protecting the innocent. I favor the death penalty because I'm pro-life, not despite it. This is not a conflicting worldview.

"Art thou a Theonomist?"
—Justin (Cleveland, OH)

No, I am not trying to implement all of the Old Testament laws in America (hence why I don't favor the death penalty for working on Sunday). All of our civic laws have to start somewhere. They begin with God's law. Justin probably meant well with his question, but there were others who accused me of being a theonomist. If you tell a person they are in sin, and you point them to God's word, they may call you a legalist. If you tell a person that one of our societal laws is wrong, and you point them to God's Law, they may call you a theonomist.

"All the Gabriels I know, are ***holes. You, sir, fit the pattern perfectly."
—Bryan (Les Piles, France)

Well, that settles it! Thanks, science.

"Mmmm... You’re missing the part where God considers your sins no less or greater than your neighbor, including thy rapist neighbor."
—Samantha (Hartford, WI)

Have I given the impression that there are parts of the Bible I don't like or haven't considered? I am a wretched, awful sinner worthy of death—no question about that. By the grace of God, I'm saved by faith in my Lord Jesus Christ, who died for my sins and rose from the grave, so that whoever believes in Him will not perish under the just wrath of God burning against the unrighteousness that I once walked in, but now I walk in His everlasting life!

But while all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23), no where does the Bible say that all sins are the same. In fact, the Spirit says that sexual sins are worse than other sins (1 Corinthians 6:18). As stated earlier, a person who has hatred in their heart has murdered in their heart, but that doesn't mean they're going to be on trial for murder. You don't treat all sins the same, and neither does God.

"Many on this thread are conflating God's mercy in salvation with how Christians should seek to practically order society and apply the Scriptures to all of life. To all dissenters, if we don't use God's law as the basis of rule, then what?"
—Jason (Hoschton, GA)

Exactly. If we don't use God's Law for the basis of our laws, what else is there? Sinful wicked people deciding the fate of sinful wicked people? I think we all know how that turns out. Everyone becomes a law unto themselves doing what is "right in his own eyes" (Judges 21:25, Proverbs 21:2).

Abolishing the death penalty in the name of "grace" is antinomian, not justice. Refusing to enact and exercise just laws doesn't protect people—it makes victims of people. If we love people, we will love God's Law, and we will follow it. For it is God's Law that says, "Love your neighbor as yourself."

So what is a Christian to do? Well, how aware are you in what is going on in your own local, civic government? Follow court cases in your community. Write to your mayor, city council, county jail, or local judges. Attend city council meetings. Vote for those who are the most just in their jurisprudence. Raise awareness in your church. Write letters to candidates and ask questions. Go down to the jail and share the gospel, if you're able. These are just a few suggestions. Justice takes work. But if we who know God aren't doing it, who does that leave?

At the same time, let us not neglect or overlook those who are the victims of injustice. The church needs to love them and care for them. It's easy for a victim to be filled with bitterness and rage, shaking a fist at God rather than reaching out to Him. Even victims need the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes. He saves the crushed in spirit (Psalm 34:18). So let us open our mouths and judge righteously.

Either Aaron Rogers is Right or He's Wrong (Spoiler Alert: He's Wrong)

You probably didn't know that Danica Patrick is a Zen Buddhist, self-help guru, motivational speaker, and prosperity preacher, did you? Maybe you knew Danica Patrick as a race car driver, or a (seldom dressed) spokesperson for GoDaddy.com, or Aaron Rogers' girlfriend. But as Danica says at the start of her podcast:

I believe that each and every one us has the power within ourselves to create the life that we really want, and I want to help give you the tools to make that happen. I'm Danica Patrick, and I'm pretty intense.

That's not the kind of intro you might expect on the podcast of a racer, but Danica seems to have summed up the parlance of a "If you can see it, you can be it" generation.

Recently, Danica sat down for an interview with aforementioned boyfriend Aaron Rogers, quarterback for the Green Bay Packers, who lost this past Sunday in the NFC Championship Game against the San Fransisco 49ers. This interview is just beginning to stir widespread interest because among the many topics Danica and Aaron talk about, one of them is religion.

The interview itself, however, was posted the day after Christmas, weeks before the Packers knew they were going to be in the NFC Championship game. That makes the intro to Danica's podcast all the more humorous. Her philosophy is devastated in the first minute. Before her opening spiel, there's a 45-second teaser of the interview with Aaron saying the following:

If you take out the esoteric nature of the words we're using, it's really about belief and confidence. It's about a confidence that we're going to do it, and the belief on everybody who is contributing that we will achieve the result we want to. I think there's power in it. If you look at the history of our 2-minute drill over the history of my 12 years starting, it's not like we score every single time. But there's almost a thought now out there, and really most importantly on our squad that we're definitely scoring. And it's not like that's 100% of the time, but when the thought is there, and you feel like it's for sure going to happen, then that belief is very powerful.

In case you don't know, Aaron's last pass of the game was an interception, right in the middle of one of those 2-minute scoring drills as Green Bay was trying to come from behind and win the game. So... what happened? Did Aaron not believe hard enough? Was the thought just not there? Which person on the team didn't want it? Who doubted? Someone's at fault for this!

No, the Packers got out-played. So much for "the power within ourselves" to get what we really want.

Danica and Aaron's worldview explodes in the introduction to their interview, making the next one hour and forty-five minutes awkward to listen to—and not just because their philosophy is wonky. This was a sleepy conversation, as if Danica and Aaron were fighting the effects of a double-dose of NyQuil while chatting quietly in a nursery of napping babies. For athletes who get paid to entertain, move fast, and talk over noise, they are really..... slow..... and, um..... uh..... boring.

Let's skip straight to the part that had people talking this week—Aaron Rogers' thoughts about Christianity. Aaron and I have a similar upbringing: we both grew up in church, wanted to be "cool" Christians, asked a lot of skeptical questions, and eventually came into a following of Rob Bell. That's right, once upon a time, I, like Aaron Rogers, was once taken by Bell's false teaching. But some sound brothers in the Lord came along side me and showed me my errors, and by God's grace I repented. Either Aaron didn't know such sound men of faith, or he didn't listen to them.

In August of 2017, ESPN did a cover story on Aaron called The Search for Aaron Rogers, and his relationship with Bell was prominent in the piece. In fact, Bell's words concluded the article, quoting Aaron: "I've been to the bottom and been to the top, and peace will come from somewhere else." After Aaron's season that year ended early due to injuries, I wrote an open letter to share what I've learned since my Bell days. I was going to post it on my blog, but I never did. (After doing a search, it appears I didn't keep what I'd written.)

As apostasy stories often go, Aaron is even deeper down the rabbit hole now than he was in 2017. His skeptical questioning of orthodox Christianity has turned into outright making fun of it, and he's seeking out other spiritual gurus like the Dalai Lama and finding cosmic significance in Ancient Aliens (no kidding). He discloses all of this in a conversation with the woman he's fornicating with—Danica Patrick, who believes God is merely "the highest level of vibration." Ick. Why does Aaron Rogers scorn his former faith? Because he's in love with his sin and suppresses the truth in his unrighteousness (Romans 1:18).

But Aaron claims his rejection of Christianity runs deeper than that. "Rules and regulations and binary systems don't really resonate with me," he said. "It's us and them. It's saved and unsaved. It's heaven and hell. It's enlightened and heathen. It's holy and righteous and sinner and filthy. And I think that makes a lot of people feel better about themselves. 'Oh, I've got Jesus, and I'm going to heaven, and there's only 144,000 of us going when there's 7 billion people on the planet." Uh, what? Was Aaron raised a pack of Jehovah's Witnesses?

Aaron goes on: "I don't know how you can believe in a God who wants to condemn most of the planet to a fiery hell. Like what type of loving, sensitive, omnipresent, omnipotent being wants to condemn most of His beautiful creation to a fiery hell at the end of all this?"

He even weighs in on God's sovereign election: "There's this whole predestination within the sects of organized religion who believe that free will does not exist the way we think it does. People are predestined to go to heaven or hell."

Remember, these criticisms are coming from the guy who thinks he can will himself to win the NFC Championship game. He told his football team, "Speak s--- to life," which means, "talking things into existence, creating an organizational zeitgeist that is constantly manifesting positive things to happen. I think there's power in that." No, there isn't—not even a trip to the Superbowl.

Aaron is certainly not the first to criticize "binary systems." The whole war on genderism and sexual identity is a conflict with God and His created order of male and female. Ultimately, arguing against binary is self-defeating. Either it's binary, or it isn't. It's impossible for Aaron to operate under any other kind of system. Either Aaron is right, or he's wrong. Either he wins the game, or he doesn't. Either Green Bay is going to the Superbowl, or San Fransisco is.

To further the point and expound on the irony, Aaron and Danica's podcast was recorded on a digital recorder, shared through a podcast hosting site, and transmitted to the ears of many—how? By way of the 1's and 0's that make up binary computer code.

Either God is just, or He's not. Either you go to heaven, or you go to hell. Either Jesus is the only way to get to the Father, or He isn't. Either Aaron worships the Creator or the created. At the heart of Aaron's problem, he thinks he's better than God, and his ways are higher than God's ways. As Dr. Owen Strachan commented, "Rob Bell has trained Aaron Rogers in a Christianity that is not Christianity. Rejecting divine justice, it gives us a god who looks a lot like... us."

Aaron says, "It's been a fun path to a different kind of spirituality which to me has been more meaningful." Boy, he sure has a way of making fun and meaningful sound tired and dull. Aaron thinks his life is fuller outside an either/or world. But life is rich beyond comprehension when we know, according to God's word, that our eternity is secure in Christ alone. As 1 John 5:13 says, "I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life."

Aaron Rogers follows the religion of Aaronrogersanism, in which he seeks the Dalai Lama, finds purpose in Ancient Aliens, and sleeps with Danica Patrick. But either this will save him on judgment day, or it won't. (Spoiler alert: it won't.) Said Bell, quoting Rogers, "I've been to the bottom and been to the top, and peace will come from somewhere else." Two years later, Aaron is still trying to find peace in the world while rejecting the peace of God.

I pray for Aaron Rogers (and Danica, too, of course) as I did in 2017, that he "will know the truth, and the truth will set him free" (John 8:32).