By Davis Carlton

Few among us had the foresight to see this coming. I certainly didn’t imagine that I would be writing a response to an ostensibly orthodox Presbyterian pastor arguing for the legality of bestiality. Nevertheless, this is where things stand. We truly live in strange times. The comments that I am responding to are from a Twitter thread on the account of Rev. Chris Caughey, who is a Presbyterian pastor and hosts a podcast called Glory Cloud about the theology of Meredith Kline. Evidently Caughey is not a fan of patriarchy. He begins by alleging that “patriarchy is advocated not by men – not even by mice (what an insult to rodents!) – but by cockroaches who are utterly terrified when light is shined on the darkness of their teaching.”

It goes downhill from here. Apparently Caughey was upset by a comment that a wicked defender of patriarchy said regarding the legality of bestiality. Caughey continues, “I’m a libertarian who believes that Ex. 22:19, Lev. 20:15-16, & Deut. 27:21 mean that God has always condemned bestiality – and always will. Anyone who practices (or even desires) it unrepentantly will spend eternity in hell for it. But – and here’s my 200 proof libertarianism – any civil laws require the government to be willing to go all the way & kill law-breakers if those law-breakers even pacifistically decline to live in a metal cage for doing something that did not aggress against another person or against another person’s property – & the main reason for that is that the only tool in the government’s toolbox is the sword/gun (Rom. 13:4). So as sick & disgusting as bestiality is, I’m not going to advocate making it illegal & killing people who practice it. I want to preach the gospel to them, instead. There, I said it. Now either scram, all you yellow-bellied cockroaches, or fight like the men your patriarchy…”

Later Caughey argues that even standard systems of natural law become “theocratic when pressed far enough.” My first impression is to be amazed at Caughey’s over-the-top machismo for a man who argues for absolute “200 proof libertarianism” on Twitter. It takes absolutely no courage to condemn those arguing for the implementation of a consistent Biblical ethic of the role of the civil government in restraining evil. There are three main problems with Caughey’s reasoning in this Twitter rant. Caughey is wrong about the nature of theocracy, creates a false dichotomy between punishment and preaching the gospel, and in the process ends up undercutting the necessity of repentance and conversion which the Gospel is founded upon.

It’s readily apparent that Caughey rejects theocracy. What he fails to realize is that all government and laws are founded upon some conception of theocracy. Legislating morality is inevitable. The only question is whose morality that is legislated. Caughey rejects the Bible and natural law theories as the source of public policy, preferring the libertarian non-aggression principle instead. But this is no less grounded in the same theocratic assumptions of Caughey’s critics. By what standard can Caughey impose his libertarian ethos on everyone else? The legality of bestiality and other forms of degenerate behavior is certainly a moral issue; does the Bible speak to this issue? Caughey knows that it does, and libertarianism is simply an excuse to ignore what the Bible teaches.

The second issue is with Caughey’s dichotomy between punishment and preaching the Gospel. Caughey’s argument is that the government cannot imprison people against their will unless they aggress against someone or someone’s property (again demonstrating his absolute commitment to libertarianism). The only possible solution is for the government to…gasp!…put degenerate practitioners of bestiality to the sword in accordance with Rom. 13:4. Caughey argues against doing this because this would destroy the mission field. Caughey posts a picture field ablaze with the caption: “The civil magistrate punishing with death and imprisonment the mission field.”

Does punishment for crimes such as bestiality really destroy the mission field? No. There are certainly instances in which crimes merit a civil response, but there is no reason to believe that this prevents the guilty party from repenting. Taken to its logical conclusion Caughey’s argument would not allow the civil magistrate to ever punish crimes since this is somehow contrary to the preaching of the Gospel. Caughey may well demur, but why should we allow for axe-murderers to be sentenced to death over those who commit bestiality? Doesn’t Caughey care for the souls of axe-murderers?

The final issue is the nature of punishment as it relates to the Gospel itself. Civil punishment like the death penalty for serious crimes is not contrary to the Gospel, but is integral to helping people see and understand the severity of sin. Sinfulness and rebellion is encouraged when punishment is withheld. King Solomon wrote, “Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil” (Eccl. 8:11). The death penalty is prescribed in the Law in the circumstances that it is because the sins that merit the death penalty are crimes against society and really are that severe. To deny this is to suggest that we understand the social harm caused by capital crimes better than God. When these behaviors become decriminalized, they will inevitably be considered more and more acceptable by society at large. As these behaviors become more accepted, those practicing them will feel less guilt associated with them; the result being that their hearts will become increasingly hardened against God. This is necessarily contrary to the spread of the Gospel so it shouldn’t surprise anyone that the world seeks to decriminalize and normalize degenerate behaviors.

Chris Caughey needs to abandon and repent of his “200 proof libertarianism.” It is obvious that he has allowed this commitment to simply cast aside what God has revealed about the nature of sin and crime. The role of the state in hindering evil and promoting God is worldview dependent. The question is why Rev. Caughey’s worldview is informed by the libertarian non-aggression principle rather than the Bible. Caughey’s argument is a pragmatic accommodation to the spirit of the age which seeks for increasing permissiveness of sexually deviant behaviors. Caughey has theoretically embraced a Calvinistic theology that affirms the absolute sovereignty of God. In this case we can be assured that nothing a civil magistrate does can thwart God’s plan of salvation. God ordained the death penalty for certain offenses with the perfect knowledge of how this would play out in history. None of the elect could possibly be executed before being brought to repentance, and it is entirely possible that several among the elect were induced to repent because their impending deaths convicted them of their sin and their need for salvation. Chris Caughey’s twitter rant against patriarchy and his advocacy of decriminalizing bestiality are but one example of the folly of a man who thinks he knows better than God.