Biola UniversityThis week, Scott & Sean discuss:
- Current struggles and internal conflicts within the pro-life movement after the Dobbs decision
- Implications of a New York bill that could impact private and religious schools' policies on gender expression
- The rise of anti-Semitism on elite university campuses and its effects on Jewish students
- Incident involving Venezuelan migrants in Texas and its impact on the immigration debate
- Listener Question: Women's Roles in Church Leadership
- Listener Question: God's Moral Character
- Listener Question: CRT and Diversity Training
Scheduling Note: Our Friday "Cultural Update" episodes will be on hiatus during the month of July, as we enjoy a bit of a summer break. Our regular episodes will continue to publish on Tuesdays.
Episode Transcript
Scott: Is the pro-life movement losing the battle post the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade? Whether the New York legislature seeks to require Catholic schools and private schools to recognize the students' preferred pronouns. Should the rising anti-Semitism on elite university campuses make Jewish students hesitant to attend them? And then, a 12-year-old girl being killed in Texas by Venezuelan migrants becomes a flashpoint on the immigration debate. We'll discuss these stories, and answer some of the questions that you've sent in. I'm your host, Scott Rae.
Sean: And I'm your co-host, Sean McDowell.
Scott: And this is the Think Biblically Weekly Cultural Update brought to you by Talbot School of Theology at Biola University. Sean, we've got several really great, insightful stories. I'm anxious to see your comments on these too. But the first one is about the pro-life movement flailing and failing in the aftermath of the Dobbs decision two years ago this month in January of 2022. The pro-life movement may have won the battle two years ago today, but they are losing the war and turning an entire generation away from their cause. For many Americans, overturning Roe v. Wade two years ago was a great day. And you and I both celebrated that significantly.
Sean: Yup.
Scott: Yet when the Supreme Court handed the pro-life movement their victory in the Dobbs decision, the pro-life movement and its political allies were woefully unprepared. Two years later, that triumph looks more and more like a tragedy, according to this author in The Atlantic magazine. Not just for women, but for the movement as well. Pro-life movement faced a lot of questions that have regard to public policy. They could not agree on whether the new bans on access to abortion should be subject to national legislation or left to the states. They couldn't agree on the length of the ban. When did that start? At six weeks of pregnancy, 15 weeks, whether to allow exceptions, and how punitive these new laws should be. Should abortion pills be banned? What about IVF in the public policy? How should states handle miscarriage? The author has personally wrestled with all these issues himself and recognized that the backlash on the pro-life movement has been pretty intense and will continue to be a key issue in the upcoming election season. Polls now show that roughly 65% of Americans oppose overturning Roe v. Wade. And among women ages 18 to 49, support for abortion rights is now overwhelming. And the summary of the article I think fits this pretty nicely. In other words, the anti-abortion movement won the battle, but maybe it's in the process of losing the war as well as a struggle for the hearts and minds of an entire generation. Sean, we both paid a lot of attention to what's gone on in the culture at large in the aftermath of the Dobbs decision. And some of the news has been very encouraging, but some of the news has been discouraging. In fact, states that we would have expected to have pretty significant restrictions on abortion rights have turned out just to be the oppositeâin Kansas and in Ohio. And in this election season, a number of different states are going to have referendums on their ballots to protect abortion rights in their particular state. So, Sean, what do you make of this article in The Atlantic? I thought it was very provocative, very thought-provoking. What's your take on this?
Sean: Yeah, I also thought it was pretty fair and balanced and right on in terms of a lot of what it said. I do think the overturning of Roe v. Wade has kind of revealed some of the internal inconsistencies within the pro-life movement. I think there's been a lot of people who would identify as pro-life who don't really know why we are pro-life in the case for life beginning at conception, and don't have as deep of convictions as before Roe v. Wade. I certainly would have thought that they would have. And I think some of what's happened with IVF has revealed this a little bit, that there's quite a few people who are in favor of just kind of an unmitigated IVF, not the kind of careful, nuanced limitation of the death of embryos that you've talked about. But there's been a whole lot of people who go, "Wait a minute, we're pro-life, and we want to be IVF, even though it's going to result in the death of embryos." And, understandably, the outside movement is looking and going, "Yeah, I'm not sure this is really consistent." So while overturning Roe v. Wade is good, I think it kind of operated as an umbrella, kind of, target that people who identified as pro-life could shoot for. And then all of a sudden, that target is gone, and we're left there going, "Wait a minute, what is our strategy? Wait a minute, there's more division than we realized." So there's no doubt, at least in terms of my research and talking with people, that many in the pro-life movement feel a sense of disarray right now and are wondering what the next steps are. So, if we look at this within a two-year span since Roe, you could say we're losing the war. But if you look at that Roe was overturned after 50 yearsâŠand even when Roe came in, it took years for the church and othersâand by church, I mean Protestant and Catholic and beyondâto really respond to what abortion was and create a united front. Two years is actually a really, really small window. So, I don't even know if I'd say we're losing the war. I mean, over 50 years, we've made some incredible progress. The hard part is the stats that we see. When I look in Gen Z, there's a lot of enthusiastic, outspoken, remarkable pro-lifers among Gen Z. That gives me encouragement. But as a whole, Gen Z are far more likely to support unrestricted abortion rights than older generations are. So that is a sign that could be discouraging. So I think, yeah, they make some good points that post-Roe, we're maybe not where we thought we would be, but we will learn a lot this fall, I think, at the ballots. And certainly from the Democrat side, it makes sense to get as many ballots that people are going to vote for as possible, because that's going to draw people out to vote, potentially. That's the strategy behind it. So I think this fall will be very revealing, but even if this fall is discouraging to those of us who are pro-life, we're in this for the long haul. And two years, I think, in some ways, it's just a drop in the bucket.
Scott: Yeah. I think as soon as we were aware of the Dobbs ruling, we said repeatedly on this podcast that the Dobbs ruling created an opportunity for the church and for the pro-life movement to support women and children like never before. And I think one of the things the article points out is that there's this conflict between establishing this safety net for what is now a group of increasingly desperate women and children, and aligning the pro-life movement with a political platform that, consistently over the years, has reduced funding for these safety net kinds of things. And I think that's part of the opportunity that we're about to miss, because this, I think, is a golden opportunity for the pro-life movement to say, we are committed to being pro-life for not just for unborn children, but for the women who give birth to them, and the women who will raise them, and the families who will raise them. And I think that's the significant part of the challenge that is ahead both for the church and for the political arena, to ensure thatâŠwe have an increasing number of desperate women who cannot procure abortions, and caring for them, and ensuring that their health care is provided for, and their children are provided for, I think is the obligation of the church because the church has been so largely behind the pro-life movement, and rightly so. Now, there has been some progress, I think, to be fair. There has been some movement in some of these states to strengthen the safety net for women and children. But I think in general, that's in the attitudes of the public. That's been overshadowed a bit by what I would call some of the punitive aspects of legislation in states like Texas and Oklahoma and some of the other 14 states that have essentially banned abortion. And I think there's a lot of ambivalence about what exactly should the law do with people who violate the pretty significant restrictions on abortion rights in red states, mostly in the South and the Midwest. So I think there's still lots of time left to do this. I don't think the opportunity has been missed. But I'd want to urge our pro-life colleagues and our pro-life supporters among our listeners that we have to have a similar level of concern for the women and for the children as well as for the preborn children that the Dobbs decision was designed to protect.
Sean: A couple last thoughts on this. Some of the critique of the pro-life movement is the claim that the pro-life movement has overreached in the sense that some of these bills are too aggressive, so to speak. And some of the bills thatâat least I understandâwant to throw women in jail who have had abortions, I think, arguably, have overreached. But on the flip side, we've seen this fromâand again, this article frames it in terms of Democrats versus Republicans. It's framed politically, and I think the issue is much broader than that. We've seen in places like New York, overreach on the other side, in which there's almost an endorsement of infanticide, and encouragement and thrill about this. And so that's really the question, where are people in the pro-life movement going to land, and what are those targets going to be? And right now, it's like we're trying out a whole bunch of different bills, not sure where we land. And there's this internal debate between what you might call purists, who just say, "We won't compromise." I've heard some of them say, "We're tired of having a president who said he's pro-life, but now will not be for a blanket bill entirely against abortion." And then others who are more pragmatic saying, "We've got to advance what we can do to just save lives as we can." That's where I see some of the debate unfolding right now in the pro-life movement. But my encouragement is when we see stuff like this and get discouraged, keep investing in and praying for your resource centers, keep talking with your kids, keep teaching, keep moving the ball forward because lives are at stake.
Scott: That's well said. And I think that's, you know, we can close in prayer and move on after that one.
Sean: [laughs]
Scott: Okay, story number two. This is a bill that is making its way through the legislature in the state of New York entitled the Nonpublic Dignity for All Students Act. If you want to look it up, it's S-3180A. I read most of the bill last night when I was trying to get to sleep, and unfortunately it works pretty well.
Sean: [laughs]
Scott: So I've read the act in its entirety. It is essentially an anti-bullying act that amends a previous law to prevent bullying based on lots of protected categories, including gender expression. It extends the law now, if it's passed into law, to apply to private and religious schools, and it's currently in committee and has not passed either house yet. It's being discussed in committee in the state legislature in New York, and the legislature has ended for the summer months of this year, so, chances are, it will be brought back in the next legislative session. But as you might expect, Catholic schools in New Yorkâwhich there are hundreds of thoseâhad a lot to say about this. The act does not specifically say that preferred pronouns must be used, but it does say that the act prevents verbal or non-verbal treatment that may cause physical or emotional harm to students. And it's not a big leap to say that not respecting someone's preferred pronouns would be considered an act of bullying. It's also in the bill considered a violation of their privacy. So here's a summary. The Catholic response was, let's just say, pretty out there and in your face. And this is from the New York Archdiocese. Essentially, they're telling our parents, if you won't tow the line and enroll your children in our government schools, we will force the policies of our government schools onto your schools. So Sean, what do you make of this? Is this overreaching? Is this a violation of the first amendment, that prohibits, basically, government interference in the religious sphere? Or is this something that's really appropriate and should be extended to private schools to ensure that bullying doesn't take place?
Sean: Well, I thought it's interesting that the title is the Nonpublic Dignity for All Students Act. This reminds me of Mark Regnerus who made a distinction, maybe a decade ago, as he saw this change in the culture between dignity 1.0 and dignity 2.0. Dignity 1.0 is a classic biblical view of dignity, that it's inherent. Dignity is not something we gain or lose, but it's something we have because of the kinds of things we are as human beings made in the image of God. And he goes back to the UN Declaration on Human Rights, which assumed that there's this sense back in, I think it was 1948, that human beings inherently have dignity because of what they are. Now, in dignity 2.0, which seems to be expressed in this bill, dignity becomes the kind of thing you can gain or lose based on how you identify and based on how other people treat you. So there's a shift in the, kind of, understanding of dignity beneath this that I think is important. Now, of course, as Christians we're against bullying, we're against using language to harm peopleâof course we are. That's because of the inherent dignity that they have. Now, it sounds like the bill is somewhat ambiguous about whether or not you have to use preferred pronouns. So in the state of New York, do I have the confidence that its ambiguity and lack of clarity is going to be used to defend people in their free speech, or used against them? My goodness, the answer is clear. I have no confidence, and I share the exact concern that the Catholic Church has, that, ironically, this will actually be used to bully the Catholic Church to adopt a different worldview, and to live out and educate their students differently. Now, the numbers here are pretty amazing. I mean, in New York State thereâs roughly 400 Catholic schools. It serves 200,000 students. That's significant. You know, this bill hasn't passed, it's still somewhat pending and working its way through. But I have to applaud the Catholic Church, in terms of what I know about this, for being bold, for being clear. You know, to say, âWell, they wouldn't shut down Catholic schools and force them to do this.â Well, they did to Catholic adoption agencies in Massachusetts. So, I think the Catholic Church is exactly right to err on the side of, maybe, seeming bold and alarmist, and saying, we're going to stop this. We're not going to let this happen. This is not best for our students. I think the last thing I would say, Scott, is I don't know New York schools. If somebody, Catholic schools, if someone wants to email in and tell me I'm wrong, I will happily admit this. But I actually would bet that if we looked at the way LGBTQ students are treated at Catholic schools in New York versus the rest of schools in New York, I bet you would find less bullyingâif we mean real bullying, not just somebody refusing to use a preferred pronoun. I bet you would find less bullying at some of these New York Catholic schools than you would other schools as a whole. And you remember, not long ago, there was a bill passing somewhat similar to this in California. And the idea was that at places like Biola and other private universitiesâagain, not private, you know, high schools or elementary schoolsâthat the policies we have would be harmful towards LGBTQ students. And one of the congressmen came on campus, and our president Barry Corey, to his full credit, was like, I'm going to let youâŠwe just want you to talk to faculty. We want you to talk with students. You have full carte blanche. And as I remember this, he went away and was like, wow, students, this is not what I expected. Students, you have policies about what you believe about biological sex, about marriage, but there's an understanding, compassionate culture within that. My suspicion is that you would find the same thing in most Catholic schools at this point, and that this bill is not going to help actually reduce bullying. But, as the Catholic school raised, they saidâŠlet me find this part of the article. They expressed concerns that this would lead towards, you know, enforcing male and female bathroom policies, sports teams, and uniforms, that this would be downstream from it. And I share that concern.
Scott: And I think that, you know, that doesn't take a lot of imagination to see all of that coming to pass within the bill as it's currently constructed. And I think you're right that the dignity 1.0 and 2.0 is a really significant distinction. And it's the difference between dignity being recognized and dignity being ascribed or assigned to a person, increasingly based on their own subjective view of their own gender or sexual orientation. And the dignity 1.0 I think is the one that we need to hold onto. It's the objective form of dignity, where it's recognized by virtue of people being made in the image of God, as opposed to being assigned to certain protective classes. And as we know from the history of the 20th century, once human dignity and human rights are assigned by government, they can just as easily be removed. And with often very destructive results on this. So it wouldn't surprise me to see this extended to specifically recognizing someone's personal pronouns. And if you don't, that's not only considered bullying, but it's also considered a violation of their fundamental right to privacy. Which is an argument that I haven't heard before on this, that it's also being grounded in that right to privacy. In my view, this is significant overreaching by state government. And I think that's right, that the state is here bullying the parents of students in Catholic and religious and other private schools to toe the gender ideology line. And so, I think the Catholic Church is right to stand firm and let their voice be heard. And apparently like 10 to 15 thousand Catholics have written into the legislature already in opposition to the bill. So I think this is not the last that the legislature is going to hear on this. And I think that the Catholic ChurchâŠI commend them for you being clear about their view of the relationship between gender and biological sex. And that biological sex matters. And it's part of one of the givens that people are given by God. This is the way it is. So I think this is a very significant story. Not so much for the policy, but for the underlying worldview that is generating this. And it is clearly a worldview where gender and sexual orientation and other protected categories are becoming more and more subjective instead of objective. So, anything else on that?
Sean: You know, it just raises interesting questions, like, basically the worldview behind this is that your physical body and your biology does not necessarily relate to your identity. So my gender identity overrides my biological sex. I wonder if this goes through and it's pushed, are they also going to say, well, if somebody is 14 years old and they identify as a third grader, biological sex doesn't matter, can I now be in a third grade class? If I identify as one raceâŠI mean, once you severâŠyou know, can I really be the other race, whatever that means. But once you sever the tie between your biology and your identity, then there's no logical reason not to allow these other kinds of similar severances as well. Now, my suspicion is they won't take it that far, but, logically, in a sense, I think they should. So, pointing out this slippery slope which is not a fallacy, I think shows that our biology does inform who we are, and we know this, and this is, in a sense, what Scripture says. Right? Like you said a minute ago Scott, our bodies are a given right. They're not moldable and plastic so to speak. They are a part of who we are, and it's not something we decide, it's something we recognize. So, I think in conversation with people, we need to bring out some of these inconsistencies, and I think arguably show that it's actually a biblical worldview of what it means to be human that makes the most sense, not to mention gives us real dignity and gives us right and reasons not to actually bully people.
Scott: Hear, hear. All right, story number three also has significant worldview implications. There's more to the story than meets the eye. This is an editorial in The New York Times earlier this week by Bret Stevens, who is not Jewish, but he's asking a question, should American Jews abandon the elite universities of the Ivy LeagueâStanford, Berkeley, some of the west coast elite universitiesâin light of the anti-semitism that has been expressed on these campuses since October 7th of last year? He puts it like this: the notable fact about the anti-Israel campus demonstration is that they are predominantly an elite phenomenon. Yes, there have been protests at big state schools, but they've generally been small, tame, and, thanks to administrators being prepared to enforce the rules, relatively short-lived. It's Stanford, Berkeley, Yale, Penn, Harvard, Columbia, and many of their peers that have descended, in his view, to open bigotry, institutional paralysis and mayhem. So he raises two really interesting questions. First, why just the top universities? I think we can make a case that we've had demonstrations like this at a lot of other universities. In fact, some of the most violent ones have taken place at non-elite universities, like UCLA for example. And then, what should the Jewish community do about these? What should Jewish students and alumni do about them? And so, the key question he raises, and this is right in our wheelhouse, Sean, is where did the students get these ideas that generated their protests, and particularly how long lived they've been, and, in some cases, how violent they've been. And here's what he described. He summarizes, I think, beautifully like this. It's fundamentally a worldview question. They got them, I suspect, from the incessant valorization of victimhood that has been a theme of the student's upbringing, one of which most privileged kids feel they lack and hence the zeal to prove themselves as allies of the perceived depressed. They got them from the crude schematics of the diversity, equity, and inclusion training seminarsâand here's the key pointâwhich divide the world into white and of color, powerful and marginalized, with no regard for real-world complexities, including the complexity of Jewish identity. And he goes on and describes it like that. I love this, this is so helpful: âBut the real problem lies with some of the main convictions and currents of today's academia: intersectionality. critical theory, post-colonialism, ethnic studies, and other concepts that may not seem anti-semitic on their face, but tend to politicize classrooms and cast all Jews as privileged and oppressive. So Sean, this is, I think, really an interesting piece, and there's just so much to this, but before we go a little further let me hear your take on this.
Sean: Yeah, I've got three main takeaways. My grandfather served in World War II, and he passed away a few years ago. I think if when he was serving, or throughout his life, we had a conversation and I said, you know, hey, grandpa, in 2024, we're going to be having articles in The New York Timesânot even Fox Newsâand legitimate conversations about whether Jews feel so unsafe and discriminated against in elite universities, and maybe they should abandon them. I think he would have lost his mind and not imagined what he was fighting for years ago. I'm sure he is rolling in the grave at just the thought of this. Second thing is, I do think you're right to say this goes beyond elite universities. I think we saw it most at elite universities. It was highlighted, maybe, where they were the longest, and it certainly started there. We saw this unfolding at, like, Columbia, but I just want to read something from a journalist. He's actually an Arab Muslim. His name is Khaled Abu Toameh, and he's a highly respected correspondent on Palestinian affairs. He has expressed that he feels safer interviewing the PLO and Hamas leadership than he does giving lectures at U.S. collegesâand these are not just elite colleges. He says, quote, âThere's more support for Hamas on U.S. campuses than among Arabs in Israel.â Now that's his take, but that is his world, and he's experienced this. So I think it goes beyond elite universities and it's not just there. Now, critical theory plays a big role in this. I think he's right to draw attention to diversity, equity, and inclusion and critical theory, but I think an awful lot of these students are bringing some of these ideas to the university, and maybe they get exacerbated there. Maybe they get, you know, focused more there, but I think they're bringing it even earlier than that and that's because of, I think, a few things. There's more Muslim students now than there were in the past among this generation. That population is growing, and will tend to be more supportive of Palestinian efforts than Israelis, and are feeling the freedom to make themselves known. I think that might be a piece of it. But a far bigger piece is just social media. The way social media can get out on TikTok, and Instagram, and you name it. These ideasânow there's an endless platform for itâreaching generations younger and younger than they have in the past. And this is where some of the stats, to me, are really kind of harrowing, Scott, and I'll tell you. Think about this. Young adults 18 to 24 are more than three times as likely as the general population to deny that Israel even has a right to exist. That is significant. Now a Harvard CAPS poll two weeks after October 7th revealed that 51 percent of Gen Z agreed that, quote, âThe killing of 1200 Israeli civilians and the kidnapping of another 250 civilians can be justified by the grievances of Palestinians.â By December that figure had actually risen to 60 percent. Now, I don't know where it stands now, six, seven months later, but I don't think we can just blame elite universities for this. I think there's a lot of other factors pushing and promoting these ideas. Now, when it's all said and done, I'm not going to tell Jews what they should do, whether they should abandon universities or not. I don't understand what it's like to liveâespecially in Israelâunder that constant threat, to feelâŠhow discriminated many of them feel is harrowing, but I think the problem is far more systemic. In a sense, I look at it like this. Just like in public schools when people went home and started Zooming, there's a lot of parents who are going, wait a minute, my third graders are getting this, whether it's on gender stuff or critical theory. My high school students are getting this. It's kind of like the top came off and people saw it for what it was. I think October 7th kind of did the same thing to reveal, wait a minute, there's a deep rot, not only in our elite universities, but in many other universities as well.
Scott: Yeah, I think this is so right, to see this as fundamentally a worldview type of issue. I'd summarize it like this. This is a what I would call a neo-Marxist view of the world that underlies this, that categorizes people into categories of oppressor and oppressed. And you're either in one group or the other, depending on whether you're the right color, whether you're in a majority culture, whether you have wealth, you are generally considered to be an oppressor. And if you are not those things, you are considered to be part of the oppressed. And that puts Israel and the Jews clearly in the camp of the oppressors, even though to call the project of Israel as a nation a colonial project is just patently false on its face because when they first founded the nation of Israel back in 1917 and in 1948, the Jews were the most oppressed people in the world at that point, having been the victim of a Holocaust that killed over six million of them. So to put, I think, that ambivalence about what camp the Jews are in is, I think, a mark of the inconsistency of that worldview. But it just doesn't allow for nuance, it doesn't allow for exceptions to general rules. And I think it violates the biblical principle that the notion of sin and the inclination to be an oppressor doesn't run through between us and them. As Alexander Solzhenitsyn put it, that runs down right down through the middle of the human heart, that all of us have the capacity to be oppressors, regardless of our status, of our race, of our ethnicity, whether we're part of a marginalized group or not. One of the things that I think was really a great point that the article brought out, theyâre quoting a sociologist in this, and she made the point that higher education in general has traded humility and curiosity for conviction and advocacy. And I thought, that's really an insightful comment about where higher education is going today in many state and secular universities. And I agree this is much more widespread than the author of this article is making this out to be. And it is true that high school students, college students sometimes bring some of this into their college experience, but I don't see too many people on the college campus that are doing anything but reinforcing what they are already believing, as opposed to challenging. I just don't see a lot of challenge of that basic neo-Marxist worldview taking place on the college campus today.
Sean: I think that's really well said.
Scott: Any other thoughts on that?
Sean: Well, I I think you nailed it. I think there's just a lot of students seeing the inconsistency between making anti-semitic statements and racist statements. Obviously we would say you shouldn't make either of them, that's obvious, but the inconsistency of how some are called out and tolerated and others are called out and not tolerated is troubling on its face, but great thoughts.
Scott: So here's one final story. I think just a couple brief comments on this will suffice. This is reported, just a couple of days ago, the killing of a 12 year old girl in Houston. She was found last week basically in a city's drainage ditch after being strangled. That was already a terrible crime in and of itself, but when the investigators arrested two recent Venezuelan immigrants and charged them with killing the girl, basically all Sheol broke loose in the immigration debate on this. It became a flashpoint in the discussion over immigration. It was seized on by politicians, by immigration opponents who drew a direct line between that crime and President Biden's policies at the border; for example, Governor Abbott of Texas suggested that this little girl would be alive today if Biden forced immigration laws at the border, and Senator Ted Cruz and former President Trump added their amen to that. By contrast, proponents of immigration essentially say that this is an isolated incident. They point out that immigrants commit crimes at less frequency than do legal residents of the United States, particularly in the state of Texas. And it just struck me that this is a story that has become illustrative of what the immigration debate has become, and I'm not encouraged by that. I'll say a little bit more about that, and that was my main takeaway on this, is what does this tell us about the immigration debate? Sean, your thoughts.
Sean: Yeah, this was pretty harrowing. I saw the two parents, they were interviewed by Hannity on Fox News. And I mean, you could just see on their faces they were heartbroken, they were just at a loss for words. I put myself in their shoes because I have an 11 year old son who's 12 pretty much next month, and I have a daughter who's older, and just thought, this is about as terrible and horrible of news as you could get. It reminded me ofâŠthis is not the first time this has happened. I mean, the article points out a few other people recentlyâŠit points out Laken Riley, a 22-year-old nursing student killed in a Georgia park in February. Rachel Morin, 37, who authorities say was raped and killed last year while jogging in Maryland. This is not recent, but I also thought of a storyâI mean, it must have been 10 or 12 years agoâon The O'Reilly Factor, where O'Reilly was debating against Geraldo, and it got really heated. They were basically yelling at each other, and O'Reilly was like, basically, making the point that our justice immigration system has totally broken down, and we should not allow any illegal immigrants in because this kind of thing happens. Geraldo was making the argument that, like you pointed out, Scott, that immigrants commit less crimes than the population as a whole. He's saying, look, you're demonizing immigrants by making this story the center of immigration policy. That was kind of Geraldo's point back. And it got me thinking, what is the government's responsibility here? Is one failure like thisâand there's been more than oneâeven though it's the minority, is this a clear failure of our immigration system? And I think the answer is, we can chew gum and walk at the same time. We can recognize that we need immigrants in our country, we've been built upon immigrants coming to the country. In fact, we need immigrants partly because of the birth rate we've talked about decreasing so much over the past few years. There's seven million less Americans since 2008 because the birth rate dropped from 2.1 to 1.7. So there's a way of saying we need legal immigration, but the government has failed this individual family and the others. And it is somewhat harrowing in the article to me, where it says the spokesman for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said that two men crossed illegally into the country without being detected, and then it was not known where or when they had entered. Now, they were apprehended and then released later on. So, there's another article in The New York Times on this day about terrorism, interestingly enough, and about eight menâTajiksâwho had come in with apparent ties to the Islamic state, and they were being tracked, and they spread out to different states. So, the bottom line is, thereâs so much more to the immigration debate than this incident, as harrowing and terrible as it is. And my heart is just ripped out for this family. The government has absolutely failed this family and others by allowing undetected people in, and now it seems like there's more than ever into the country. I think we need to keep those in balance in some fashion. Now, last thing I would say, Scott, is there's a difference, I think, between the government's responsibility to protect its citizens and our job as Christians when we live amongst immigrants around us who are trying to have a job, trying to get education, trying to just make do. These are overlapping but also distinct questions. So I think we can say, I'm going to love the immigrants in my midst, but we've got to do better on border security here. And this is a sad reminder that I think our government has failed us.
Scott: Yeah, I concur. The one one takeaway that I have from this is, this is a window into the immigration debate in general and where it's headed, because I think anecdotal evidence and ad hominem arguments are taking the place of reasoned argument in this. And this is a very complicated public policy that's not reducible to a handful of anecdotal accounts and then resorting to name calling on behalf of both sides on this. And I think it's going to take a population that has some intellectual discipline to be able to recognize that this is complicated, and no public policy on immigration is going to be perfect. And there will be compromises. Thatâs the nature of the beast in public policy, is that it's settling for limited objectives in a fallen world. And so, I think it is the government's responsibility to protect us from people who would do us harm, that's certainly true, and my heart breaks for this family. It's just a horrible situation, but I think scoring political points on this, in the way that politicians on both sides have doneâthis paints a bad picture of what the immigration debate is actually going to be about. All right, should we answer some questions?
Sean: Let's do it.
Scott: We've got a lot of really good questions here, and Sean, I'm so glad that you are totally prepared to answer all of them.
Sean: [laughs]
Scott: All right. âA few years ago, some women in my small church asked me to lead a Bible study. Weâre the only class that meets on Sunday morning. Eventually, two men started attending the Bible study as well. I was raised that women aren't supposed to teach over men, but the pastor claims our Bible study is appropriate, because I'm teaching under, quote, âhis authority.â Now, someone's complained that I'm teaching over men. What should I do? Do I need to tell these men to stop attending the Bible study? I'd really appreciate wisdom from you on this sticky topic.â So, I'll weigh in first here, Sean, if you like. I hold to what I would call a soft complementarian view, that the Bible is pretty clear that there are, I think, a couple of areas that are reserved exclusively for men. One is headship in the home, which basically means that men are the ones who have the primary responsibility before God, and are the primary ones who will be held accountable before God, for passing on the spiritual legacy to their children. And then in the church, I think it is the exercise of ruling authority in the church that is reserved for men, which I take to be the role of elders and senior pastors. I think any other role for women in the church is appropriate. We have a lot of women students at Talbot that we are training to teach the Bible. Talbot's not an ordaining body, but we encourage women to develop their gifts in whatever ways that they think are appropriate. Now, I would not be in favor of having women as senior pastors or elders, because that's the exercise of ruling authority. So that's where I come down on this. Sean, any different on this?
Sean: No, I agree. The only thing I would add is if this person wants to do real research, there's really an amazing series by the youtuber Mike Winger, and he cites 1 Timothy 2:12. He did an 11 hour video on this, which might be overkill, but I think he has 10-12 videos, and I listened to most of them. And so, if you want to take this further and research it, that's a resource I would recommend. Mike Winger's a great youtuber, and he actually calls it Think Biblically on YouTube as well, which is kind of fun. I have no idea who came up with that title first. But that's all I would add. I think that was a great answer, Scott.
Scott: Well, if you're not up for 11 hours of video, our colleague Michelle Lee-Barnewall has done what I think is the best book on this, entitled Neither Complementarian Nor Egalitarian. It's just really insightful stuff. All right, question number two. Sean, this is for you specifically.
Sean: Okay.
Scott: So, it says, âHi Sean, I am actually confused if my faith is genuine, as I do not have a thanksgiving heart and enthusiasm in worship and assurances other Christians have. I've been on antidepressants for a year due to my confusion and anxiety. I do not trust myself. I feel Christian life is very difficult, and my heart hardens reading the Bible portions âwork out your own salvation,â âobey my commandments,â and so on. You can confuse the fact that it works to be loved by God. What do I do?
Sean: Well, one thing I would say is, you and I had an episode, I can't remember, maybe six, eight weeks ago on mental health with one of our very own colleagues, talking about a biblical way of approaching mental health. So maybe we can link to that below, and that would be a great place to start. This wasn't a weekly Cultural Update, but it was one of our regular videos, just, how do we even think biblically about mental health? So we can link to that. Second, if I was going to recommend a book, hands down I would recommend the work of Henry Cloud, who's done some stuff for us here at Talbot and Biola. In fact, his book called Changes That Healâmy dad came from just a really broken background of an abusive father to the rest of his family, although not to my dad. Sexual abuse, his sister took her own life, and my dad endorsed the book. And he, in the book, Changes That Heal, he said next to the Bible, this has had the most influence on my life. And I think he meant it, dealing with some of those mental health issues. So I would recommend everything by Henry Cloud to answer that question.
Scott: All right, I'll let that go as is, thanks. Hereâs a comment that came in from our colleague in Old Testament, Dr. Charlie Trimm, on our episode on polyamory that was posted a few weeks ago. I'm just going to read his response, it's very insightful: âI don't remember if I read this or if I came up with this, but another possible reason for the rise of polyamory is as a response to the Me Too movement. If Me Too was a condemnation of hookup culture, then how would people continue to sleep around? Well, if the answer to the Me Too problem is a lack of consent and the lack of long-term relationships, then one way to continue sleeping around was to gain consent for multiple long-term relationships. In that sense, polyamory is actually a step in the right direction! But I'd imagine if polyamory continues to grow, it will face its own Me Too backlash in a few years, as many within these relationships will experience that it still isn't fulfilling. So, it's kind of a response like that from Christine Emba, can we just love the other person for their good? It's a good start, but still not the answer. A bolder response like that from Louise Perry, that monogamous marriage is good for women, hopefully is eventually what our society will experience as the truth. This is a lived out example of a C.S. Lewis ideaâthat all reality is iconoclastic. Reality doesn't let us get away with following our own sinful desires without consequence.â Charlie, I think a terrific comment on this. Sean, anything you want to add to that?
Sean: Well, all I would say is that last line about âreality doesn't let us get away with following our own sinful desires without consequence.â Reality is undefeated, it's never lost. And just yesterday, I was talking to my 11 year old son about, you know, we literally talked about the question if God has saved us by grace, why should we not sin? And the first answer is because of God's holiness and et cetera, but second, I said, sin always hurts somebody, buddy. It hurts God, it hurts yourself, and it hurts others. And I think polyamory, as well intentioned as it is, cannot override reality and God's design as expressed in the Scriptures for relationships. Now, I hope the church won't be there to just say we told you so, rather the church would be there to love, and listen, and care for people who will be victims of this Me Too movement that may come for polyamory if it grows. That's my hope, that we can just love and care for these people who will be gravely disappointed when things don't work out as they hope.
Scott: Theyâll be additional victims of this chapter of the sexual revolution.
Sean: That's right.
Scott: All right. Now, here's another one, Sean. âCan you analyze the argument from personality, that the Trinity is exactly three persons because God's soul necessarily contains the mind, the will, and emotions.â What do you make of that?
Sean: Well, I wish the person had given more details about exactly what the argument from personality is. I don't know if there's a larger argument called that, or if this is just this individual's title, but when it says the Trinity is exactly three persons because God's soul necessarily contains the mind, will ,and emotions, I would say the Trinity is three persons because that is who God is. That's not for any other external reason other than who God, by His very nature, is. Now, what do we mean by the Trinity? The word Trinity comes from âtri-,â for three, and âunity,â for one. Like a university has unity and diversity. So the three-ness is that there are three distinct persons, hence âtri.â The âunityâ is the oneness of substance or beingâthere's one God who exists as three persons. So if God's soul has mind, will, and emotionsâand even that we could debate and discuss theologically what that means, and how much we agree with thatâat best this is an analogy that tries to help us understand what it means that God is triune. All analogies are going to fall short in some fashion. They just do. And because God is sui generis, unique, we shouldn't expect any analogy to perfectly capture it. So I would just say, it's interesting that there could be three, you know, components, so to speak, to God's character: mind, will, and emotions. But I'm not sure that's the same as God being one God in three distinct persons who all share the same essential attributes in a way that will, mind, and emotions don't.
Scott: Yeah, that's a really clear theological statement that I think we need to answer that question. That's really well said. Here's one more, and this has to do with the moral argument for God, in a little different twist to it. He says, âI'm a Christian, but I try to be open-minded to philosophical arguments. Here's one I recently stumbled on, and it bothered me, because I'm not sure how to resolve it. If we can judge the moral character of a dog owner by the actions their dog exhibits, then can we do the same for God's moral character based on the actions of animals acting on their instinct as God intended? If so, then those with lower sentienceâtherefore less chance that their actions are being influenced by anything other than instinctsâwould be the best indicator, right, with some of the actions they exhibit.â Okay, well, what would you say to that? I've got some thoughts on this too, but once you weigh in first.
Sean: Iâve got to admit, I've heard a lot of questions, Scottâthis is a new one.
Scott: Is that right?
Sean: Iâve actuallyâyeah, I'd never really heard this before. I would only add one wrinkle to this. I think we have to be careful moving from judging a dog owner by the actions of a dog, that the dogâŠyou know, this owner did not create the dog, did not make the dog. And when we have an owner, we don't know if an owner took a stray dog that already had certain characteristics embedded within it that are problematic and are trying to rein it in, we don't know if this owner has just, in a wrong way, trained this dog to act in a manner that, like, that's unbecoming, whatever, that's dangerousâwe don't know any of those questions. That's completely different than God making animals in the first place, so I just would question the analogy. But we also have to add sinfulness. And there's a difference between an original sin and a dog owner having a dog now, and God making human beings, and then, in the garden, the Fall and sin corrupted animals within themselves. Now, we don't know exactly how that happened and to what extent it is, but that's a piece that would make a far distinction between a dog owner and God as the creator of all animals that are out there. That's all I got on this one, tell me what you think.
Scott: Well, this question took a little different twist than I was anticipating. I expected him to say, can't we do the same for God's moral character based on the actions of human beings? Acting on instinct as God intended. But, we'll go with the question as itâs stated. And I agree with you, being a dog owner of two myself, I would not win anybody passing judgment on my character based on the behavior of my dogs.
Sean: [laughs]
Scott: That could get ugly really, really quickly. And I think you're right, my question has to do with the premise on this. And I don't think you can judge anybody's character, God's especially, based on the action of people acting on instinct, because instinct is not necessarily the way God intended. We have instincts that are also due to sin. I mean, you know, human beings have an instinct to lust that is, in many cases, very difficult to control, but that's certainly not the way God intended. As a result of the general entrance of sin. So I think the wholeâŠI would not want to judge God's character based on anyone acting on instinct without knowing whether that instinct was the result of the general entrance of sin, or the result of the result being made in the image of God. So I think that's probably all we have time for on that one, but a really perceptive question. This listener gets the award for asking a question to Sean that he's never heard before.
Sean: [laughs]
Scott: I think there ought to be a prize for that. So hey, I want to remind our listeners that this is the last weekly Cultural Update we're going to do for this stretch until August 1st. Sean and I are going to take a break in July. Now, the weekly Cultural Update will resume on August 1st, but during the month of July, our regular Tuesday podcast will continue uninterrupted. And so, we'd encourage you to continue listening on Tuesday, even though on Fridays for the month of July, Sean and I are going to be taking the month off to recharge our batteries and to get some perspective. We're going to do some evaluation of the weekly Cultural Update to see what changes we can make. We want to remind you, if you have suggestions or comments about how we can make the Friday weekly Cultural Update serve you better, please write in to us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu. That's thinkbiblically@biola.edu. We'd really like to hear from you on this because we were committed to having this Friday episode serve you as well as we possibly can. Any thoughts to add on that?
Sean: Yeah, I gotta admit, it's somewhat nice to take a little bit of a break. Sometimes in the afternoon after we record this, you and I text or email each other stories for the next week. I'm like, we got four weeks off, and I'll track the news, and I want to understand what's going on, but it's kind of nice to take a break. I knew this was going to take some work. I mean, I would guess five to seven hours a week just to read, and think, and hopefully give substantive thoughts that really help our listeners think biblically. So this is an experiment for Scott and I. You know, in some ways, I'll be totally honest, some of you probably think we know what we're doing as podcasters, but we're just like, let's try this. Sometimes we're just making it up as we go, doing our best, but the reason we do it is we want to equip and encourage and motivate all of our listeners to think biblically. So whether it's big comments or small comments, the length of episodes, the number of shows, the type of questions we take, if you have a favorite Cultural Update in particular, like, I really love that you did this story, or you talk about this story too much, I wish you covered thisâwhatever thoughts that have gone through your mind, I can't promise you we will make the change, but I can promise you we will read all of the emails that come in. And before our next episode, Scott and I are going to have an intentional conversation about how we can tweak and make this better to even serve you. One more thing, Scott, if people are listening to this on Friday, which is, of course, the day we drop it, and the day after the debate, is we said nothing about the debate. As we get into this fall, there will be a lot of discussion about politics and the race, and it at times we might weigh into this biblically, but since everybody else is talking about that, we wanted to cover stories that are still taking place as the world goes on, so we don't get so caught up in, kind of, the drama of the moment and miss these big themes that are happening. So if you're following this podcast because you want political commentary, you're following the wrong podcast. We want to help you think biblically about everything, including politics, but not just weigh into every little incident. There's plenty of commentary like that out there.
Scott: Well said, good addition.
Sean: So this has been fun, Scott. I'm going to enjoy this break, but I'm already looking forward to picking up again in August with some new speed.
Scott: And I appreciate you wiping out the illusion that we actually know what we're doing on this.
Sean & Scott: [laugh]
Scott: So hey, thanks, this has been fun, and we will look forward to resuming the weekly Cultural Update in the first Friday in August. So for today, this has been an episode of the podcast Think Biblically: Conversations on Faith and Culture, brought to you by Talbot School of Theology at Biola University, offering all sorts of programs in southern California and online at the masters and the bachelor's level. Visit biola.edu/talbot in order to learn more. Like I said, if you have questions, suggestions, issues you want us to cover, email us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu. If you enjoyed today's conversation, please, please give us a rating on your podcast app, that's really important, and share it with a friend. Join us this coming Tuesday for our regular podcast episode, where I interview Sean about his new book 12 Crucial Truths About Christianity. Thanks for listening, and remember, think biblically about everything.
