This week, Sean and Scott discuss:

==========

Think Biblically: Conversations on Faith and Culture is a podcast from Talbot School of Theology at Biola University, which offers degrees both online and on campus in Southern California.

Find all episodes of Think Biblically at: https://www.biola.edu/think-biblically.
Watch video episodes at: https://bit.ly/think-biblically-video.

To submit comments, ask questions, or make suggestions on issues you'd like us to cover or guests you'd like us to have on the podcast, email us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu.


Episode Transcript

Sean: Is support of national borders unloving to immigrants and in conflict with Christian compassion? Is the biggest threat from artificial intelligence not the possibility of it becoming conscious but it making us less human? And how in medicine the morally unthinkable can become normalized? These are some of the stories and topics we will discuss today and we also address some of your excellent questions you've sent in. I'm your host Sean McDowell

Scott: and I'm your co-host Scott Rae.

Sean: This is the Think Biblically Weekly Cultural Update brought to you by Talbot School of Theology Biola University. Scott, this first story you sent me is really, really interesting. We've talked about immigration quite a bit on this podcast but I don't think we've addressed it on the Weekly Cultural Update. This is a piece that you sent to me. It's called The theology of immigration by Brad Littlejohn and I'm gonna just lay out for folks some of the ideas here because it's gonna take a little bit of just kind of a little bit of development here. It starts off by talking about how the debate over immigration is just tearing the church apart and the differences between mainline which tend to say things like love has no borders and evangelical Christians according the article as a whole demand a wall. Now it makes a point that Tom Holland who's not a Christian who has written a fascinating book called “Dominion” and he's argued that throughout history it's actually Western nation shaped by a Christian worldview that made the idea of welcoming the stranger even thinkable about love for neighbor. So he considers that a good throughout history that he attributes to Christian kind of charity and love for neighbor. Now here's what he argues for in this article and this is the author of the piece Littlejohn. He says in my estimation secure borders, national sovereignty and limited immigration are affirmed by traditional Christian moral theology. Now before some people lose their minds on this or start cheering let's at least hear his argument out. He says there's nothing sacred about lines on a map; they are human constructions. He says but these goods, the goods of hearth and homeland are not to be despised for without them we would lose our humanity. Now how does he do this? He's asking, does the appeal to hospitality entail a call to abolish or open borders? That's the question. So to show hospitality in my own home he says I must have a home. That is a house with four walls and doors that open close and can be locked. To invite people into this home I must have a clear distinction between residents and between guests. So he's kind of making this argument from the home and the need to have borders and boundaries that's still welcoming and loving of the neighbor with a nation. That's kind of the heart of his argument. So he says the lesson is clear. A nation likewise ought to be open to strangers but it will soon have little to offer either residents or visitors if it does not establish appropriate limits. A nation without borders is no better than a house without walls. Now the quick examples he gives he says and I appreciated this he says that Biblical Israel is an imperfect analog for modern nation states. He's right about that but the idea of Israel is that it had norms, it had borders certainly in a sense when it was within the land and traditions, a sense of national identity but also was called to care for and love the sojourners. So that's a kind of a model for a nation from the Old Testament. When it comes to New Testament he actually says he goes all the way back to Aquinas and cites you know one of the great Catholic thinkers about how private property has resulted from the fall but is just a good because we can't have communal ownership of everything. We actually need private property for trade and for the functioning of a society for a common good. So how does this matter? He says again if we turn our home into a homeless shelter or into like a refugee camp then we can't actually function home and care for our neighbors. So kind of the heart of his argument is that a nation like a family exists not for itself but for the sake of all but if it doesn't have clear boundaries and borders and identity of what that nation is it won't be able to benefit all. That's the root of his case. So he argues that progressive demands for open borders is just a refusal to make any kind of judgment. And I thought this point was interesting. He says our culture today refuses to discern that a marital union differs from casual sex or that a man differs from a woman. To insist on boundaries between girls and boys sports is now deemed bigotry in many circles. And so he's kind of saying there's this sense of things are blurry and not fixed and we see this in the gender debate but we also see it when it comes to issues like borders and in both cases we need some clarity. Now a ton more can be said here but basically in some he's moving from the need to have boundaries and borders in a home to function well for the sake of the objective common good to a nation-state functioning the same way. Did you pick this because you like his argument Scott or did you pick this because you wanted to critique it?

Scott: No I picked it primarily because I like the argument but it's also I think relevant this particular week because President Biden's has been criticized heavily this week for not giving the right kind of attention to the issue of immigration and the claim is that we are being overrun by immigrants and the borders are not secure enough. And so and I think for our listeners you know be aware this is this will come up at least once or twice a month over this election cycle as as the candidates debate this is this is you know the polls tell us this is front and center one of the most the most important issues for both people on the left and the right. Now to be fair I don't think that it's it's necessarily the case that those who advocate for immigrant rights and immigration reform are entire are arguing for entirely open borders. They're arguing for more porous borders than what we have and being more hospitable in our laws to migrants coming into the country but you know advocating for reform and rights for immigrants does not necessarily mean that you're advocating for completely open borders. So I want to be fair about that and I think you know Tom Holland is clearly right and there I think even today there are very few other other cultures besides those that have been influenced by Christianity that have been so compassionate and so open-handed toward migrants and I think you know the the notion that that you can be open-handed and and welcoming to migrants presumes that you have the resources and the boundaries that are that are necessary and available to accommodate the people who are coming into your country and I think the obligation or hospitality does I think presume a clear distinction between residents and guests. If you don't and you know the idea that if you if you if your home doesn't have walls you don't have a home and if you don't have doors that can close you're not a home you're a hostel and so and I think the the the analogy to Israel I think is right. Israel was a nation with clear boundaries. Basically the original boundary was from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea and yet that the call to hospitality did not abolish their borders or their boundaries and yet in the Old Testament I think it means to be clear not all immigrants were considered equal in the same. There were some who two different Hebrew words are used to describe migrants coming into Israel. The Gair is the one who was was basically all in on being assimilated to Israelite culture and worship. The other one called the the Nokba is the one who was not so much either willing or capable of being integrated into Israelite society. Part I particularly found helpful was the discussion about private property and political authority and the question that he raises I think it's a really good one. If not for the fall would we need either of these or are they God-given goods to be used for the common good? I think you can make a very persuasive case, one that I hold, that both private property and government will be necessary even if there were no fall but it just so happens that they're pretty handy given the propensity to human sin and I think private property is essential to the prosperity of our communities for more than just charity and it's only nations that have the means to welcome migrants. Those are the ones with advanced market economic systems and so I think even having having the ability to welcome migrants the way we do presumes that you have some sort of wealth generating system that gives you the resources to accommodate them because if you don't then eventually you get you get to what the former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's criticism of socialism was that eventually you run out of other people's money.

Sean: Right.

Scott: And you know I think government in general is simply how it's about how we order our lives together in community and I think we need that regardless of whether the fall occurred or not. So those are just some thoughts. I think the argument is very persuasive and I think the argument arguing by analogy from the home and from private property I think is theologically correct and I think the Bible supports both of those things.

Sean: I thought it was interesting to hear a biblical argument so thoughtful for borders because it seems at least in my experience we hear it so much more for love in the neighbor and for compassion and for caring and of course there's biblical truth in that but the idea of a biblical argument for borders that goes along with compassion was an important piece to add to this. I like that he says you know it's not just all about making borders we've got to care for people but if we don't have borders we can't ultimately care for people it's not one or the other there's some truth. Now how that plays out practically is where it gets really difficult and I don't necessarily have a solution to all of those dilemmas that's where it gets difficult but that balance I thought was helpful. Hey let me ask you something fast just kind of for fun you said private property is not and government the result of the fall typically arguments would be like the ninth commandment or not the ninth commandment don't steal that eighth commandment is implies that there's such a thing as private property or Abraham goes and buys a lot for Sarah to be buried after she passes these are the kind of arguments for private property so if they didn't result from the fall do you think there'll be private property and governance of a kind in heaven?

Scott: Yes yeah I do it will be a it's the best way to put this a a beneficent monarch being King Jesus will be that will be the form of government it will not be probably anything remotely resembling democracy but it will be it will be a monarchy with with the resurrected Jesus on the throne.

Sean: Good good word I think as a whole this argument reminded me we're called to love others as we love ourselves if I don't take care of my health I'm not in a position to love others and that's why he's go ahead.

Scott: And what they what he points out I think is right is that just just like in a family a nation must distinguish between residents and neighbors and the the residents just like family members enjoy a primary claim to the resources of the nation just as the family enjoys a primary claim to the resources of the family and neighbors have a secondary claim but a family that never opens its home to the less fortunate has failed to understand its calling as a family and and by analogy so a nation that offers no hospitality to outsiders would be judged as xenophobic but to your point about how it has to be teased out that hospitality has to be you know carefully discerned or the less the nation be burdened by too many guests and that those welcomed in become dependent in a way that corrupts their character I think those are both significant things that have to be discerned and his criticism of the open borders advocates is that they don't have to practice that kind of discernment and that's a hard that's the hard part it's a it's a prudential judgment and those are hard choices and I think a part of being in a fallen world is that no no immigration policy is going to be perfect but if we you can't say that just having borders is incompatible with having compassion toward toward neighbors and migrants who are in need.

Sean: Well said good good analysis well I would encourage folks to read that article and wrestle with it think about it's really really thoughtful. Now this next one Scott kind of blew me away and when I got towards the end of the article…

Scott: This one is so much fun.

Sean: I did not see the end of this article coming although it makes perfect sense and this one is in the Atlantic and it says the big AI risk not enough people are seeing. And so the typical risk people say is that is AI going to spawn consciousness like in Terminator or iRobot and turn on us and try to destroy us this article says no it's actually a more subtle step-by-step loss of our humanity that we might not even see that is a greater danger and to make this point the author uses a trend in dating apps and there's this trend and the author is Tyler Harper and he quotes Whitney Wolfe-Herd who's the exact founder and executive chair of the dating app Bumble and what this app is doing according to this article is taking out the middleman so to speak who would normally find you might say hey you should meet my friend you know when you're trying to connect somebody for a date an artificial intelligence now will winnow down possibilities of people that you could date and according to this thing it says you're artificial like concierge will actually go on dates for you and do this work and so this quote says you know and then this is the the founder of the bumble app says, “then you don't have to talk to 600 people this app will scan all of San Francisco for you and say these are the three people you really ought to meet.” So the question is do we want something like this an app that does typical tasks that a friend or a church or even you might meet somebody at a bar do we want to take out that middle road yes or no what do we lose in doing so and so I appreciate the author says hypothetical AI dating concierge sounds silly and they're not exactly humanity's greatest threat but we do well to think of the bumble founders bubbly sales pitch as a canary in the coal mine a harbinger of a world of algorithms that leave people struggling to be people without assistance. So I think at the root of this the question is we love artificial intelligence we want it but we want it for some tasks and not for others so I think about the first time I heard this probably 15 or 20 years ago about a guy who broke up with a girl through texting and I thought okay wait a minute here's technology that's enabling somebody not to look at somebody face to face or at least pick up the phone and call them and take the easy way out you could argue that that maybe dehumanizes us does artificial intelligence potentially do the same kind of thing. And so I could keep going there's so much more in this this one line says online dating has become hegemonic the wingman is out digital matchmaking is in and then in this quote it says but what really happens that we become so reliant on algorithmic decisions that we lose oversight over our own thought processes and even social relationships so bottom line is we want artificial intelligence to help us with tasks like diagnosing cancer but is it subtly dehumanizing us in the process? And then last point that was like a bomb in this article Scott it says if we ask this question this is assuming there's such a thing as human nature in other words is human nature entirely like clay that we can just change and manipulate or is there a fixed human nature in which certain behaviors are good for us to help us flourish and if AI encroaches on those kind of behaviors it dehumanizes us and what freaks out the author of this he says it sounds like right-wing echoes and he's right because on the right there tends to be an objective truth that we discover and we fix our lives to it the left tends to be and of course we have to define who we mean by the left things are a little bit more malleable and they can change and they can adapt there's not a fixed human nature. Now I've got more thoughts on this article but I would love to know what your take was and why and why you wanted to discuss this one.

Scott: Well it's precisely because of the question that was raised at the end there and what makes us human and I want to think biblically about that and think philosophically about that because I think that is a really important question that's being raised here so the kind of the first thing that you know that I thought about is that is by appealing to something like human nature he's committed cultural heresy because that you know, in you know in much of the cultural elite circles and in act certainly in academic circles the idea that there is something like a relatively fixed human nature now that went out the window years and years ago and what it's given us is not what Nietzsche put when you know people stop believing in God they don't believe in they don't believe in nothing they believe in anything and once the idea of human nature went out the window people started believing in anything not not nothing about human beings it was anything could be put under that heading of quote human so it raises that really important question about what makes us human and I'd want to suggest from from a biblical perspective it's not necessarily any particular capacity that makes us human but being made in God's image is what makes us human it's a status not a series of functions and the reason for that is because with a lot of these functions that you know that are described as being you know key to what it means to be human those are more or less capacities that you can have and if the image of God is tied to that and that means the image of God is something that is a degree property as well but the image of God is something that you are all or nothing and you were either made in God's image or you are not and so I would not put what makes us distinctly human in terms of these series of functions the better question which he hinted at but used it interchangeably with being human is what makes for flourishing individuals and communities does life regulated by algorithms contribute or detract from our flourishing. So another way to put this are we better off as a community and as individuals if things like critical thinking spontaneous relationships reasoning imagining creating forming familial bonds things like that if they are undermined or replaced and does artificial intelligence enhance our abilities in these areas or as our author suggests does it outsource them and I think the latter of those I think is is undeniably true in some of these real key life skills areas and it's you know and it's AI is teaching us things like you know how to fix meals it's teaching us things like you know nutritional things that you know our grandmother's intuition used to tell us about you know it's it's it's helping us form relationships it's giving us substitutes for therapists you know are we better off with those kinds of things being outsourced to chat bots and AI software. I think it I think most of these things I share the authors concern about this I think AI enhances our abilities in some really key areas that have nothing to do with whether we whether we you know flourish fundamentally or not and I think that's those are the case of no harm no foul but when it outsources forming relationships forming what what will make for a familial bonds when it outsources you know critical thinking when it outsources writing turns writers into editors at best if not just full-on plagiarists then I then I think we have reason to be concerned about that

Sean: when I look at an article like this I asked myself am I optimistic that we're going to heed the advice of the author or my pessimistic you know read this and human nature is just to take the easiest route out that's in all of us so why text a breakup rather than face-to-face it's easier don't have to deal with the pain why have an artificial intelligent concierge date for me so I don't have to go ask somebody out and get rejected I don't have to take nose it takes the time and the money but and whatever it is well what are we losing in that process is a question we often don't ask so sadly I'm reading this I feel like the artificial intelligence in some areas great and wonderful but this artificial intelligence train is moving forward and going to take up some of these tasks that many a ways will dehumanize us now why I especially like this article is the greatest dangers are subtle one of my favorite classes at Biola my senior year with Todd Lewis was on persuasion and he said the most effective persuasion is when you don't even realize you're being persuaded so if I'm listening to a sermon or political speech I know someone's trying to persuade me if I watch a movie I kind of think I'm just being entertained but ideas are coming through powerfully in stories and so it's not just entertainment this kind of danger from artificial intelligence is subtle it's step-by-step it promises a certain kind of freedom and so I'm just not super optimistic that we're going to heed his advice here and I think in many ways this question he's asking aren't really new we've always had technology I mean I remember in college one of my assistant basketball coaches at Biola was like he said he would never eat fast food because he thought there's something sacred about making a meal relationally being together and I thought you know I'm gonna eat fast food but that's a really good reminder to not let technology get in the way of sharing a meal with somebody that is a human good we can't lose so I'm just afraid step by step we're gonna lose some of our humanity take the easy road out now is this gonna change human nature of course not because human nature is fixed this is what scripture teaches us and every single experiment in history whether it's existentialism or Marxism or certain things tied to gender theory that thought we can just bend human nature is always disastrous we can't change human nature so I'm pretty pessimistic I hate to say it where do you land on this one Scott?

Scott: Well I think one thing that struck me about this is these are the kinds of things to you know take the dating algorithm this is the kind of thing you could you know you could sort of you could dip your toe in the water you know they're not the kinds of things you have to fully embrace right off of that you can try it and you can you can see how it works and I think the more people try this the more people will be sucked into it and so I'm not particularly optimistic either I think this is a this is a fast-moving train that left the station some time ago and the combination of this AI technology plus market capitalism and the money that's going to be made off of this is just is too is too much to resist but I think the thing that concerns me about it is that the parents now can be almost exempt from having to teach their kids some of the basic life skills you know I wanted I wanted to I teach my kids how to date you know how to how to write reflect how to how to cook a meal I mean these are some really just basic life skills that you know technology is helping is helping us do but those are life skills that you know we took as Givens not that long ago and that they were being taught to children by their parents and I fear that some of those things will get will let parents off the hook for some of the things that they need to be instilling in their kids.

Sean: I've never used a dating app but reading this article made me think in what other areas could artificial intelligence entice me to take the easy road out and in a sense dehumanize me I don't know the answer to that but just putting that on our radar I think is huge as our culture jumps on this artificial intelligence train and it's never going back I do really agree with him that is a bigger threat than the idea of artificial general intelligence ever spawning like in Terminator. Any last thoughts or are you good?

Scott: I don't think the Terminator is coming ever not just not anytime soon but ever and but these incremental things, the things that might go unnoticed are the things that I think are the real danger points.

Sean: Fair enough I actually saw this article that you sent over this was from last week and I thought huh I wonder Scott would want to discuss this forgot about it and then you said it to me I thought oh we're actually getting on the same page here Scott this is a good sign

Scott: Yeah after six years

Sean: There you go that's right we're in you're right we're in year six in and this is in the New York Times so last week it says in medicine the morally unthinkable too easily comes to seem normal now this is a piece from a book forthcoming book called the occasional human sacrifice medical experimentation and the price of saying no and it's an essay adapted from a doctor by name of dr. Elliott and here's what he scribes he says in the year 1985 he and a few medical students are gathered around an operating table where an anesthetized woman has been prepared for surgery the attendee physician a gynecologist asked the group has everyone felt a cervix here's your chance one after another we take turns inserting two glove fingers inside the unconscious woman to feel the cervix. Had the woman consented to a pelvic exam? Did she understand that when the lights went dim she'd be treated like a clinical practice dummy? Her genitalia palpated by a succession of untrained hands? I don't know like most medical students I just did what I was told. Now there's new requirements and guidelines that have come out of the Department of Health and Human Services requiring informed consent for pelvic exams and other intimate procedures performed under anesthesia and the question this that's asked in this piece is if you're a witness to wrongdoing will you be brave enough to speak out this is not as simple as it seems part of what makes medical training so unsettling is how often you're thrust in situations in which you really don't know how to behave but you also trust those around you that they know something you don't know and you don't want to you know risk your career your reputation there's all these things that just suggest going with the flow so to speak and then the author cites how there's many most egregious ethical abuses in recent decades have taken place in some of the most recognizable and prominent bioethics programs and they list out some universities in this article that all of our our listeners would recognize. Now you work in bioethics you've worked in hospitals. I'm curious why you picked this and how serious of a concern is it?

Scott: Well this is a major hit that my field just took from this particular author because the universities that he cites are some of the preeminent bioethics programs in the United States and they have all been places where we've had incredible medical scandals that have taken place but this doesn't just happen in medicine this happens in the corporate world too and part of the reason I was so interested in this piece it occurs right at the very end of the article where he makes where he makes the statement that our danger is that you will see your colleagues and superiors do horrible things and be afraid to speak up but the more subtle danger is that you will no longer see what they are doing as horrible you will just think this is the way it is done. And in medicine specifically, but you know not not not exclusively to medicine by any means. Unthinkable things to outsiders can be seen as normal it's just seen as part of the way things are done as people are socialized into the practices of medicine and companies do this too they have training programs to get employees on the same page they can be subject to group think just like medical students can be and the author points out very insightful I think this is especially dangerous in organizations that exist with some sort of explicit moral purpose like medicine and you know business that claims to be working for the common good. Now there there are lots of other I mean we Sean we go on for the next hour and a half on the scandals that have been done, not only in medicine but in in business just because this is the way employees have been socialized into doing things that particularly and you wonder why didn't people anybody speak up in any of these things? You know why why didn't when the when the Space Shuttle Challenger you know blew up shortly after it it was launched there the people who made the o-rings that separated the the the compartments of the rocket and then separated the fuel from the rest of the rocket were failing because the temperature was too cold. They begged NASA to stop the launch to delay the launch and the folks at NASA the executives said they took off their engineering hats and put on their business hats and compartmentalized their public and private lives or public and private morality in ways that made them susceptible to the pressures that they were getting from the people above them this just it was just the way things were done. The author points out that in the 1930s and 40s they subjected hundreds of black men to syphilis and they had one one group of men that they were testing out cures for the other group of men even after they knew the cures were working they did not give the cures to the other group of men because they needed a control group for the for their research. You know totally unethical and it took years. It wasn't until the Cliff administration that the government finally apologized to the black community for doing this. You know we've had I mean we could go on and on, and but the takeaway from this I think is to see how organizations or guilds like medicine or practices like a medical residency can socialize people out of their moral compasses and convincing that this is just the way it's done. And one of the main ways it does that is compartmentalizing one's life into private and public spheres but to think biblically about this if the lordship of Christ means anything that compartmentalization of life the lordship of Christ over all of life renders that compartmentalization hugely problematic and what the what the people will tell you in the you know in these institutions that did these terribly unethical and in many cases illegal things is that these are things for one that they would never have done to their friends or family members or neighbors, but once they were in in the workplace or in a in the in the practice setting they felt like they could compartmentalize that. The other thing is that they often wondered how did we get here for example one of the main things that we teach in business ethics is a case of BF Goodrich years ago when they were putting the they were making the brakes for fighter jets for the Air Force and the brake was too small and it was failing all the tests and so in an effort to keep their contract with the Air Force they falsified the test data and and recalibrated the instruments to make them pass the qualification test well they actually put these defective brakes on aircraft themselves with test pilots flying them and when the brakes were tested they failed so badly they got so hot that all of the all of the the brake component fused together and took them crowbars to undo them. They didn't realize that you know somebody so a test pilot could have been killed in these test flights and how they got there was one small step at a time because they were socialized into this is just how it was done. So again the danger is not that you won't not only that you won't speak up but you won't see a need to speak up because your moral compass has been skewed by the way things are done. You know Enron's another great I'm we go on and on with examples of this so that's I think the big takeaway from this and the application is much much bigger than just for medicine but I would encourage our listeners to be really careful about the training programs and the you know the ways that companies socialize employees into doing things their way if dissenting opinion is not allowed or is marginalized or is shunted off to the side that's a good example of group think taking place and be especially careful for group think in in organizations that have a specific explicit moral dimension to it.

Sean: It seems like this relates back to our earlier story in the sense that is there such a thing as human nature and all of these cases say that there is a oftentimes an unwillingness or a fear to speak up which is clearly human nature because that could come at a risk to my reputation to my job so there's something about human nature we're afraid to risk when it costs us something that's for sure…

Scott: Which it almost always does.

Sean: that's right that's right almost always does but then there's also others a fixed human nature, our moral nature then can get corrupted by our choices by our environment by seeing and experiencing certain things this is kind of a story of both of those in a sense of what it means to be human and given that you gave examples not only in medicine but in business and in the Challenger I mean these are cross discipline examples to show that these are not just a select few individuals but all of us are capable of being affected in this way by the groups that we belong to. That's a big takeaway. Now one quick question for you I can imagine some people going okay Scott this happened in the US this is a critique of capitalism because in the Challenger they let business get in the way of advancing you know what was ethical and what was right and people in that case you shared I was not aware of that people were crying out telling them to stop but business principles took supreme that's because of capitalism I'm curious how you might respond to that kind of charge.

Scott: I'd say greed is a human vice not an economic one and exist independently of economic systems there. In fact I think you can make an argument that there's actually more greed and envy in systems where people can't get ahead where they are stuck in the socioeconomic class or segment that they were born into. And the idea that you can advance yourself is something I think unique to advanced market systems and yeah greeds a part of that but greed infects every system because we have self-centered miserable wretched depraved sinners in all of them. So I wouldn't give any other economic system a pass, because anytime you have scarcities you're gonna have greed enter the picture and it just so happens that market systems are the best at at dealing with scarcity in productive ways as opposed to simply redistributing wealth and income.

Sean: That's helpful good good stuff I know we could keep going on and on in this story but anything else you want to include in this or keep moving?

Scott: Not unless you want me to talk about all these various scandals that are well publicized so I'm sure if people have been paying attention they know what they know the kinds of things I'm referring to, so let's answer some questions.

Sean: let's do it love it. Well this first one comes in and the person writes, and by the way just so listeners know sometimes we edit these down just for clarity and conciseness as best as we can to be faithful to the questions, and the question is, “over the past 20 years many of the change we've seen regarding culturally approved relationships have appealed largely to the basic rights of the people who wanted to be in these relationships for example gay marriage gender transition surrogate pregnancy. At the other end of spectrum we had the eugenics movement at the turn of the 20th century when some people were forcibly sterilized or prohibited from getting married at all. Given these end of the spectrum examples how would you describe a biblical view of human rights in regard to marriage and family? How can we discern which activities and relationships people have the right to engage in and which they don't?” So in other words there's kind of the ontological question where do these rights come from and then the epistemological question how do we know and discern what those rights are.

Scott: Well I think there's there's an additional question that we need to ask maybe that's primary and that is is this person who wrote in referring to a moral right or a legal right.

Sean: hmm.

Scott: So if they're I mean we have legal rights to engage in all sorts of immoral activities and I don't think I know I'm not in favor of criminalizing sin necessarily, or I'm not in favor of criminalizing all sin. For example you know adultery is clearly immoral but there's I don't see any place in the law that criminalizes that nor would I nor would I be in favor of that. However what we have to recognize is that what we don't have a right to is to be exempt from the consequences of our choices and that's I think the part that that we get mixed up in the culture today feeling like if we if we if we have some sort of a right to something that we then we also have the right to be exempt from the from the consequences of those choices, which we don't. I mean the law that you reap what you sow is still in effect whether you're living on a farm or not. Well that's a figure of speech or reality so I think whether we have a moral right to engage in these I think is maybe the heart of the question that this person is getting at and I think we you know we we don't have the moral right by and by that what I mean is the right to engage in a behavior with the justification that it's morally acceptable that's what I mean by a moral right.

Sean: gotcha, gotcha.

Scott: So you I don't think we have any right to say that we can engage in so you know you know same-sex sexual activity, gender transition, gender transition surrogacy anything like that with the justification that it's morally acceptable.

Sean: okay okay

Scott: Because that's whether it's morally acceptable or not is so what's at the heart of whether it's a moral right or not. So I would say discerning which activities and relationships people have a right to engage in which ones which ones are morally justifiable. You know those are the ones that you have a right to a moral right to engage in, and every once in a while you'll have a you'll have the law conflict with something that we have a moral right to do and if the law prohibits or if the law forces us to do something that is immoral that we do not have a moral right to do then we have the obligation I think for civil disobedience and to to to defy government in that to speak out and be willing to take the consequences of that. That I think that's it's a really good question and I hope I've I hope I've understood the nuance of the the person who wrote in of that question correctly. Anything you want to add to that?

Sean: This is a great question and there's a lot of angles to it just one thing jumped in in my mind is that biblically rights come from God. So we would say things like marriage right to life are pre-political, the government doesn't give those the government recognizes those and so if the government is the source of the right to life or the source of marriage then the government can take either of those away. That is a biblical view of rights. What I find interesting is so many progressives will use terms like human rights without ever giving an explanation or justification of where they can come from in a universe without God. And I've heard certain people say well you know we are all made in the image of God we have equal value and then use that as an argument to support same-sex marriage, like they'll refer to biblical passages to do so. I'll say well if you're gonna refer to the Bible then you also have to take how the Bible defines the nature of marriage which is that it's a sexed institution. So the only thing that I want to point out here is that I think when so many people demand a right for same-sex marriage demand a right for some of the other issues that are mentioned, I want to ask where do these rights come from in the first place? And I don't know that you can have objective values and duties and rights unless their first is a God who has given us these rights. So I think there's just kind of a borrowing so to speak from many people criticizing a biblical worldview yet they have no basis as I see it to make that kind of criticism. More could be said but yeah.

Scott: Yeah they're vulnerable to the ultimate says who question. You know we have a right to this says who if you don't if you don't believe that God is the one who says then says who I think is the question that begs.

Sean: Good stuff well this next one is directed at more specifically at me but I think we can both weigh in here and this is, “I'm a wife and mother and I've been I have both held a fulfilling job and loved caring for my family while being a stay-at-home mom I have two questions from the Harrison Butker he's the kicker for the chiefs conversation last week Sean mentioned asking students whether they will find more satisfaction in career or family when they look back on life this seems too simplistic of a question. When we look back on life shouldn't we want a relationship with Jesus to be most fulfilling thing regardless of whether we have a family or career or both? Also I feel that men do have the opportunity to have it all both working and being a good father is expected of Christian men. Why is that expectation for men but not for women?” So I love this. I appreciate that this wife and mother reaching out and kind of pushing back in this fashion. I would just say a few things number one in this class I was speaking with four girls and one guy because all my seniors were gone high school students. And so the reason I framed the question that way is the guy was silent watching the girls engage, if I was asking the question of guys I might ask a very similar question. Now the point was not to imply all right girls you literally have to pick one or the other and guys don't have to pick one or the other the point was just to try to challenge them to prioritize in their minds if they can when it's all said and done, what's going to bring the most fulfillment. Now my wife was a stay-at-home mom I think about 12 years she's now back teaching and has loved both, and she'd be one of the first to say she wanted to have a career and she wanted to be a stay-at-home mom that is what has brought her fulfillment and so I was in a part a lot of these questions I asked are provocative to make people think they're in a teaching setting when the research shows that as a whole, Gen Z and Millennials really believe that things like career and work are the things that are going to bring happiness, whereas for most people it's getting married and having a family that brings the most satisfaction so in part it's a provocative question to get these girls just to reflect upon their life at the end looking back. Now I would say maybe this is nitpicking a little bit but it says you know my question of family or career is a little bit too simplistic when we look back on our life shouldn't it just be about Jesus as opposed to family or career or both and I would suggest that maybe that is a little bit too simplistic I mean the greatest commandment is to love God and to love others, it's both. We are commanded to be in relationship with God vertically and we are built to be in relationships with people horizontally that's what God has made us for. So go back to the garden it's not good that man is alone, that's not good there's something broken when we're not in healthy relationships and so I think ideally yes my commitment is to God but God has wired us to find fulfillment and meaning in our human relationships and I think many times we feel God and know God through our human relationships. Now the last point is about why is there an expectation for for men but not for women, yeah maybe there is a double standard in the church and that's something we got to look at and and address and and pay attention to I'm totally open to that reality as well I've got some other other thoughts here but tell me what you what you think Scott.

Scott: Well I think having it all this side of eternity I think is a myth and I don't think we do I don't think we do our students any favors by suggesting that it's not. That's not to say that you can't have you know a fulfilling career and a happy home at the same time but if you really want to have a killer career and want to have a flourishing family you have to make choices along the way, and I've Sean I've told you about this several times in the past I had about ten years where my kids were playing youth sports that I was coaching their club teams I didn't go to any professional meetings during those years and I turned down every I mean almost any speaking engagement that involved overnight travel I turned down for almost a decade.

Sean: Mmm.

Scott: Because I did I that was I did not want to look back on my kids formative years playing sports and say, oh shoot I missed it. I did not want to do that. Now I got I got way behind my peers during that time and I'm still you know I'm still that's that's ground I'm never gonna make up, and those are you know those are ten years that you know I would not I would not do anything differently but to say that I didn't have to make choices there I think is is misleading. And I do think there's a bit of a bit of a double standard here when it was it regards men because I think stay-at-home dads are viewed differently in the culture than say it then stay-at-home moms and I think you know empty nester women who don't work are viewed differently than empty nester men who don't work even I mean before retirement. So I think there's you know I want to make sure that we're applying the same standard here because we have you know I think we are we're getting better I think on stay-at-home dads but I still think that they're largely look looked like they're doing something less than than their other male peers. So that I just want to I want to be clear that the only place where you really completely have it all is gonna be on the other side of eternity.

Sean: Well said I think there's a way to recognize the goodness and beauty of a family that says the man is going to stay at home. Maybe that's what they want to do maybe it's economic I think we went out of our way to make that point but also say probably more women than men want to stay home and be mothers while the man works. I don't think those are necessarily contradictory, I think we can hold up and say there's differences as a whole between men and women but there's nothing wrong when families, in fact it could be good make different decisions and I want to keep that intention so I appreciate this pushback I think it helped clarify some of the comments. Let's move to this last question and this one I think again was for me it said “at the risk of being nitpicky, I'd like to point out an omission in your May 10th discussion about teenage sexual activity. you mentioned the New York Times perspective on sex is so far away from God's design which is about giving and loving and caring for somebody involves emotional trust. There's a spiritual bond, there's a relational bond and we flourish when we follow God's script. Everything you said is true but you admitted the procreative act of sex I think the goodness of procreative aspect of sex should be included. What if Christians flip the script rather than assuming sex is for pleasure operated under the assumption that sex is for the purpose of producing children?” I would say I completely agree that sex is for procreation. In fact in my book chasing love I say there's three purposes, I'll list two now I say one is procreation Genesis one number two is unity Genesis chapter two. Now the question kind of says what if rather than assuming that sex is for pleasure I never said that sex is for pleasure, I don't think that's the purpose of sex I think that's the blessing and the motivation, not the purpose. Maybe that's a debate or discussion you and I could have but I was careful not to say and I think by a larger cultural script about that and talk about how it is about giving and loving and caring for somebody but if I went back to that I would say giving and caring and loving and making babies and would emphasize what this person pointed out. So anything you want to throw in there?

Scott: Oh no you've covered you've covered it just fine.

Sean: All right good stuff well Scott as always, enjoyed the conversation.

Scott: Here, here.

Sean: A lot of fun it's good to have you back. Quickly are you a hundred percent now where are you?

Scott: Yeah I think I'm you know I'm pretty good although I got last last weekend I got out on a tennis court and I hit some balls for about 30 minutes with a friend of mine and went to bed at 8 o'clock that night I was so tired and then played played a couple hours of doubles the next day and I did okay and it took a couple days to recover from that my midsection my core was a little sore from the from lack of use but appreciate appreciate you asking appreciate the continued prayers from our listeners for continued recovery and my brother continues to do great too.

Sean: Good, good so glad to hear thanks for sharing. 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. We have master's programs, theology, Bible apologetics, spiritual formation, marriage and family online and some in person. To submit comments or ask questions send them in we're getting some great ones every week so helpful please email us at think biblically at biola.edu. Please give us a rating on your podcast app and consider sharing this episode with a friend. We appreciate you listening and please don't miss the episode, it's an incredible one about how to think biblically about business with Jack Hollis executive vice president of Toyota Motors North America and that will release my conversation with him on Tuesday. In the meantime remember to think biblically about everything.