This week, Sean and Scott discuss:

  • Sex Workers Punished by Law for Refusing Sex
  • What Deathbed Visions Teach us About the Afterlife
  • Kansas City Chief Kicker, Harrison Butker's Graduation Speech
  • Listener Question: Responding to Listener Feedback about Preston Sprinkle Episode
  • Listener Question: Does God still Discipline his Children?
  • Listener Question: Rwandan Genocide - is Humanity to Blame for Such Evil?

==========

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: A Belgian law empowers pimps to punish prostitutes for fusing sex more than 10 times in a six-month period. New York Times Magazine covers the phenomenon of deathbed visions and explores the question of what they might suggest about the afterlife. In a graduation speech this week, Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker ignites a fiery debate about women, homemaking, and careers. These are the stories we'll discuss today and we'll address some of your questions. I'm your host, Sean McDowell.

Scott: 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, it's good to have you back, my friend. You ready to jump in?

Scott: Yeah, thank you. I appreciate our listeners giving me a break last week. My wife and I celebrated our 40th anniversary and she renewed my contract for the duration, so I think mission accomplished. We just got back last night, so timing worked out great for this.

Sean: Well, donating a kidney, 40 years being married, a well-deserved trip with your wife. If I had clapping for the background of the podcast right now, I would cue it up.

Scott: I appreciate that. Thanks.

Sean: Well, let's jump in. As usual, we like to get right to the heart of stories. This one, I'm really curious what you think about this. This first one came from the publica, is what it's called, the publica maybe, and a number of other stories like Euronews covered it. Here's what it says. "A new law in Belgium celebrated by activists for promoting a 'labor contract' to prostitutes will also enable their pimps to punish them with a government mediator if they refuse sex more than 10 times in a six-month period. The Belgian parliament voted for the law on May 3rd with 93 in favor, 0 opposed, and 33 abstentions. Now, the legislation is touted as a win by this organization of kind of sex workers in Belgium, which has lobbied extensively for it. The law outlines that prostitutes will receive health insurance, a pension, maternity, holiday leave, and unemployment benefits. The pimps will be forced to provide them with a safety button to use for emergencies. Now, this is viewed by this organization as a historic step in the battle for sex workers' rights and create a respectful, fair relationship. One of the head spokesmen said, "Belgium is really demonstrating it aims to protect sex workers, regardless of any moral judgment about the profession people may have." Now, there's more to this, and there's obviously some criticism and a conversation that has emerged online. But one of the reasons I wanted to talk about this and get your take is there were some people asking, "Is this kind of a precedent for where Europe and other countries might go?" I'm really curious your takeaway when you saw this story, Scott.

Scott: Well, Sean, to be honest, I don't know quite where to start with this. There are so many different angles that you could approach this from. I honestly don't know where to start because for a country like Belgium, I suspect the Netherlands will probably be the next one to do this. I don't know if it'll go all the way across Europe in the law like this. I could see maybe the UK resisting this, Italy resisting this, other countries that have heavily Catholic backgrounds, for example, resisting this. But there's just so much. I think that part of this is right and good. Sex workers are worthy of the intrinsic dignity that they have. Their vocation doesn't erase the fact that they are still women who are made in the image of God, and they have intrinsic dignity, even though I would say their work is undignified. I think empirically, it's pretty clear that most of them would give it up if they could. Most of them are in this for strictly financial reasons, and they would not do this if it were not for the dire financial stress that they were in. Now, there are some that are sex worker activists who say they're in it for the intrinsic value of it. I think that's a very small minority. And I think the fact that they are in this based on significant financial need makes them vulnerable to exploitation in ways that are different than other professions. Now, the idea that the pimps who pimp them out are going to have to register with the government. I mean, I see prostitution going underground quickly, if that's the case. And I think the idea of a safety button, I think the real benefit would be if they had a safety button to protect them from their pimps. Because I think in many countries, I don't know about Belgium, but in many countries, it's the pimps who are abusing the sex workers and denying them some of their basic rights. Now, I admit I haven't thought much about what the moral rights of prostitutes are.

Sean: Sure.

Scott: That's probably not going to make it into the fifth edition of Moral Choices. But given that prostitution is culturally acceptable to some degree, I think it's a good thing that sex workers are not subject to any more abuse than they actually are. And I think the article portrays the sex worker industry as something that is, you know, is just something that's almost morally neutral. And the women all do this by choice. So in general, I think it's a good thing that sex workers have rights protected. I don't like seeing women being subject to abuse, regardless of the setting. However, beyond selling themselves for sex, ironically, which I think is women either being subjected to significant abuse just by the nature of the occupation itself.

Sean: So it sounds like you're taking a real pragmatic approach to this in the sense of, go ahead. You look like you want to jump in and respond to that comment.

Scott: It depends on what you were going to contrast that with.

Sean: OK.

Scott: Because I think there is, you know, there is a principled approach to this, too. And that is that, you know, nobody we should not make something that's intrinsically immoral, something that's more attractive for women to get into. And so, yeah, I think if if women are going to be involved in this, yes, I think they have they have a right to have certain rights protected. But I do think that once you once you you sell yourself for sex, you know, the idea of having sort of having a number of moral rights that follow after that strikes me as a little bit ironic.

Sean: Yeah, that's that's interesting. We’ve definitely hit the point with with sex workers in, you know, Belgium and beyond that there's such efforts to make it like any other job and position that you're arguing and saying, well, given that the country has legalized this and they move this direction, if we can move towards minimizing abuse of women, giving them a way out, that's a positive. And the downside, of course, is, as Plato said, the law is a teacher and this is one step further towards normalizing this and completely trying to move it away from the stigma where what the government should be doing is moving away from any sex work at all and finding other ways to protect these women, many of whom are, I don't know if I'd say forced, but certainly would like to have another job. If they could and don't want to be in this profession. So I guess…

Scott: I'd say that says that is their vulnerability that makes them subject to being exploited. That's that's the way I that's the way their financial vulnerability. It what makes them particularly susceptible to being exploited. And this is this is a textbook definition of exploitation Sean. Dire financial straits are forcing you to do something that you would never otherwise do if you didn't have those financial constraints.

Sean: Fair enough. So I wish the government would do a lot of other things with their efforts to help these women than the direction that they're going. That's for sure. But practically speaking, they're just not going to I'm in some ways, we have basically the sexual revolution has been the argument that really the only thing that's wrong is coercive sex as long as there is consent, then there's no moral stigma to this and seems to me this is another step broadly speaking towards saying there's nothing wrong with prostitution, there's nothing wrong with sex outside of a committed relationship. It's taken this all the way to its limit. My question is, is this actually going to help? Because we've certainly seen as we've moved towards consent in the US as being the driving ethic. We have the me to movement, and it just doesn't help in the way we envision that it does. So, it'll be interesting to follow this up in two, three, five years and see how much it really does help and result in the promises they're making. Needless to say I'm really, really skeptical that that's actually going to help women. That's how I look at it.

Scott: There are some advocates for sex workers who share your skepticism about them. I think one thing that struck me in this is the assumption that was right there underneath the surface. That is with the prevalence of prostitution and its acceptability, there's the tendency to see sex more and more as strictly a biological function without a relational component. It can be just as good, just as fulfilling if it's just strictly a biological function like any other one. We know that to think biblically about this, that's clearly not true. And the scriptures have a lot to say about sex being giving of a whole person to another. There's a soulish connection that takes place as well as a biological one.

Sean: Well said. Good word, Scott. Well, let's move to what might be considered a more positive story in some ways, even though it deals with death. This one was sent to me by a friend, Steve Miller, who is one of the experts on near-death experiences and deathbed experiences. And I was not aware that the New York Times Magazine covered this last month. And the title is "What Deathbed Visions Teach Us About Living." Now, of course, the New York Times is going to come from a certain worldview and a certain angle here. I happen to think that there is a kind of argument that we are more than our bodies and for supernatural kind of intervention often taking place at the point of death. But let's jump in. This article describes a person named Chris Kerr, a medical doctor who at 12 had a deathbed vision for 40 years didn't talk about it. And this is often what happens with people. In fact, his vision obviously was not of his death, but what he saw his father go through at his death. And many people are embarrassed to talk about this because they think other people are going to call them just crazy and that they've lost their minds. So he waited 40 years, does this speech, this TED talk, and it goes ballistic. And he said online, "When I was present at the bedside of the dying, I was confronted by what I had seen and tried so hard to forget for my childhood. I saw dying patients reaching and calling out to mothers, to fathers and to children, many of whom who hadn't been seen for years. What was remarkable is so many of them looked at peace." So he's wondering what's going on here. Now Kerr found himself in the presence of something he hadn't seen since his father's death as he started to study this in hospice. Patients who spoke of people and places visible only to them. And Kerr says, "So just like this with my father, there's just this feeling of reverence of something that wasn't understood, but was very real. It was felt." So he gives an example of a 70-year-old woman named Mary, and she was cooing and kissing and cuddling a baby that only she could see. And it turns out that she had lost a baby in childbirth, had never spoken of it, and now was seemingly addressing that loss. Now that might sound to some people, "Well, she's just losing her mind. She's going crazy.” What, like, slow down and let's look at some of the data that's here. He couldn't persuade any other doctors that were doing this because there was something to this. They all wanted scientific data, which is fair. But some of this stuff is published in legitimate journals. For example, one in 2014, the Journal of Palliative Medicine, found that visions are far more common and frequent than other researchers had found. One study showed 88%, although it's typically somewhere between 20 and 80% of people who die, have some kind of deathbed vision. Now, here's an example that he gave. Even with children, for example, the case of Connor O'Neill, who died at the age of 10, and whose parents Kerr and the author of this article visited in their home. They told us two days before his death, their son caught out the name of a family friend who, without the boy's knowledge, had just died. "Do you know where you are?" Connor's mother asked. The boy said, "Heaven." He had barely spoken in days or moved without help. But in that moment, he sat up under his own strength and threw his arms around her neck and said, "Mommy, I love you." Now, this article starts to say, "What's going on here? Could it be hallucinations? Is there some kind of natural explanation?" Now, I want to move towards some of the kind of data that's behind this that I think is really fascinating. But I'm really curious because you've done a lot of consulting at hospitals with people who are dying. How frequent is this? What do you make of the New York Times covering a story like this?

Scott: I think it's remarkable that they are. And I think what this demonstrates is, one, the importance of what's come to be known as palliative care medicine, which attends to patients when aggressive treatment is no longer indicated or is being refused. It's sometimes used as a synonym for hospice. It's not exactly the same thing. But think about this, Sean, with the number of baby boomers that are over the age of 65 today and who will be in the next 10 to 15 years. We will have more people over 65 in this country and in Europe than we have ever had before in the history of civilization. We've talked about a few weeks ago a shrinking population to pay the bills for them. And what it's doing is getting, I think, physicians a little bit more aware of the need to care for people when they can no longer cure them. And that part of providing good care for people is not just providing the treatments that will make their symptoms go away, but it will help them manage their pain and help them maximize the way they live out their last few days. Now, the other thing that really struck me about this, and I've seen this in some of the patients that we've dealt with, that often these visions communicate what's most important to them in their lives and the main things that they remember about their lives. And I think we forget, if you haven't spent a lot of time around people at the end of life or in a hospital setting, you forget that the main questions people ask at the end of life are not medical. They're spiritual and relational. And what they want, what patients want more than we understand, is to close the loop relationally with the people they care about. They're asking questions like, "What's my legacy? What do people remember about me? What has given my life meaning and significance? Where am I with the people who I love and care about the most?" Those are the questions that they want answered and that they wrestle with in some cases when they have put the medical questions out to pasture already. And physicians, God bless them, there's a lot they have to be trained to do. This isn't typically one of them. And often they are simply not attentive to spiritual matters because that's not where they are and they haven't been trained to do this. But there are others on the team that are. Chaplains, social workers, their past. I mean, Sean, I can't tell you how many times I've had a physician tell me over the years, he said, "Where is this person's pastor? Where is somebody from this person's church or synagogue who can care for the spiritual part of their life because that's all that they're asking about?" So I think what this suggests to family members is, for one, don't dismiss these as simply medication-induced hallucinations. Now, sometimes that's true. I suspect my father-in-law had some of these when he was in the hospital, his last hospital visit. Some of these, I think, were medication-induced hallucinations, but I think some of them might not have been. And it wasn't until I read this article, honestly, that I started reassessing what some of those things might have been. And at the time we dismissed it as just simply he'd been in the hospital too long and he was having these hallucinations. But I think he was maybe reflecting on some things that might have been really significant to him. So it's just this is such an important area. And, you know, those of our listeners who have walked with our well-lucked with their loved ones through the end of life, who have had to make decisions about treatments for their loved ones at the end of life, I think they know this a little bit better than most.

Sean: Hmm. That's really helpful. It's such a helpful pastoral perspective on people, what matters at the end. Now, the article hints at this a little bit, but there actually was a book written in 2021 called "Deathbed Experiences as Evidence for the Afterlife." A friend of mine, Steve Miller, JP Moreland, also endorsed it. And he walks through how some of these point beyond just natural explanations. So here's how he defines a deathbed experience. He says, "I typically use this term broadly encompassing all potentially paranormal experiences surrounding death, including those experienced by those who are not dying, such as those who have visions of a dying person." Now, he's got an entire book documenting this. And so many of these are in carefully documented journals. For example, what are called crisis apparitions. This is people who are not dying, but they experience someone who is about to die or who has just died, often before they hear the news from somebody else that the person is even ill. So somehow somebody has an apparition or a direct awareness of somebody else, they had no other word is ill, and that person is dying. Another example, by the way, Mark Twain even had a story of this, interestingly enough, in his autobiography, what's called terminal lucidity. This is a very common phenomenon experienced by people who are dying, many who have a degenerative brain disease or who have had mental just limitations throughout their life where they've been severely compromised mentally, some even comatose. Suddenly they regain full consciousness, communicate clearly, say their goodbyes, and then die shortly thereafter. Which emphasizes what you said. It's like this final opportunity to bring spiritual and relational closure. Another one, he gives examples of after death communications, which are way more frequent than I could have imagined. Bereaved people report vividly sensing and/or communicating with the deceased for a short period of time. Another one, here's where the evidence gets really interesting, Scott, is shared death experiences. People in the room with those who are dying or perhaps sometimes at a distance where they report sharing the same spiritual experiences of the dying, seeing certain people, hearing things, seeing a light that other people can't see. How do you start to explain that? You also have near death experiences where some people know they are about to die, even though the physical symptoms and a physician's prognosis do not indicate imminent death whatsoever. They just have this sense and they tend to be right about it. Now, here's just a couple quick examples. I don't want to spend too much time on this, but a case of somebody dying in England and the other person having a vision shortly thereafter in Australia of that person dying and it perfectly matches up. How would you know that? In one other example, and he documents these stories. According to this individual, he woke up in the middle of the night feeling a huge weight on his chest, left his body, saw a tunnel in the corner of his bedroom, then returned to his body, woke up in a cold sweat to the ringing of his phone, a nurse telling him that his father had just died of a heart attack. Oh my. Now, if these were one-off accounts, you could say they're crazy, but there's so many accounts, information you couldn't have from a distance, suggesting more is going on and resisting a natural explanation. So my last point here is doctors aren't trained in this and we tend to say this is crazy and tend to not listen to people. When in reality, they may be having some of the most real experiences of their life, preparing for eternity, maybe we should respond a little bit differently.

Scott: Yeah, let me take off on that just briefly to make a final point here. I would encourage family members to engage their loved ones in conversation about what they're seeing. And don't freak out when you hear them talk about this and don't dismiss it as a hallucination, but engage them in conversation about the substance of what they're seeing. And here's what the article suggests here is that it is these final visions that provide patients and their loved ones with profound meaning and solace. And the article goes through in great detail to talk about how these visions are a very important form of comfort and provide a sense of closure for loved ones as they approach their dying days. My dad, for example, he knew exactly when he was going to die.

Sean: Wow.

Scott: Because when that time when he knew it was coming, he crossed his arms and looked up to heaven and took his last breath. Oh, my goodness. He knew exactly where he was going and exactly when it was going to happen. Very profound. So this is a fascinating piece. I encourage our listeners to look up some of the work, Sean, that you've referenced here. That's super helpful stuff. This is a fascinating area that I think we I don't think we've heard the last of this.

Sean: I think it's literally just starting. The book, again, is called “Death Bed Experiences” by Steve Miller. I interviewed him in depth on YouTube. We didn't post it here on the podcast. But if you just search it, he lays out the evidence and it's, in my view, just compelling, just compelling. Well, let's shift gears again. We've got quite the story this week in in a speech, a graduation speech at Benedictine College, which has about 2000 undergrads. It's in Kansas. It's a Catholic university. Harrison Butker, the kicker for the chiefs, let's just say lit a firestorm in his 20 minute speech, which is totally available on YouTube. Last I checked, that has about a half a million views. And I would encourage I watched it this morning with my daughter and some of her friends. I'd encourage people to just show it to your kids or a youth group and just talk about it. So much good conversation here wherever you land. Now, here's a few of the highlights and then we'll jump in. And this is blown up on Tik Tok. Some people have started a petition to get him released from the chiefs. I mean, this thing has gone on and on. Now, being a Chargers fan, I'm tempted to be more critical than I need to be. That's a piece of this, but we'll try to be objective. And here's a few things that he says. He starts off and he says and the full speech is online, too. “Things like abortion, IVF, serous euthanasia, as well as growing support for degenerate cultural values in media all stem from the pervasiveness of disorder.” And this is like third paragraph of his talk. Our nation is led by a man who publicly and proudly proclaims his Catholic faith, but at the same time is delusional enough to make the sign of the cross during a pro-abortion rally. Now, obviously, he's referring to President Biden, doesn't mention him by name, who recalls himself a Catholic, but has been refused and denied communion at times. There's an ongoing debate there. He says “he has been so vocal in his support for the murder of innocent babies that I'm sure to many people it it appears that you can be both Catholic and pro-choice. He is not alone from the man behind the covid lockdowns to the people pushing dangerous gender ideologies onto the youth of America. They all have a glaring thing in common. They are Catholic. This is an important reminder that being Catholic alone doesn't cut it.” Now, before you think he's just arguing politics here, he spends far more in the article criticizing priests who he thinks have compromised and not live up to the call. So let me jump down here to some of this. He says, for example, “if we're going to be men and women for this time, we need to stop pretending the Church of Nice is a winning proposition. You must speak truth and act with charity is our duty to ultimately privilege to be authentically and unapologetically Catholic.” That's his call. So he criticizes their the leaders. He says down here, he says “in the pandemic too many bishops were not leaders at all. They're motivated by fear, fear of being sued, fear of being removed, fear of being disliked.” So he's kind of criticizing almost everybody. And then here's where he gets in trouble. Two big things, at least by the public. “Benedictine has gone.” That's the university, “from not just another liberal arts school with nothing to set apart to a thriving beacon of light. A reminder to all of us that when you embrace tradition, success worldly and spiritual will follow.” So he's given example what he thinks Catholics should be proud of, namely the example of their university. But then he makes reference. He says to be proud, “but not the deadly sin of pride that has an entire month dedicated to it, but the true God centered pride that is cooperating with the Holy Ghost to glorify him.” So he drops this criticism of Pride Month in the middle of his speech and moves on. And then this part, he speaks specifically to the ladies. He says, “I want to speak directly brief directly to you briefly because I think it is you, the women who have had the most diabolical lies told to you. How many of you are sitting here right now about to cross the stage and thinking about the promotions and titles you're going to get in your career? Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world, but I would venture to guess that the majority of you,” this is the female graduates at Benedictine, “are most excited about your marriage and the children you're bringing to the world. I can tell you my beautiful wife, Isabelle, would be the first to say that her life truly started when she began living her vocation as a wife and as a mother.” He says, I'm almost done with this, he says, “I'm on this stage today and able to be the man I am because I have a wife who leans into her vocation. I'm beyond blessed with the many talents God has given me, but cannot be overstated that all my success is made possible because a girl I met in band class in middle school”, he says “she's embraced,” here's the line, “in middle school and would convert to the faith, become my wife and embrace one of the most important titles of all, homemaker. She's a primary educator of children, she's the one who ensures I never let football in my business become a distraction from that of a husband and father. She's the person that knows me best at my career.” Last line, then give me your thoughts, Scott. She says, “Isabelle’s,” that's his wife “dream of having a career might not have come true, but if you asked her today, if she has any regrets on her decision, she would laugh out loud without hesitation and say, heck no.” I actually hear this speech, there's a lot that I love and there's some things that give me pause that I would say I think he could have worded differently and said differently. But tell me your, and I guess the question is how do we think about this biblically, but also what is the response to this tell us about our cultural moment is interesting as well. But give me your thoughts, Scott.

Scott: Well, I want to cut him a little slack here right at the start because even though I think we both agree his rhetoric is a bit harsh in places. He admits he's not a professional speaker. That's right. In fact, he almost he's turned down other commencement addresses. I suspect he might turn down others in the future. I agree. So I want to give him a little slack on that. And I think he was like he was largely speaking to a very friendly audience, where sometimes when you know you're not going to get a lot of grief from the audience, you tend to state things maybe a little bit more bluntly than you might if the audience were more mixed. Now that being said, I agree that there's a lot to like about this and the main thing that I took away from this that I really like was his admonition to be unapologetically Christian. I think that is so well said. In a culture where, you know, we, you know, the church is silent on a lot of things because we don't we still want to get it. We don't want to take grief from the culture. But I think he's right to say Christianity is intrinsically countercultural. We've had guests on the podcast before who tell us how countercultural it actually was in the first century, and much more so than it is today. And I think he's right that abortion, euthanasia, surrogacy in some cases, and IVF, although we see IVF a little differently, do reflect the departure from Christian values. I'm not convinced that IVF in all cases does that. And I think he's right about the, you know, the oxymoron of trying to be faithfully Catholic and pro-choice. I think he's right about that. I don't think that you can adhere to, you know, Catholic, the ethical and religious values of the Roman Catholic Church and be pro-choice at the same time. And I think he's right that, you know, the culture has bought gender ideologies that are harmful on adolescents and young adults. I think that's true. And we've had people, you know, cited in the New York Times who have said just that. I'm taking issue a little bit with him on the, you know, the true vocation of women as wife and mother, I think, is a bit too restrictive. I don't think the Scripture teaches that. The Proverbs 31 woman was definitely not a stay-at-home mother. She was an entrepreneur. She was respected in the marketplace. So I think the ideal woman that's set up in the Old Testament is not the stay-at-home mom. Though I get, you know, my wife was a stay-at-home mom for a long time. I'm thrilled that she was. Today, I think in the Butker’s case, if, you know, if most people were paid like NFL players, they would have the luxury of their wives staying home.

Sean: That's right.

Scott: So, but that's not reality for, I say, for most couples. And I say to think biblically about this particular part of this. In the Scripture, we have multiple vocations. Sean, you know that. You know, you have a vocation as a husband, as a father, as a professor, as a church member, as a, you know, as a community member. We have multiple vocations that we are called to all at the same time. And a vocation is simply is not an occupation. A vocation is simply an arena of service to which God is calling us. And we have multiple vocations that we are called to to fulfill simultaneously, not sequentially. We fulfill those all. I'm called to be a dad and a husband and a professor and a church member all at the same time. So, you know, and there are other things, you know, but what I think one sort of theological point that stood out to me, I'd like to, I just like to hear him say a little bit more about this. It just struck me a little bit odd was a statement he made. He was talking about his wife. She is the person who knows me best at my core. And it is through our marriage that, Lord willing, we will both attain salvation. I found that's kind of an interesting view of eternal security, which it's not actually. But it'd be interesting just to hear a little bit more what he means by that and if it sounds like a salvation by works. Maybe, you know, maybe he'd want to clarify that. I don't know. But those are, I think, some of the things that stuck out to me. But there's I think there's a there's a lot of good here. And I think the fact that he took the grief that he did says a whole lot, like you were suggesting, about where our culture is today and how difficult it is to challenge the cultural hegemony. In terms of ideas and ideologies.

Sean: That's a great take. And I'll play off a couple of those things and maybe nitpick. But first off, we do see some of his Catholic theology coming through, which we can't fault them for because he's Catholic and he's speaking to a Catholic audience. There are a couple of other things he said about not, you know, kind of I forget the exact line, but taking theology into our own hands, which is more of a Protestant thing versus kind of trusting the authorities that pass it down so that you know those ideas come through. I don't love the idea in a graduation speech of making it political of him calling out. Now, he obviously calls out Biden, but doesn't mention him by name, which was intentional. There's just a time and a place for certain conversations. And I'm not sure personally, that's the time to do so. Now, I love his idea of like, if you're going to be Catholic, be Catholic. Don't pick and choose. This means a view on life. This means a view on IVF. This means a view, etc. So I love that. I was just a little bit torn on bringing in a political, you know, on either side of the issue gives me a little pause. But again, I give him passed because this is not really his lane, which he says multiple times. This I didn't love the comment when he said he's referring to taking pride in living a Christian life and being like Benedictine following Catholic principles leads to success. And then he has this line where he contrasts it with the quote deadly sin sort of pride that has an entire month dedicated to it. It felt like just a comment that reinforces how many within the LGBTQ community view Christians as dismissive, not understanding. I didn't love that. I didn't think it was necessary to be in there. I think there's a way to make a point about biblical sexuality and standing firm and not compromising it without framing it that way. Again, I want to give him a pass, but I just didn't love that kind of comment because, you know, part of me goes, what if there's people out there struggling with, you know, same sex attraction? Is he making them not talk about it more and get the biblical help that they need? You know, those are fair questions that I think need to be a piece of this. I talked to this morning with my daughter and a bunch of high school students about what he said to the ladies. And I mixed on his message here. On one hand, I love that he's pushing back against our culture that doesn't seem to value a woman who chooses to be a homemaker. Our culture does. And this has clearly come out in Bradley Wilcox's data on Get Married that what people think is going to bring happiness is career, money, success, and then maybe kids down the road. And he's flipping that script saying, wait a minute, having children is a good, beautiful, wonderful thing. So insofar as he's saying, he goes, I would guess that most of you ladies really are excited about your career, but more so excited about being a mom. Like that's probably true for many, if not most of them. And empowering them to say this is good and this is beautiful and it's a kind of vocation is awesome. Did he take it maybe too far? Probably in a way that's not helpful ultimately. And so there's a balance there. I love that he's pushing back on that, but not sure it was framed in the way. I mean, for example, I was just speaking at an event. And interestingly enough, there was a full stay-at-home dad who was kind of the homemaker and they made a family decision. The wife was making more money in their career where they lived, didn't have the opportunity of getting a paycheck from an agent. Paycheck from an NFL organization. And they made a realistic God honoring decision for him to be quote homemaker. And I think that is a biblical, godly, beautiful thing to do. I don't want someone like that to feel like they haven't made a decision that honors the Lord because they are valuing their family. In fact, literally this family sponsored me to come in to teach apologetics at this church. And I was like, it doesn't fit the script we often pitch. So I guess the bottom line in his correction and challenge to our culture that doesn't value a woman who says homemaking is good and beautiful and that it is having a family that really brings happiness, let's not take it too far the other way. And so I think I found... Oh, go ahead.

Scott: Well, I think it's in almost every cultural setting where motherhood and family are talked about, it's just assumed that both people are going to be working and kids will be in daycare. And the option for someone to stay home full time is never taken seriously. And it's only in these sort of, I think, rare Christian contexts that that actually happened. That may be in other religious contexts too. But I mean, I appreciate pushing back on that without being restrictive or reductive in a way that I don't think is biblical. That's where I would take issue with that. I wouldn't want people who are really, they're really trying hard to make their ends meet and it's necessary for both of them to be working. And they're both, they're busting their tails doing the best they can, or the single mom that has no choice but to work and is, in my view, one of the cultural heroes, being able to do that on her own. Now, I think we can talk about some of the backstories on those things that contribute to that, that may have a different view of that. But I think in general, I like the idea that we're questioning the assumption, the uncritical assumption, that if you're going to have a family today, you're going to have to work. I think what it tells people, I think, is something that I think the scripture is really clear about, that this side of eternity, you can't, it's really hard to have it all. It's just tough. It's tough to have a flourishing career and a dynamic home and family life. Those are hard to do. And I think they can be done. There are lots of people who are doing it. But I think they would tell you that they've had to make choices along the way. And so I think we need to encourage our college students, high schools, to be realistic about this. If the dream is to have it all, the only place where we have it all, that's on the other side of eternity.

Sean: Well said. I think Amy Coney Barrett is awfully close to doing that on the Supreme Court, but she's probably an exception. I talked to the students this morning. I said, OK, so if you had to pick, do you want a real successful career? This is Christian high school students or family. And they're like both. None of them chose. I said, OK. I said, fair enough. If you're 75 years old looking back over your life, what do you think is going to bring you the most joy? Success in a career or your family? And all I was trying to do is just get them think about it differently than the script that's often pushed. It's not to say women can't and shouldn't have careers, but what really does bring happiness? If somebody chooses to be a homemaker, is that a good, honorable, beautiful profession? Yes. And that should be held up and not denigrated the way it often is in our culture. That's the question.

Scott: We should ask that same question of the guys, too.

Sean: There you go. Well said. All right. Lots more could be said on that one, but watch with your kids, your grandkids and just talk about it. Minimally, it'll spur some conversation about a lot of good ideas. Scott, we have some questions and we regularly get feedback and let's just say criticism on guests in interviews, which is fine. I think we got more this past week than we probably ever have with our interview with Preston Sprinkle on his book Exiles. Now, I've got a few things to say about this. I want to know what you think. One thing I would say is we are trying to have respectable, thoughtful, gracious conversations with people and push back to bring truth to the surface and to bring clarity. That's what our goal is. Now, there's times where we should push back more. I think we're still trying to figure out and do that better. But we're also we have 30 to 35 minutes in these shorter interviews. I'm bringing on soon a longer in studio interview with Tim Yulhoff, who's a Biola professor, communication major who is in favor of using preferred pronouns because he's a communication professor. Let's keep the communication going. I take issue with that. That was in studio, so we had probably 50. I actually went longer than an hour on that one. But for a lot of these kind of interviews, we don't have that time. And you know, you and I are not running a church here. We're not shepherding a church. We're professors. And part of our job is to engage a range of different ideas. I mean, we had Christina Denon taking a very contrarian view on on kind of the drug war that's taking place today. I'm not even sure I agree with her, but she made me rethink very thoughtful. That's the kind of ideas we want to bring to our audience. So I would fully say there's times where we can and should push back more. But there's just a balance we're trying to meet there.

Scott: Yeah, I'm OK owning the fact that we don't do this perfectly every week or with every guest. And I don't you know, we're not trying to bring guests in here and trap them. You know, we're not trying to score rhetorical points at the expense of our guests. And we're definitely not trying to throw them under the bus in our interviews with them. We're trying to treat them respectfully, with dignity and allow them to state their point clearly. And when they're not or when something that we think is contrary to thinking biblically about a subject, we try to press them and push them a little harder on that. And I think with some we probably need to do that a little bit more than we did. And so I'm OK owning that. I think you are, too. And we say, hey, we'll learn from that. Then we'll do better the next time. I think Preston definitely takes some controversial positions and some theological positions that we wouldn't hold to, like his annihilationism.

Sean: Sure.

Scott: That's a place where we're part company. But I think for the most part, Preston is probably in a little bit different place politically than you and I are. But as we've talked about before, there's a wide range of political views that I think are consistent with biblical teaching. So I think you can have you can have some different views across the spectrum and still be consistent. Now, his views on sexuality, I think, is where he's been criticized the most. And I think preferred pronouns is one of the main areas where that criticism has come out. Rosario Butterfield has given him a pretty harsh critique and called him a heretic in several places. In my view, that's a little harsh because I don't I don't think that his views, which he which he has clarified, by the way, in his in his own blog post, responding to those criticisms. And I read this just a few minutes. We read it again before come before we started recording this. And he's he's he's very clear. He's trying to be fair and generous. But I think in part what's motivating Preston is he wants to have meaningful relationships with people in the LGBTQ community so that he can he can put his theological stuff out there and put the shoe leather of real life on it. And I commend him for that. And I think that's what's motivating his use of preferred pronouns. I think you can agree to disagree with him about that because I think it does communicate a bit of a false narrative about who they are. But according to Preston, if you want to have a relationship with a person, you know, you got to call them what they want to be called. And so and you know, you may not agree with that approach, but I think it's you know, to call that heretical, I think is a problem. So I think, you know, Preston is one of our one of our good friends. We don't agree with him about everything, nor nor would he expect us to. And he's one of those who welcomes a lot of those hard questions.

Sean: I think that's well said. I think part of the challenge for this year is I'm friends with folks on all side of these discussions and debates. I've had Preston on multiple times here and on my YouTube channel have had him. We've discussed issues of sexuality. I've also had Rosaria on and more recently, Christopher Yuan has given some critiques of Preston Sprinkles writings. Interestingly enough, I endorsed his book Embodied that came out three or four years ago. Now, some people have criticized me for that, which is fine. The question is, what does an endorsement mean? I don't endorse books I entirely agree with. That's for sure. I've endorsed a lot of books that I disagree with. If I think it's thoughtful, I think it's well researched. I assigned it in one of our classes here that I teach in our Apologetics Program on sexuality. And we walked through and talked about what do you agree with? What are good biblical arguments? What are not biblical arguments? And so I think anybody who wants to weigh into the topic of sexuality and gender needs to read his book and wrestle with the ideas that he makes within that book. Now, do I disagree with him? Of course. And Preston knows that. I disagree like we've talked about here with the use of preferred pronouns. I've increasingly taken issue with that. There's been a debate about whether same-sex attraction itself is sinful and needs to be repented of. I tend to agree with Rosaria's position and concern on that. And so these issues are being played out. He's taken a lot of criticism. He recently did a response. I think it's within the past week to another friend of mine, Christopher Yuan, has raised some concerns. And Preston Sprinkle did about, I don't know, an hour and a half or two hour response point by point that anybody who's following this should listen to it and consider and try to get clarity on it. Now, I'd love to have Preston and Christopher on to have a conversation and just say, where do we agree? Where do we differ? I would love to mediate that conversation. I'm not sure if it's going to happen or not, but I would love to take that on. So, you know, last thing I'll say is he's also taken, Preston's taken some grief for his conference exiles in Babylon. He's had some people speak there that I would take serious theological issue with. But I also, if he invited me to speak there, actually he has twice, it just hasn't worked. I would speak there. And by me speaking doesn't mean I'm endorsing everybody else who takes a certain position there. He invites speakers in that he doesn't agree with as well on stage, just like I invite people on to my YouTube channel that I take serious issue with. What I'm going for is civil conversation and clarity where people stand. So some of the criticism of say you and I having him on some of his conference, we've just got to ask what's the focus of a podcast? We're professors and we are trying to engage the world of ideas biblically speaking. That's our goal. My YouTube channel, I'm not pastoring a church. I'm a professor having a lot of public conversations. Thus, we'll have people on who see the world differently. So, ton more could be said, but we got so many questions on that. Just wanted to give a little bit of clarity there. Anything else on that one, Scott?

Scott: Nope, I'm ready to move on.

Sean: Alright, I'm taking the hint. Alright, here's a question for you. We've got a couple left. We'll do this, we'll do this somewhat quickly. It says, "During the May 3rd cultural update while discussing suffering, I believe Scott stated that you do not see any punishment as coming from God and even referred to Romans 8.1 to support this. My question is, how do you explain the idea of God's discipline to His children, which if I'm not mistaken, is seen in the New Testament as well as in the Old Testament? Does that not insinuate some sort of divine punishment for sins from time to time?"

Scott: I'd say no, because I take Romans 8.1 seriously. There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ. The punishment for sin has been taken at the cross once and for all. And I think we downgrade the cross if we don't acknowledge that. What I would suggest, I think God does use our, I would say God uses the consequences of our actions, the natural consequences of our actions, as part of His discipline in us. And we, you know, you reap what you sow. And just because you have forgiveness doesn't mean that you get to ignore the consequences of behaviors that you've engaged in if they are problematic. You know, David was forgiven for his sin, but all sheol broke loose in his family and in his kingdom after his adulterous affair with Bathsheba. He did not get the option of ignoring the consequences. And that was part of God's discipline in his life. That's how I would answer that. But I would not use the, I would not frame it in terms of punishment, because I think that's been done once for all at the cross.

Sean: Well said. Good stuff. Last one I want to comment on, it said, "When discussing the Rwandan genocide recently, Sean stated that it's our humanity that lends itself to such evil. I agree that we minimize the human capacity for evil, but I disagree that our humanity is to blame. What happened in Rwanda is evil, but should be called inhuman. Here's why. God created us human and declared us very good. He didn't call us evil. He didn't even call us good with tendencies towards evil. When we blame our brokenness on our humanists, we forget the biblical truth of humanity's goodness. When we sin and commit evil, we fail to live up to our God-given humanity and our behavior is in fact human. What do you think about this way of framing our capacity for evil?" Well, here's what I would say. I would say the Bible's very clear that we have a fallen, broken, sinful nature. Paul makes it clear in Romans chapter 3, no one has done good, no one, period. Their mouths and their hearts are like venom and asps. He goes into that very, very clearly. And then Jesus in Mark chapter 7 makes it clear that it's out of the heart that comes covetousness and lust and idolatry and sloth and pride, etc. The heart is broken. So we can go one of two directions in error. We can say, "Oh, we are just intrinsically good and not recognize our fallenness towards evil." Or we can lean in just towards evil and not recognize that we're intrinsically good and made in God's image. I actually think it's Blaise Pascal who argued that what's unique about Christianity is it captures our proclivity towards good, our value, but also our profound brokenness. So I don't blame evil that those individuals did on some abstract humanity and fallen nature. It is those individuals who do it and those individuals are to be held accountable. But the point is, is that our proclivity to sin and our brokenness can lend all of us towards that. And there's not just a few deranged individuals who do evil, but actually the evil we see in the hearts of other people, the propensity towards that is in our own hearts, which is why Jesus needed to die. I saw this movie on Ted Bundy and this interviewer said, "You know, I was probing Ted Bundy for how he could do such mass murder and he seemed like such a normal guy. And it hit me that I share humanity with Ted Bundy." And then the movie stopped and I was like, "Wow, that is hinting at that humans are made in God's image. We have a propensity for good, but we have been profoundly corrupted by sin. So I think we need to keep both of those in balance." So anything you want to throw in there, Scott?

Scott: Yeah, I think part of the fall means that we have the capacity for every kind of sin within us. And I think, you know, the theologians call this the broken timber of humanity. That our humanity is fundamentally broken. And that there's good and there is evil. And I think when you describe what Paul says in Romans 3 that no one is good, no one does good, I think that's with respect to earning salvation, not in an absolute sense. Correct. I know you wouldn't suggest that that's the case, that no fallen person has the potential not to do good. But I think just to be clear about that. But I think, yeah, you framed it exactly right, I think.

Sean: Good, good stuff. Yeah, no one can ultimately do enough good or perfect good to be saved. All will sin is the point. So well said. All right, Scott, it's fun to be back at this with you.

Scott: Yeah, I agree. This is great stuff.

Sean: Yeah, we got some great stories coming up. But this has been an episode of the podcast Think Biblically, Conversations on Faith and Culture. Brought to you by Talbot School of Theology, Biola University. We have online and in-person master's programs in theology, Bible, apologetics, marriage and family, spiritual formation and more. To submit comments or ask questions, we love hearing from you. Please email us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu. Please give us a rating on your podcast app and consider sharing this with a friend. We appreciate you listening and we will see you Tuesday when a regular podcast episode airs. In the meantime, remember to think biblically about everything.