This week, Sean and Scott discuss:



Episode Transcript

Sean: Is the concern about birth rate decline becoming a progressive issue? How on earth is there a syphilis epidemic in 2024? And the New Jersey Attorney General launches a crusade to harass and try to shut down pregnancy resource centers in his state. 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, this first story has been all over the news, in a sense. Since the time that JD Vance was elected or chosen to be the Republican vice presidential candidate, and his phrase referring to, kind of, “childless cat ladies,” everybody's been talking about population growth and decline and the concern about it. Now, it's traditionally been a conservative issue for reasons we'll get into, but this week an article popped up in The New York Times that totally got my attention, because the title was, "Population Growth Isn't a Progressive Issue. It Should Be." Now, this philosophy professor talks about how, because population decline is widely seen as a conservative issue, many progressives don't seem to worry about it, but they should. If left unchecked, population decline could worsen many of the problems that progressives care about, including economic inequality and vulnerability of marginalized social groups. But, as you and I would expect, or anybody reading this, they say next, this doesn't mean adopting the conservative case wholesale. So, specifically, what progressives must do, according to this writer, is continue to defend the right to abortion. So, the question really is, can birth rate decline concern become a progressive issue while maintaining the right to abortion? Now, before I throw it over to you, because I know this is right in your lane, some people are thinking that, for example, well, there's other ways we could maybe fix this. For example, like, is immigration a solution? And that's maybe what some progressives would argue for. And it certainly does help mitigate some of the concerns of birth rate decline. But what the author points out is, over time, immigrants kind of assimilate to a culture and tend to have less kids. Then, what about climate change? Immediately, progressives are going to say, oh no, more people is going to harm climate change. And the author says, well, we have to change our patterns and consumption of reducing carbon dioxide whether we have big population or a small population. And they say—I mean, this is amazing—that ultimately, there's no escaping the need for people to have more children. Now, one last point they make is, what about finding ways to decrease the financial burden on people? Even this author says, this isn't going to work like more daycare costs, because places like Sweden, that offer expanded parental leave and heavily subsidized child care, have fertility rates below what's needed to replace the population. So that won't do it. So, really, what this article does, Scott, is walk through all these things that won't help turn the fertility rate in a positive direction that are consistent with progressive ideas. And at the end, it says, well, one idea might be to expand the child tax credit. Now, I'm all in favor of that in particular, but I'm really skeptical, and I suspect you might be too, that we can reverse this and maintain a commitment to abortion and other progressive ideas. What do you think?

Scott: Well, there's a whole host of things. I’ve got so many thoughts on this. We could probably take the whole hour on this if we weren't being disciplined about our time. But this is at least a 20-year trend. Attention to this didn't just start with JD Vance's thing, though that's what put it front and center in the news.

Sean: That's right.

Scott: And there have been three other articles this week, two in The Atlantic and one in First Things, on this very same thing. And every country in the industrialized part of the world—except for China and India—has declining fertility rates, except for Israel. They're the only industrialized country in the West that has elevated birth rates. And ours, they say, the average woman in 1960 had 3.6 children. Today, it's 1.6. And that is well below our replacement rate of 2.1. And we're already seeing significant social consequences to this. We have an exploding group of people over the age of 65, and a shrinking population to provide the resources to care for them. And the size of that safety net for the poor is also shrinking. And they point out that in some parts of the world, like they say, for example, in Madrid, Spain, there are more dogs and cats than there are children under the age of 10 in the city of Madrid. And that's just one example. One of these articles describes that where the families are the most childless is in the major urban areas of the country. And in part, they echo your point, Sean, that things like subsidies for families, child care, subsidies, things like that, are not the solution. And they suggest that maybe housing is a solution. And that's why families are fleeing urban areas for more suburban areas. I don't think that's the answer either. And I think the argument that climate change necessitates fewer people is mistaken because children, I think, can be viewed, depending on the economic system that you're in, they can be viewed either as net producers or net consumers. And in most of the industrialized world, most of the developed world, children, I think, are rightly seen as net producers. In the U.S., for example, we produce more than we consume. And I think that's true for many of the other advanced economies around the world. Now, there's a huge…immediately the biblical principle that jumped out at me that I think has been totally lost in this discussion is the simple statement from the first verse of Psalm 127, that children are a gift. And I think that has been completely lost in the discussion of economics, of childcare, of housing, things like that. Now, of course, in the ancient world, children were economic assets. And I think, depending on the economic system they're in, that's also true today. For those of you in families that are still waiting for your children to become economic assets, that day is probably not coming, at least not anytime soon. But here, what falling birth rates do is, they shrink the extended family and what it provides. And this is, I think…a result of this has been the epidemic of loneliness among people over 65. And that's one of the ways that children are a gift. I think the way the article in The Atlantic puts it, they said, “Vanishing bassinets matter not only because old societies cost more, but because of a non-economic truth that endures no matter how it's denied. From the point of view of the end of life, the deferred gratification that leads to more loving faces over time is not only a social plus—for most, it's the ultimate prize.” Speaking about children and grandchildren. And Sean, I remember when I had a conversation with my oldest son. I was telling him, several years ago, when he was expressing some pretty significant ambivalence about a desire to have children…which caused my wife and I no small consternation.

Sean: [laughs] Sure.

Scott: And so my wife said, there's basically one of those you-need-to-have-a-talk-with-your-son moments.

Sean: [laughs]

Scott: And so I did. And I said, Taylor, I'm only going to say this once. I'm not going to beat you over the head with this, but I just want you to know that nothing in my professional life has been as satisfying and as joyful as being a dad to you and your two brothers.

Sean: Amen.

Scott: Nothing in my professional life is even close to providing the joy and the contentment and the satisfaction that being dad to you three guys has provided for me. And I think that that is absolutely right. It is the ultimate prize. And there's no other human prize that even comes close.

Sean: That was a great take. It's interesting that you cited Psalm 127:3, because that's exactly what I wrote down in my notes.

Scott: Sorry to steal your thunder.

Sean: No, this is actually good. It's good that our listeners know that we share articles, decide what we're going to talk about, but we don't get each other's take before we come on and record this. Sometimes we agree. Sometimes we don't, which is fine. But when I'm reading this article, the solution is at the very end. It says, what's a progressive pronatalist to do? Some countries have shown ways to increase birth rates. They hold up France as an example. They haven't experienced as severe of a decline because of certain national policies that provide parents with financial benefits like tax breaks. This article suggests the tax child policy. Now, what that is, that's an economic solution, an economic response to the lack of enough children. So when they asked the question in this article, you know, how do we increase the fertility rate? They give an economic response. What you and I are saying is, that might play a role in it, but that's not the root of the issue. The root is a worldview issue that does not value children as children, and bearing children, as a part of our purpose here in the world. And you're right. When we do that, the joy that comes with that…I so loved hearing you say that, Scott, because I agree with my own three kids. And I've communicated the same kinds of things to them. This is really the research Bradley Wilcox has in Get Married. And we interviewed him recently, and he argues that there's been a worldview shift where less people are getting married. And those who get married are less likely to have kids, and they have less kids. And it's because they've been talked into believing that other things are more important to bring happiness and meaning in life. I just heard Matt Fradd, who we probably had on the podcast five years ago. He's Catholic. He was doing an interview and he said, "What I want to communicate to people is that it's not an economic payoff to have kids. It's probably wildly irresponsible, but have more kids than you can, because it'll bring you far more joy than anything else." And I thought, that's right. This is not an economic issue. It's a worldview issue. And at the root of Christianity, we have the resources, namely that children are a blessing from the Lord.

Scott: Sean, I think it goes even deeper than that.

Sean: Okay.

Scott: This came out…this is a second biblical principle that I think is really important in this. And another one of the articles in The Atlantic brought this out. And that is, at the basis of this, is the need for meaning. Here's the way they say it. I love the way they put this. "In trying to solve the fertility puzzle, thinkers have cited people's concerns over finances, climate change, political instability, or even potential war. But in listening closely to people's stories, I've detected a broader thread of uncertainty about the value of life and a reason for being. Many in the current generation of young adults don't seem totally convinced of their own purpose or the purpose of humanity at large, let alone that of a child. It may be that for many people, absent a clear sense of meaning, the perceived challenges of having children outweigh any subsidy government might offer." And then they cite this really insightful speech that Bobby Kennedy gave in 1968. Bobby Kennedy, Sr., delivered less than a few months before he was assassinated. Here's how he put this, in such good terms. "The gross national product or economic things do not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, either our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country. It measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile." And Sean, I think that is precisely the message of the gospel. And when Jesus said, "What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and to forfeit his soul?" I think that's exactly what the point is here. As my mentor would put it, he said, "I know lots of people who got to the top of the ladder, only to discover that it's leaning against the wrong wall." And that's, I think, at the core of this. And you're absolutely right to suggest it's fundamentally a worldview issue. And that people who don't have a sense of meaning for life and for their future, I think, are understandably really ambivalent about bringing a child into that world. But this is what the gospel provides. And I think, ultimately, this is what provides the answer for that.

Sean: So for those who are listening and going, wait a minute, you're saying meaning is found in having kids rather than…what about those who don't have kids? You're not saying that point, because the Bible is very clear…even Paul talks about, it's favorable to not in certain circumstances for the sake of the gospel. I just want to clarify that you're making a slightly different point.

Scott: That's correct. What I'm suggesting is that it's the need for meaning that I think gives people, often, the desire to have children. And absent of that, you can see an ambivalence about having kids. That's not to suggest that…I mean, there are a lot of people out there, as we've talked about, who hugely desire to have kids, but biology hasn't cooperated. That's not who we're talking about. And there are…and I think that “be fruitful and multiply” is generally still in effect. But I think there are exceptions to that where, for the sake of the gospel, there can be kingdom reasons for people not having children.

Sean: That's helpful. You're right. At the root of it is a worldview issue, and a lack of meaning can undermine the larger population decline issue. Well said. Okay. This next issue was an opinion essay in The New York Times. And I sent this one to you. I did not expect to see it. It surprised me. And the title is, "How on Earth is There a Syphilis Epidemic in 2024?" The article starts by saying nobody should be dying of syphilis in 2024, which is an interesting way to start. Now, according to the data here, the U.S. is experiencing a rampant increase in syphilis. Now, this is a disease that, left untreated, can lead to devastating neurological consequences such as blindness, deafness, madness, and death. Now, according to this, many other STDs have either remained the same or slightly declined during the pandemic, which is interesting. But over 207,000 cases of syphilis were reported in the US in 2022. Now, that's an 80% increase since 2018, and the highest number since 1950. Most disturbing within the trend is the rise in congenital syphilis. Over 3,700 cases were reported in 2022. Nearly 300 infected babies were stillborn or died in the first year of life. Now, that number jumped out to me, Scott, because I wrote a book for students on teen sexuality called Chasing Love. And I remember in 2017, it was 94 babies who were stillborn and died as a result of syphilis transmission. That means it's basically tripled plus since the time this was reported, just in 2017. That's devastating. Now, of course, the article says, how do we get into this situation? And they give their response. “To tackle congenital syphilis, we must cast off societal squeamishness about STIs and invest in proven control strategies. Public education, testing, treatment, and contact tracing.” It says, “But the surge in congenital syphilis isn't due to the infection's many disguises. It's because of the failure of our health system and safety net.” So, essentially, this article is viewing the recent trend as a failure in our health system in particular. And thus, education and health care is the primary way to respond to it. So here's one more point that jumps out. This person, the writer, says, “I'm still a cheerleader for condoms, which remain our best and sometimes only line of defense for emerging STIs. Though often blamed for increasing incidents of STIs, many dating apps aimed at gay men include condoms as a prevention strategy users can choose on their own profiles. Now it's imperative for the rest to join in.” And they said, “Grindr, I'm pointing at you.” Now, I guess one last thing. So they say kudos to Lucas County, Ohio, which realized that 18% of its syphilis cases were tied to sex work. And they placed billboards throughout Toledo saying, “Pain for sex? Test for syphilis.” Now, you and I agree that education and health care is a piece of this. But I suspect you would say something deeper is going on with this epidemic. How should we think biblically about this?

Scott: Well, for one, I just found this story heartbreaking, because of the number of babies who inherit the disease through their mom's pregnancy. And in many cases, it's because proper prenatal care is often not available for women in these underserved communities. And prenatal care can actually take care of this relatively simply. And so, I would suggest for pregnant women in our communities, it's a moral imperative to test and treat for STDs for the sake of the baby's health, and for communities to ensure that such care is available. So that, sort of, I think that's the easier part of this. And here's…Sean, you know, I'm not one to sort of dance in the end zone, because the statistics on this are really alarming. And STDs, you know, they've been around for a long time. So there's nothing really new about this, just the instance of syphilis in particular. But the biblical principle here in view is the best prevention for this. And again, I'm not going to spike the football in the end zone. But abstinence or monogamy, where sex is reserved for monogamous, heterosexual marriage, is the best prevention for STDs. Now, I know some people are going to say, well, that's just way, way out of date. And I'll accept that critique. But I think the statistics sort of speak for themselves on some of this as well. What do you think of that?

Sean: That is very in line with the way I was approaching this. I think both you and I would say there is a healthcare, there's an education component to this to help people. And my heart profoundly goes out to those who don't have the healthcare that you and I and many of our listeners take for granted. I mean, it's a tragedy. So that is a piece of this. But I think you're right that there's a larger issue at play here. And here's a question that I ask my students. I say, what would it be like if everyone lived the sexual ethic of Jesus? What would it be like? I'll ask audiences this question. And very clearly people say, well, there'd be no divorce and the pain that comes from that. There'd be no pornography and the pain that comes from that. No abortion, because there wouldn't be any, or certainly a lot less, unwanted pregnancies. And somebody always says, there'd be no sexually transmitted diseases or infections, or certainly far less. So the point in bringing this up is, I'm so glad you framed it this way. Not to say, hey, we got it right, and dance in the end zone, but just to emphasize that God's commands are for our good. He's the one who designed sex. He's the one who gave us our bodies. He gave us sex as a gift. And these negative commandments not to be sexually involved outside of a committed, faithful marriage are for our good. They are. That's one thing. You know, my dad was speaking about this, Scott, in the 80s in the Why Wait campaign, before anybody in the church was talking about this. And he raised me with this idea. He'd say, son, God's negative commands always have two positive ones: to protect and to provide. So this is just a reminder. Again, I'm going to say it again. Don't dance in the end zone. This is not the point. My goodness, these are hurting people. I hope if somebody comes and is wrestling with this disease that the church would be a place where somebody would say, I love you, and I'm not judging you, and I care for you, and you are welcome and loved here. That compassionate response must characterize Christians. But we must also continue to get the word out that when this article says, how do we get into this situation, and more importantly, how do we get out of it? All the solutions that are mentioned here can lower it and help to a degree. But the only way out of it is for people to adopt a biblical understanding of God's design for sex and follow it. That is virtually a guaranteed way to reduce something like syphilis.

Scott: Yeah. Now, I think, Sean, the other biblical principle—one last comment on this—is that we live in a fallen world, too. And that there are lots of people who are not following these things. And so that's why I think you have to be in favor of other preventive measures, too, that function as damage control in a fallen world. And I think some of that's the way some of the Mosaic Law functions, for example, and some of God's commands function as damage control in a broken, fallen world. And so, I think you have to be in favor of all of these preventive measures. And whether they encourage people to have sex outside of marriage, I think, is less relevant than the fact that they are directly helping to prevent these terrible sexually transmitted diseases. And particularly, prevent them for pregnant women who may be passing those along to their unborn children.

Sean: Well said. Good stuff. Now, I imagine some people might go, "Wait a minute. You're in favor of all these. What about condoms for teenagers?" That's not a debate we're entering into right now. Just simply saying, insofar as the public health officials can help people and educate people as a whole, we should be in favor of that as long as it doesn't carry embedded within it ideas that are not helpful to somebody's health or directly conflict with a biblical worldview. Maybe someday we'll hash out some of those particulars. You ready to roll a third story?

Scott: Probably need to move right along.

Sean: Let's do it. All right. Since you talked about being disciplined, let's see if we can practice it. All right. So another one, this is in the Wall Street Journal. And this maybe didn't surprise me as much, it just kind of broke my heart, I guess you could say. Now, this is an op-ed, which is going to shape the way this is framed, by the way. And the title is "New Jersey Harasses Pregnancy Resource Centers." And the author says, "Politicians and attorneys general in states run by Democrats." Now, later, it says, it’s mostly blue states. So it doesn't give specifics, but it's mostly states run by Democrats—but presumably not all—that have been on a crusade to make life miserable for pregnancy resource centers. And the campaign has picked up since the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade two years ago. This has included harassing them with legal actions and trying to discredit their work. And the author points out that pregnancy resource centers provide women facing unplanned pregnancies with free, low-care costs for counseling on alternatives to abortion, parenting education, medical referral and material goods, diapers, clothing. In 2022, these centers provided clients across the U.S. with services equal to $367 million, which is virtually entirely donations, largely by Christians. 500,000 free ultrasounds, 3.5 million packs of diapers, and 43,000 car seats. And they give a story in here of this individual—I won't go into details—who had an unplanned pregnancy. She actually took Mifepristone and then changed her mind, and a pregnancy resource center helped her take the drug to reverse it. And she says they provide non-judgmental support, which every pregnancy resource center I've worked with does that. Now, this story is about the Democratic Attorney General Matt Platkin, who issued a subpoena demanding that one of the pregnancy resource centers in New Jersey supported by First Choice turn over a broad range of documents. Now, accordingly, he hasn't cited any complaint or substantive evidence of wrongdoing, but he's commanded that First Choice dig up and hand over documents going back 10 years, including personal information about employees, volunteers, affiliates, donations, et cetera. And the idea is that this is going to drown them out with so much work that they fiscally go under and aren't going to have the time to operate as they can to help the women that come in. That's how they're interpreting this. Now, in December ‘22, his office issued a consumer alert warning the public to be wary of the centers, which “seek to prevent people from accessing comprehensive reproductive health care.” And by the way, that is false, that pregnancy resources try to do that. Nonetheless, I guess according to this article in the Wall Street Journal, emails were obtained that the Attorney General's office asked Planned Parenthood to preview and edit the draft of a consumer alert warning before it was issued, which is a clear conflict of interest. And the consumer alert urged women seeking abortions to check out Planned Parenthood's website. Now, he, this Attorney General and Planned Parenthood, have declined to comment as of the publication of this article in the past couple of days. But the writer ends with this, she says, “If the Attorney General is pro-choice, why is he working so hard to limit options for women?” That's a great question. Your thoughts, Scott.

Scott: Well, Sean, this one made me really angry, because it shows how ideology undermines a service that's caring for thousands of women in crisis. They provide tangible care in measurable ways. I mean, the number of diapers and car seats…I could use one of those car seats.

Sean: [laughs]

Scott: Those are expensive.

Sean: For grandkids? Just kidding. [laughs]

Scott: No, not yet. But this is not just a blue state thing. This is a national trend since the Dobbs decision two years ago. Because there are more and more women now who are experiencing crisis pregnancies who live in states that don't have the same access to abortion that they had prior to the Dobbs decision. So I say the demand for crisis pregnancy centers has increased significantly. And it's very encouraging to see how these centers have stepped up to the plate really nicely in the aftermath of the Dobbs decision. We would agree that the Dobbs decision was a good thing. It protects the life of the unborn. But it increased the number of desperate women who need these crisis pregnancy centers. And it's true that [these crisis pregnancy centers] don't refer to Planned Parenthood, they don't refer to abortion services, though in some states they are required to do that. They find that almost as immoral as providing the service themselves. But I think the same can be said of Planned Parenthood. They don't offer the same kind of comprehensive health services, either, to women. Because they are limiting women's choices too, to keep the babies. The biblical principle here, Sean, is so clear that throughout the prophets, and the teaching of Jesus underscores this. The biblical principle is our obligation to care for the most vulnerable among us. And crisis pregnancy women are, I think, among the most vulnerable among us today. And our obligation is to care for them in ways that are best for their health and in ways that respect their choices. Crisis pregnancy centers do not prevent women from walking out their door and getting abortions. Now, I mean, Planned Parenthood doesn't prevent women either, because we know…we've interviewed people on this podcast whose mothers have literally gotten off the table in a Planned Parenthood clinic, and walked out of the door and chose to have their child. So, you know, nobody's being stopped from exercising those choices. But making them aware of what some of those choices are, I think that cuts both ways. So for me, the really interesting takeaway on this is that the woman mentioned in this article that had started the abortion pill…

Sean: Yeah.

Scott: …But once in the crisis pregnancy center got connected with a pharmacy that filled her prescription for progesterone, which reversed the effects of the abortion pill, it's quite contrary to the conventional pro-choice wisdom that the abortion pill cannot be reversed once it's started. And that's simply not true. You know, it can be started if it's done early enough. Now, after a certain point, it's difficult to reverse. But if done early enough with a prescription for progesterone, the effects of the abortion pill can be reversed. And so that, in my view, that's the big takeaway. But the biblical principle here that just jumps out at you is our obligation to care for the most vulnerable among us. You know, Jesus said, "Whatever you do for the least of these, my brothers and sisters, you do for me," which reflects most of the teaching of the prophets when it comes to justice for the most vulnerable among us.

Sean: When I heard that this story came out, it reminded me of the 2018 Supreme Court ruling, NIFLA v. Becerra. And this is the same kind of way where a left-leaning state tries to really enforce certain rules upon pregnancy resource centers that effectively are going to shut many of them down or limit their ability to operate. So in 2015, California passed a law attempting to force pregnancy centers to advertise abortion as an option to women seeking care, which directly violates a pregnancy center's right to free speech, was the defense. Now, what's interesting about this is, the law required medically licensed pregnancy centers to provide disclosures informing pregnant women that California offered free or low-cost abortion services, and they had to include a phone number that would refer them to Planned Parenthood or other abortion providers. And then they also had to disclose that they were not medically licensed. And this applied to pregnancy resource centers that did not provide medical services, even if they gave parenting material, goods, et cetera. This actually was overruled in a 5-4 decision. Now what's amazing about this, Scott, is some of the pregnancy resource center directors and workers I talked with in California, including a local center that my wife and I support monthly, she said, "If this law holds…” I can't remember how much they were fined for not doing it. That would shut them out of business. “And because of our consciences, we would not be able to operate." I mean, that is a serious, just evil way. Now, I mean, somewhat ironically, it was actually in a concurring opinion, Justice Kennedy actually voted against it, to shoot it down in a 5-4 decision. So it just reminded me how fragile it is in a moment right now. And there's so many people, sadly, who want to shut down pregnancy resource centers. And, ironically, when you call yourself pro-choice, if a child is born, you should celebrate and say, "Great, that woman chose this. I'm happy for her." But Planned Parenthood can't, because they just lost revenue and their funding is based largely upon the amount of abortions that they perform. So this reminded me of Ephesians chapter 6 when it says, "Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against authorities, against the powers of this dark world, and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realm.” It's hard to think of something more evil than the intentional ending of the life of an unborn child, namely, pushing and promoting abortion, and trying to silence those who simply give women another option. So, it's something to financially support pregnancy resource centers and ultimately to be in prayer about. Because I think some of our rights here are even more fragile now post-2022 than they were before.

Scott: Yeah. One other comment on this. I think it's underappreciated how the obligation to refer to somebody who will perform a practice that you consider morally objectionable is just as problematic as performing the procedure yourself. And so, this is sort of the consolation prize that is offered to many of these clinics: we'll leave you alone as long as you refer to abortion services, or make reference to them or advertise for them. But I think what that underappreciates is that referring someone to a place that will do something that you consider morally, hugely objectionable and would never do yourself is just as problematic. And the referral…it's understandable why that conscience clause that applies to physicians across the board extends to referrals as well as to procedures that you consider objectionable. Now, in some states that distinction is not widely recognized, which I think puts physicians in a really tough spot about having to refer to people to do things they consider morally objectionable or else risk not staying in business. And I have great sympathy for physicians and healthcare providers who are facing that, not only with regard to abortion, but also with regard to euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide at the end of life.

Sean: Good word. Well, we'll keep tracking these stories and do updates on what's happened with the pro-life issue in the U.S. and beyond. Scott, it's been five weeks since we've done this together. Are you ready to take some questions, man?

Scott: Let's do it. We got some good questions today.

Sean: We did. Now, we have more than we can take, but here's three good ones we plucked that are hopefully helpful. This person writes, "The Bible claims to record God's actual words, but it also includes words penned by various human authors and words of human characters who are not God. Why do we treat all of the Bible as the word of God instead of only His commandments?" Now, the writer gives more, but basically at the end they said, "Why did the early church consider anything other than Jesus's words and teachings to be inspired? In short, how did the idea of an inspired set of books, much of which contain human words and not God's words, come about?” Well, I would say a couple things on this. A biblical position, going back, has always been that it's not God's words or human words. It's that God selected individuals, Paul, Matthew, Peter, et cetera, as apostles with a prophetic voice, and the Scriptures are both human and divine. So by calling the Bible the word of God, we're not taking what might be called a more Muslim view, that the prophet speaks the words of the eternal Qur’an that have existed since—you know, there really was no beginning to it. Rather, a Christian view is that the Bible is God's word spoken through human beings, and their personality comes through. Now, with that said, why do we take these words? I mean, a very quick rendition of this is, the Bible believed that God spoke through Moses, for example, called up a prophet, did miracles to confirm him, and then at the end of his life, with help from some others, he wrote down the first five books of the Torah. And then Joshua comes up, and other leaders into the prophets, were signified through miracles, called by God, and would write down words that would be the standard for people of how God has spoken, so to speak. Well, that stops about three, four hundred years before Jesus comes, and then in the New Testament, you have the same idea that there's prophets and there's apostles who speak for God and write down His words for people into the future. But what's really interesting is, even when you get in the New Testament, there's this sense that not only is the Old Testament inspired and authoritative and the words of God—all of it, by the way—we have this interesting passage in 2 Peter 3:16, where it says, “He,” referring to Paul, “writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." So here, Peter refers to Paul's writings as being in the same category as the other Scriptures. So, a ton more could be said, but hopefully that brings a little clarity of why the church views this, because it was viewed that way in the Old Testament. And then they have Jesus viewing that of the Old Testament. And they have writers like Peter viewing that about the apostle Paul. You had this continuity going up until the era of the apostles ended. And then, early church fathers didn't write in the same way. They refer back to the apostles, Old Testament and New Testament, as if it's Scripture and it's the word of God. That's the quickest response I can give. Do you want to add anything to that, Scott?

Scott: Just one thing to emphasize. I think you're right to say that the Scripture was not given by dictation, though parts of it were.

Sean: That's right.

Scott: But mostly, I think I would use the term supernatural supervision of the human authors. And I think this is what Peter's describing in 2 Peter 1:21. It says, "But prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." And the word there is…the common usage of that term is, it's a sailing imagery, where the Spirit is the wind, and the human writers are the sail, and the wind carries along the sail toward the end that God wanted it to get. So, I mean, in one sense, these aren't the exact words of God in the sense that they were directly dictated. But they are the word of God because, ultimately, He is the author. And the way I think it's best to describe the way human and divine authorship work together is that notion of supernatural supervision to ensure that everything that was written down is truthful and inerrant.

Sean: Good word. And if folks want to go back, we interviewed Michael Kruger within the past year or two about, how do we know we got the right books in the New Testament? Wonderful interview. He's one of the experts that would help. All right. Here's a theological question. Now, this is not one that you and I have spoken on or addressed here, but I love it. We've got some thinking listeners here. He writes this. He says, "Is the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer derived from Jesus' human righteousness based on his obedience, sinless life, and suffering on the cross? Or is it derived from his divine righteousness based on the fact that he is God? Or does Christ’s imputed righteousness, both human and divine, somehow spring from the same well and flow to us? Whatever you answer, what are the implications of the various possibilities on our daily lives as we strive to follow Christ?"

Scott: Sean, I think the answer here is simply yes.

Sean: Okay. [laughs]

Scott: Yes to all of it.

Sean: Explain.

Scott: Unless I'm missing something in this question, basically the imputation of Christ's righteousness is described in Romans chapter four. And the analogy is used of an accounting ledger account, where on the one side is the debts. On the other side is the credits, where our sin is taken away. And what's credited to our account is the righteousness of Christ, so that when God looks at us in Christ, He sees the righteousness of Christ, not our own sin. And I think it's derived from, since Christ was both human and divine, it is based on His human righteousness, which was perfect, and His divine righteousness, which of course is also perfect. And so I would say, they spring from the same well and flow to us. I think it's actually a good way to put it. And so, if Christ were not fully human, He couldn't have taken on our sin. If He were not fully divine, He couldn't have actually effectively paid the penalty for it. So I think both are true at the same time.

Sean: Well said. I think the point that we really want to draw out of this is that we are not righteous, because we all fall short in sin. Romans three and Romans six make that clear. Jesus is the One who's righteous. Now, He lived a sinless life, which is the kind of life you and I could not live. He did that for us, so He can represent us because He's human. But His righteousness can be imputed to us because He's divine and infinite. It's able to cover all of our sins, so to speak, and pay for an infinite debt that we owe to an infinite God. So I think you're right to say it's not one or the other. It's really both as we approach this.

Scott: Sean, one practical implication of this that I think is helpful. Our friend Kelly Kapic talked about this when we had him on several months ago. And he said, sometimes the idea that when God looks at us, He sees the righteousness of Christ—some people take from that that God sees us as these miserable wretched sinners and doesn't like us. We know He loves us because He sent Christ to die for us. But if given His choice, He didn't really like us. And I think what comes out, for example, in a passage like Zephaniah 3:17, where it talks about God—in fact, let me get it. It's too good not to quote exactly.

Sean: I love it. Yeah, we don't want to miss it. Let's see how fast Scott Rae can find his verse. Wow, we're not live, but…

Scott: Come on, come on. Give me a break here. Zephaniah 3:17, he says, “The Lord your God is with you, the mighty warrior who saves. He will take great delight in you in his love. He will no longer rebuke you, but will rejoice over you with singing.” That's the God who not only loves us, but He likes us, and He likes being around us. He likes hanging out with us. And if only we would enjoy hanging out with God as much as He did with us. But I got a sense of that when I saw my oldest son right after he was born. And just the delight that I had, just in the fact that he was my son. And just the joy we have, just the time we spent together as dads and young kids. And, even, that's particularly true now that they're adults. We just enjoy them because they're a kid we like. We love them, of course, because we're their parents. But we also like them, because they're terrific people. And I think that's just a small little dose of what I think God experiences with each of us as He relates to us as His children.

Sean: That's a great practical takeaway. God not only loves us, but actually likes us. Good stuff. We got one more question here and then we want to give little reflections on the feedback we've gotten, that we elicited, about the future of this Cultural Update. This person says, "I truly enjoyed the podcast on preferred pronouns.” That was one that I had with Tim Muehlhoff, a comm professor at Biola, where we differed over whether or not Christians should use preferred pronouns. He said, "I realize that all of your illustrations are situations I will likely never experience. I doubt I'm going to have conversations with a celebrity. I doubt I'm ever going to have a modern day Mars Hill moment like Paul. So, in situations like a neighborhood barbecue or community work party, where I run into transgendered individuals and their friends, family, and neighbors, how should I respond?" Here's what I would say. What's interesting about pronouns is, we don't really use pronouns when we're talking to somebody in person directly. It's talking about someone else. So what I found is, I've just said, "Hey, tell me your first name." Because our first names are the most intimate things, in a sense, about us when we speak to somebody else. Even he and she is second-person, but if he and she has a name, then we use the person's name. Personally, for me, I don't die on the hill of using a personal name for somebody. I remember in high school I met a six foot eight African American basketball player who told me his name was Stephanie. And I didn't think, "Oh, he's actually a girl." I thought, "Okay, maybe the name in this case has a little bit more flexibility than I thought that it did." Names are artificially bound or at least determined by a culture to a degree, even though they tend to map on to male and female. So I just don't personally die on that, even though I wouldn't use preferred pronouns. So I would just encourage, and this might not solve it all for this person, but to use personal names. "Hey, tell me what your name is, and given that our names are so important to us, would it be okay if I called you by your personal name?" That would be my suggestion for most of these. Anything you want to throw in there about this, Scott?

Scott: No, I'll let you and Tim Muehlhoff continue that debate. Because I suspect Tim would take that maybe a little differently.

Sean: Yes, he definitely would. But again, you know, Tim can be wrong. That's okay.

Scott: That's okay. And we'd be the first to tell him so.

Sean: [laughs] Exactly. If you haven't heard it, go back and hear that discussion. It's between two Bible-believing Christians lovingly but firmly disagreeing over this. And wherever you land, I think it'll help you think through what that might look like. All right, last thing today, Scott, is we've got a little bit of feedback and just want to give some thoughts on how we're adapting this podcast. So one of them says, over the years…he makes a reference that some of the interviews and conversations I've had, we've used as bonuses here on the podcast. Probably once a month we were doing that. When we started the weekly Cultural Update, we stopped doing that because we didn't want to release three episodes a week. There's plenty of other podcasts for people to listen to. Now, one idea I had, Scott, is next July, when we take off, maybe we'll add those bonuses back on Fridays in July. I think if there's fitting ones from that year, that'll help folks out. So we'll bring it back there. But he says, how do I keep following this? So Scott and I co-host this podcast. My YouTube channel. Also, I put all of those on a podcast just literally called The Sean McDowell Show. So sometimes, if you go to that one, you'll hear some of the ones that Scott and I do, the conversations that we do on YouTube, maybe one or two. But 80% of those are fresh. So if you just search on Apple or any podcast place for The Sean McDowell Show, if that's what you're looking for, that would be helpful. The next person who gives feedback, he's encouraged us to not only just give our wisdom and thoughts and reflections, but to specifically lay out biblical principles in the issues that we discuss. And I thought this was really helpful feedback, Scott. I think we did that some, but it was a reminder to be even more intentional about this. And I think today we really went out of our way to do this. And in some ways, I kind of think this will separate our podcast from others and we'll think ethically, culturally, but also really intentionally bring in, since it's called Think Biblically, biblical principles as much as we can. So, great reminder. Any thoughts on that one?

Scott: Yeah, that is really helpful feedback. We greatly, greatly appreciate all of you who have sent in suggestions. We've read them all. We take them all really seriously. We can't do everything that people are asking us to do, but we've tried to do the things that we can incorporate in. And we got a lot of good feedback and we very much appreciate it.

Sean: Great, great feedback. Now there's one more here that said…let me read this part here. It says, "Maybe try integrating discussions, perspectives such as those referenced above." This is referring to the biblical view on immigration and others different than what we hold. "There are times when the Cultural Update feels like a Christian-themed conservative commentary rather than a biblical dissection of cultural events." Now, in some ways, I would just plead guilty. I mean, we are conservatives, theologically and politically. Biola is conservative, theologically. I'd say for the most part, politically, there'd be some folks that would be to the right of us, Scott. There'd probably be some folks a little bit to the left of us. Our goal here is not to just say, "Here's an issue and here's varying biblical perspectives one can take on this." We're going to weigh in as to what we think Christians ought to—how they ought to approach this issue. Now, that doesn't mean others can't differ. It doesn't mean we don't get issues wrong at times. But there's other good podcasts people can listen to. John Stonestreet has a weekly cultural update, and it's probably very similar to this one, conservative, kind of more of a worldview approach. Christianity Today, called The Bulletin, has an excellent weekly cultural update I listen to. Now, they're probably more centrist or a little bit to the left of us. But I would, as a whole—not in every case—but rather than us doing that, I would encourage you to listen to some other weekly cultural updates to get different perspectives. But with that said, we will try to intentionally bring in other perspectives than ours as we can and be fair to those.

Scott: I think we're going to do our best not to be partisan.

Sean: That's right.

Scott: But to recognize that our faith has a public dimension to it that we have to address. And that's really the purpose for the weekly Cultural Update. It's an outworking of both of our convictions that Christianity is not just a private thing between you and the Lord, but it has a public dimension to it in how we live out our lives in community in both the political and the economic arenas. Those are both important.

Sean: You know, in some ways, there could be a Cultural Update where you have a conservative and you have a liberal who are both biblical. That'd be a great show. That's not our show. If somebody is aware of that show, send me a link. I'd like to actually listen to that one. And if it's good, maybe we'll share it with our audiences. Maybe email us that. If you're aware of a show you think are two thoughtful people that take cultural issues and approach it from the left and the right, and they're not yelling at each other, it's a cordial conversation, I would love to listen to that and maybe we can weave in some of that. But I don't think that's really the focus of this show. That's not what we're trying to do. Anything else, Scott? It's good to be back, man.

Scott: Yeah, great to have you back and great to be back. We're back in the saddle together on this. So this is good. I've had fun with this today. These were good stories and good questions today. So, appreciate our listeners sending those questions. Keep those coming, please.

Sean: And the last thing I'll say is we finally passed 1,000 podcast reviews. I was sending out tweets encouraging people to do so. Every one of those helps. So, please take the time to do that if you can, if this is helpful to you. And we really appreciate that quite a few, probably 90% of the comments, Scott, were just encouragement from folks.

Scott: Yeah, very nice.

Sean: This is a lot of work and it's exhausting and we get criticism for it, which is fine. Yeah, we want the criticism as well. But that was super encouraging to hear about how some of you talk with your spouses about this, with your kids, sharing with small groups, and it's encouraged you to try to think biblically about issues as well. That's really the goal here. 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've got master's programs in theology, Bible, apologetics, spiritual information, Old Testament, New Testament, and more, fully online and in person. Please keep your comments and questions coming. You can email us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu. Every rating on a podcast app helps, and we appreciate when you share this with a friend. Thanks so much for listening. We'll see you Tuesday when our regular episode airs with an episode that when we were done, when we recorded, both Scott and I looked at each other and thought, oh my goodness, this is a must listen to. A friend of mine, Christopher Lin, who's an expert on artificial intelligence, talks about how it's literally revolutionizing how we think about sex and sexuality. And in a sense, we haven't seen anything yet. So, please don't miss that episode on Tuesday. But in the meantime, remember to think biblically about everything.