Biola University
We got so many great questions from our listeners and we only have time for 2-3 in the Weekly Cultural Update. We have quite a backlog so we're devoting this episode entirely to your insightful questions. We'll cover things like How do we disciple our children? Was there animal violence before the Fall? What if education reform leaves behind kids that deserve better? What about Israel’s right to the land? We hope you enjoy this episode and that you keep your questions coming!
Episode Transcript
Sean McDowell: [upbeat music] Hey, friends, welcome to a special episode of the Think Biblically podcast. Normally, we have our weekly cultural update coming out on Thursday, but Scott and I were both out of town this week and decided to play a full Q&A for you. Each week, we usually have three questions at the end of a session, and there's way more questions than we can take. So we'd love to know what you think about this. Would you like us to do this more regularly, whether on a Tuesday or on a Friday at times, where we just take your questions? Which questions were most helpful? Let us know what you think. In the meantime, enjoy this Q&A in lieu of the weekly cultural update. We've got some good questions here-
Scott Rae: I should say we do
Sean McDowell: ... About a range of topics that I think are gonna fascinate our audience. But, I am your host, Sean McDowell.
Scott Rae: I'm your co-host, Scott Rae.
Sean McDowell: And this is the Think Biblically podcast, brought to you by Talbot School of Theology, Biola University. All right, we're gonna jump straight into the deep end, Scott. Here's the question that we have. Question number one: How should we think about situations, for example, where a flood or fire destroys one person's house, but their neighbor's house remains intact? Or more seriously, one person dies in a disaster, but the neighbor survives. Can we claim that God was with the survivor? This seems difficult to me, since it assumes that God was not with the victim.
Scott Rae: Well, a couple things. I appreciate the question, and it's, I think pretty clearly this comes out of the Los Angeles fires that have happened-
Sean McDowell: I think that's right
Scott Rae: ... In the last month. Well, so here's what I would say to that. Part, part of the reason that fire destroyed one person's house and not another, right adjacent to each other, may have to do with the degree of fireproofing that the person- ... Used in their home. That's, that's a possibility.
Sean McDowell: Okay.
Scott Rae: And we know that- we know that some areas, did survive because of some of those measures that were taken. Now, that's, that's a small fraction of the homes that survived. Other- seems like it's just purely by chance. And I... What I would say to that is that I think we can claim that God was with the survivor, but I think we can claim that God was with the victim, too.
Sean McDowell: Amen.
Scott Rae: And how... And, and He walks with them differently through those two different scenarios. How in the providence of God, one house burns down, and the next-door neighbor survives, I don't think we have an answer to that this side of eternity. The- and Sean, as we've talked about before, all of us have a handful of, at least a handful of why questions that will puzzle us until the day we meet the Lord- ... About how things in our lives fit together. And I think Ecclesiastes, you know, is right when Solomon says that basically, under the sun, there are certain things that we just can't know. That's a rough- ... Paraphrase. And under the sun, meaning this side of eternity. So I think, you know, we will, we will, f- this will... I think the answer will be clear on this once we meet the Lord face to face. But I think as our friend Eric Thomas has pointed out, we need to, we need to trust not only in the things that the Bible tells us, but to have trust in those things that the Bible doesn't tell us either. And I think this is one of those things.
Sean McDowell: That's a great answer, and given that we don't know, and I should remind, you know, our listeners, that we shouldn't necessarily expect to know. This is what it means to be human and God to be sovereign and know how even the smallest event affects something else. It's only in Heaven when we look back that we might see some of those connections and reasons we can't at the present. So that also means we need to not assume, "Well, this neighbor was spiritual, this neighbor was not," and start reading more into it than we know. Is it possible God let somebody get affected by the fire because of their sin? Well, maybe that's possible. It's also possible that God wanted a Christian to allow to experience this, to shine the light through the believer. Like, now we're just guessing in ways we don't know, and the Bible just talks about how, you know, it rains on the righteous, and it rains on the wicked.
Scott Rae: Yeah, I would, I would think those kinds of speculations, I think, run the risk of being presumptuous.
Sean McDowell: That's right.
Scott Rae: I think they also run the risk of being blasphemous- ... Which was attributing to God something that doesn't belong to Him. So a reason or rationale for something that we presume, to attribute to God, I'd just, I'd just be careful about, as my mentor put it, "Be careful trying to unscrew the inscrutable."
Sean McDowell: I think we underestimate how much our own biases shape the way we interpret the data [chuckles] and our own sinfulness, things we want to be true, and so you're right, to hold back and not presume to know, and to trust God through it is the key. And, of course, I think, you know, Jesus talks about that in Luke 13. Trusting God and repenting, even when we see natural and moral evil, is one way Christians can respond. All right, good stuff. Let's go to the second question. This one is a little bit more practical, and I gotta tell you, I did not see this question coming, Scott.
Scott Rae: Me neither.
Sean McDowell: But here we go. This person says: "We are leaders of a small group of young adults at our church. There's one young woman in our group who's strong in her faith and active in our community. She's also political. She's now dating a man convicted in the January 6th Capitol riot. He was sentenced to time in prison for multiple charges, including assaulting an officer. He recently, fully pardoned by Trump and is planning to move to our city, continue dating the young woman, join our small group. He's passionate about partisan politics, and we are concerned he may bring unwanted attention to politics, while we want to remain welcoming to the range of political views. Do you have any advice on integrating this man into our small group?"
Scott Rae: Yes. I think we're obligated to be welcoming, even to people who we might disagree with, but I think the-... The boundary that we set up is that we j- we don't want our small group to be, have people in it who are divisive. That's, I think, the bottom line. When it becomes divisive, when somebody's pursuing an agenda that's dividing our group and undermining the, some of the things that we s- that, you know, that we're about as a small group, which is about discipleship and spiritual formation, and, you know, the people's life with God. Politics is certainly a part of that, but it's not the main part. And so I think it's, it's, it's okay to have that come up periodically for conversation about how to wrestle through some of these issues. But somebody who's sort of intent on being divisive, I think that's... It's appropriate also for the group to say, "That's not who, that's not who we are, not what we're about." And so if that happens, then I think it'd be, it'd be okay to say, you know, after some conversation, to say, "You know, maybe it'd be better if you took your, you know, political views somewhere else."
Sean McDowell: Great answer. I agree 100% with you on this one, Scott. One thing that might be helpful is a friend of mine who we haven't had here on the podcast, but I've had him on YouTube a couple times. Preston Oemler's written a book called The Doubters Club, and a little different than a Bible study. These are clubs that are set up between believers and non-believers, and it's to facilitate understanding and conversation and dialogue on important issues. The reason I bring it up is they lay out very clear guidelines of what these clubs are about, what's accepted, what's not, and everybody agrees to it. In fact, I think they print them out and put them on the wall. Now, your guidelines might be different, but you could pull up The Doubters Club guidelines-
Scott Rae: That's a great idea
Sean McDowell: ... Search it, and find it. Look in the book. This is an opportunity as a small group just to say, "What are we about?" 'Cause this is probably not the last time somebody's just gonna come in. Maybe they wanna make it political, maybe they have some other pet project they wanna talk about. But if you say, "You know what? Here is what this group is about. I can talk with you over coffee separately. We could have a separate meeting, but this is our identity," then it's not just picking on this person, it's keeping the main thing, the main thing. So set those guidelines now, and then you can deal with this and other challenges that come.
Scott Rae: That's a great answer and a great resource.
Sean McDowell: Question number three, "The le- the letter of First John starts off with what seems to be encouraging eyewitness statements, but when we get to verse five, we have two different translations that confuse the situation. The King James Version reads, 'And this is the message we have heard of him,' as if John heard this from someone else. The New American Standard reads, 'And this is the message we have heard from him,' as if John heard this firsthand from Jesus. So the difference between of and from seems to change the meaning in this passage. The question is, which one is the right translation from the original Greek, and what is the significance for the eyewitness testimony mentioned in verse one?" Now, I appreciate that this person thinks you and I could parse and know the details of the Greek. We both studied it in our programs. I would have to say this is not my expertise.
Scott Rae: I don't have the answer to this off the top of my head.
Sean McDowell: Off the top of your head. But I looked into a few things, and here's what's interesting. The one translation the individual cites is the King James Version. Beautiful translation, can still understand the gospel through it, but hundreds of years older. We've got new manuscripts since then, and the English language has changed. I wanted to see if this is translated of or from, so I went to the NIV, ESV, NASB, New King James Version, CSB, RSV Catholic Edition, NET, and the Lexham Bible, and they all have from. So given the care and expertise that these scholars make, quite literally line by line, I'm pretty confident that it is from. Now, the other thing to do, sometimes deciphering what something s- means is not just going to the Greek; it's looking in the context. I don't think you have to know Greek to be able to figure this out. So this is a question about 1 John 1:5. Look at 1 John 1:1-4, and it says three times something that I think answers our question here. It says, "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands," that's the first time, "concerning the Word of life. The life was made manifest, and we have seen it and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us. That which we have seen and heard, we proclaim also to you, so you may have fellowship with us; and indeed, our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son, Jesus Christ. And we are writing these things so your joy may be complete." Three times in the verses before, it makes clearly that the people who are reporting this saw and heard and touched. So I think the best when we get to verse five is not to all of a sudden shift and say, "Now we're talking about somebody else's message." The context itself makes it very clear that it is from them, not of, so to speak, or from Jesus, not of Jesus.
Scott Rae: And I suspect that it's that, those very texts that you cited were what all those translators of the various versions you cited took to heart when they translated that from.
Sean McDowell: Exactly.
Scott Rae: I think our listeners should know that, you know, translation is not just strictly... You know, you're not plugging in a, you know, Google Translate. You know, translation has an element of interpretation to it, because the same, that same Greek word can mean both of those things. It's just which one is more likely to be rendered as given-... You know, the, all the other things at play in the context, so.
Sean McDowell: Well said.
Scott Rae: Anyway, carry on.
Sean McDowell: Now, y- no, that's great. One other point is, by the way, if it came to verse five and all of a sudden shifted from "from" to "of," it wouldn't ultimately matter. It would make the point even stronger because they're passing on what they saw personally, and then talked with others and proclaim also what they said. So we have gospels like John that claims to be eyewitness testimony. Then we have gospels like Luke that says he's not eyewitness testimony, but he's talked to eyewitness testimonies.
Scott Rae: Yeah.
Sean McDowell: So I think this translation is "from," but even if it said "of," I don't think it would be as problematic as is implied here.
Scott Rae: Yeah, I think you're right to say the point's already been made.
Sean McDowell: I think so.
Scott Rae: And, and this just... I think the verse five that he's describing here just reinforces that.
Sean McDowell: Let's keep going. We got another good challenge, and this one is for me. It says, "On the February 7th weekly cultural update, Sean commented that he thought perhaps there was animal violence before the fall 'cause of how animals have built-in features designed to kill. In Isaiah 11:6-9, we read the prophetic words, 'The wolf will dwell with the lamb, and the leopard will lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together, and the little boy will lead them. Also, the cow and the bear will graze together,' et cetera. If the eschaton is undoing the effects of the fall, wouldn't these above conditions be the conditions before the fall?" Now, I'm gonna cite somewhat extensively from a book from a friend of ours named Paul Copan, wonderful philosopher. He's been on this program. It's called How Do You Know You're Not Wrong? And he points out a few things before I get to kind of the passage at hand. He says, "For example, we have in Psalm 104, a creation psalm, where we read that the lions roar for their prey and seek their food from God." Interesting. Job 41 speaks of God creating the fierce leviathan, probably a crocodile, with fearsome teeth. Now, why was he made with fearsome teeth? Presumably to kill [chuckles] and eat, and there's not even a hint of being a post-fall situation. So I would argue that I think the fall introduced human death, not animal death. Now, this is widely debated. I totally get that, but here's just something else Paul points out I wanna throw out there for our listeners. He said, "It's not uncommon to hear that both humans and animals were originally vegetarians. There are some important points that would suggest another scenario. So Genesis 9:3 affirms that every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you. Gordon Wenham points out that this ratifies or confirms the legitimacy of meat-eating. After all, God repeats the command to Noah to be fruitful and to multiply." So he's ratifying it and drawing out what was there for the sake of focus. He says, "Genesis isn't interested in whether people were originally vegetarian or not, but that God is the one who supplied them with food." That's his argument. Then he goes, he goes a little further. He says, "God tells us in Genesis 1 that human beings are to rule over the fish of the sea. What could this mean apart from permission to eat them?" Now, that doesn't answer, but that's an interesting question he's asking. Abel kept sheep, presumably to eat. Noah distinguishes between clean and unclean animals, which clearly assumes the edibility of meat prior to the flood, arguably again. Jesus would've eaten lamb at the Passover, since he was a good, Galilean. We certainly know that he ate fish. He points out a couple other things. You know, Jesus miraculously fed fish to 5,000 people. Luke 15, you have a celebration at the return of the prodigal son, included killing of the fattened calf. So he's just... He's making this argument that there's certain things that are okay. We've eaten meat, celebrated. Jesus did this. It's hard to think that it's kind of a result of the fall, that things changed, et cetera. Then he gets down to this passage in Isaiah 11, more specific to the question, where it said, "There will be no more fear of predatory animals. Rather, the wolf will dwell with the lamb, the cow, the bear will feed together, et cetera. Wild animals will be domesticated." He says, "One caution is in order. We have to be careful about over-literalizing these texts that refer to the new heavens and new earth." So if you go to Isaiah 65:20, it says that the youth will die at the age of 100. Surely, this is a picture of living long, since there's, rather than literally dying in the new heavens and the new earth, it's metaphorical. So that's probably more than this person was- [chuckles] ... Asking for, and I realize there'll be challenges back, but I don't think it's as simple as just citing Isaiah 11, given the genre of Isaiah and other hints in Genesis itself, to say that that overturns my point.
Scott Rae: Fair enough. I hadn't given this a lot of thought.
Sean McDowell: [chuckles] Okay. [laughing]
Scott Rae: So I mean, I'm, you know, I'm inclined to see,
Scott Rae: you know, what takes place at the Lord's return is a restoration of creation values. And it's a, it's a renew- it's, it's creation redeemed-
Sean McDowell: Sure
Scott Rae: ... Sort of once and for all.
Sean McDowell: I agree with that.
Scott Rae: Now, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not so sure that just because... I don't, I don't think the, I don't think you'll have the same relationship between predator and prey when the kingdom comes in its fullness as you have during most of human history. I'm not, I'm not sure, I'm not sure what necessarily follows from that about-
Sean McDowell: Yeah
Scott Rae: ... Prior to the fall.... So I'm not, what I'm more con- what I'm more interested in is what the eternal states and the return of Christ is gonna be like. And I think it will... I think you can make a good argument that basic relationship between predator and prey, I don't- I don't know what else to make of the wolf will dwell with the lamb peacefully instead of in a predatory relationship. So w- but again, what that has to do with creation before the Fall- ... I'm not so sure that you can equate those two like our listener is assuming-
Sean McDowell: Okay
Scott Rae: ... That you can do. So-
Sean McDowell: Fair enough. That's a helpful-
Scott Rae: But that's, you know, yeah, I'm open to, I'm open to pushback on that.
Sean McDowell: And this is probably a terrible argument that I would add, but, man, why would God make meat taste so good [chuckles] from the beginning if he didn't intend... Now, I realize there's problems with that argument, and I'll probably reject it, but it's, you know, get some pushback on it. But when it's all said and done, seems to me that it's built into the creation account. But nonetheless, hopefully this gives our listener... And by the way, really appreciate the question. Very thoughtful.
Scott Rae: Great question.
Sean McDowell: Excellent pushback. He may not be satisfied, but hopefully that gives him something to think about maybe he had not before. Good stuff. All right, let's keep going. Question number five. Individual says, "I'm expecting my first child in a few months. My husband and I are honored to welcome this baby boy in the world." Gives some of their backstory and just says, "I would appreciate any recommendation on how to disciple our children in a way that might set them up to choose Jesus on their own as they approach adulthood." Now, Scott, I would say in my research on-- I've written a whole book on this called So the Next Generation Will Know, with our friend Jay Warner Wallace. And so I've researched this and looked into it, data a lot, and I think the data would say basically three things. Number one, if you wanna disciple your kid, live a life that is attractive in terms of being a follower of Jesus. If we don't have a life of authenticity-
Scott Rae: Right
Sean McDowell: ... Not perfection, doesn't matter what we say. So that's number one. Number two, spend time with your kids and build relationships with them. Build relationships-
Scott Rae: Yeah
Sean McDowell: ... With your kids.
Scott Rae: Be, be there.
Sean McDowell: Be there. Yeah, and just be involved in their life. And then number three, look for intentional ways to have spiritual conversations to form the worldview of your kids. And of course, that's Deuteronomy, the Shema, talk of these things when you wake up, when you lie down, when you walk on the road, et cetera. Now, of course, I would add to that, going to church and being involved in a good, healthy, local church, if you can, is absolutely vital. But I think, again, you know, I'd just sum up, if you live a life that's attractive to your kids, build a relationship with the kids, have meaningful spiritual worldview conversations, be involved in a local church, there's no guarantee with parenting, but that gives you a great chance, biblically speaking, doused in prayer, to see your kids follow your faith.
Scott Rae: Crucial to plant good seeds like that. I think there are a couple other things to consider. And that is, at some point, when they hit adolescence, don't, don't be surprised if they say, "I'm done hearing from Mom and Dad- ... On this." So I would be prepared, if that day comes, to be able to entrust them to other people- ... Small group leaders- ... Who you, who you know and trust, that can continue the work that you've begun. Now, obviously, your job as a disciple, discipler of your kids never ends, just like your job as a parent never ends.
Sean McDowell: Sure.
Scott Rae: But I think there will be times when our kids are more open to hearing from us than at other times, and so to be prepared for that.
Sean McDowell: Well said.
Scott Rae: The other thing I think that's, that's a factor in this is if they push back on your faith, don't flip out. [laughing] Seriously.
Sean McDowell: Yeah, no, I get it.
Scott Rae: And pr- the reason for that is that, you know, a lot of the people... You know, I'm a baby boomer. A lot of the, a lot of, a lot of my friend- most of my friends growing up through high school and college came to faith out of essentially non-Christian families. Okay, now, fa- my family was, I'd say, sort of nominally Christian, went to a very liberal Presbyterian church. I never heard the gospel till I was in high school for the first time. And one of the ways we separated from our parents and formed our own individual identity was by coming to faith. That was the main way that we did that. My folks, when we, when my siblings and I came to faith, they were-- they could not figure out what on earth we'd gotten ourselves into.
Sean McDowell: [laughing]
Scott Rae: And, and, that was the way we established our own sort of separate identity from them. And when we... Just to be aware, when we raise kids in overtly Christian homes, where we're trying to disciple our kids, we sort of, we preclude them using their faith as a way to push back on us. They'll find something else to push back on to establish their own- ... Separateness. So in light of that, d- if you've planted good seeds, don't freak out-
Sean McDowell: That's great
Scott Rae: ... When they start to push back, 'cause because if you freak out, then they're gonna push back harder.
Sean McDowell: That'll go even more.
Scott Rae: That will, that will not go well.
Sean McDowell: Good word.
Scott Rae: Um-
Sean McDowell: I like that. So don't flip out, entrust them to others. If I was gonna add one more thing to this couple of a young child, is don't stop dating each other and building your relationship together. My dad often said the greatest thing that a dad can do for his kids is to love his kid's mom.... Modeling a healthy biblical marriage, 'cause the reality is, divorce rocks a kid's faith. It does. So keep working-
Scott Rae: That's a great point
Sean McDowell: ... On that relationship before the Lord. Hope that helps some.
Scott Rae: Great point.
Sean McDowell: We got three more. Number six question here says, "On December, on one of the cultural updates, you mentioned a child's right to an education, and then you gave an argument for school choice. My favorite school choice across the board, squelching public schools and doing an end run around teachers' unions, we might eventually get to a competitive and flourishing secondary education system. But what about the generation of students in the middle? Is it reasonable to revamp a system at the expense of those kids?" So in other words, do we have a responsibility to those who might fall between the cracks as we move towards this better day in the future?
Scott Rae: Well, I think to be clear, where I wanna start, Sean, is that, you know, parents are ultimately responsible for educating their children and preparing them for life in the real world. And, and I think it's, it's, it's this gross injustice when you have kids that are trapped in failing schools simply because of their zip code. That, that I- that's, that is a... That's an inequality that's created by an injustice that we all ought to get exercised about. I don't think too many people disagree with that. What we disagree about is the best means to fix it.
Sean McDowell: Okay.
Scott Rae: And I think allowing a vouch- so something like a voucher system that gives a ta- a tax credit or a tax allowance or some sort of, some sort of system that allows parents to opt out of failing schools and to get into schools that better suit them, I think is a, is an obligation that we have as a society. 'Cause I think it is morally wrong- ... To keep kids in underserved communities trapped in failing schools. Now, I think the listener, I think, has a little bit, has a bit of skepticism about school choice and m- and the way markets will-
Sean McDowell: Handle the situation [chuckles]
Scott Rae: ... Will allocate this.
Sean McDowell: Yeah.
Scott Rae: And I think there probably, there no doubt would be some adjustments that come along the way. But I do think that if school- if failing schools close, the market is, for education, is not gonna let a whole community of kids go on without- ... Any kind of educational opportunity. And so I d- I don't think that it's a choice between a highbrow private school and, you know, and a failing public school. I think the choice is between, you know, affording what you can, but I think the market will fill g- fill in gaps and bring quality education to, you know, to a variety of different level, income levels. I've seen this take place in other parts of the world. Indonesia, for example, has a system. It's all, it's, it's all, it's all privately funded, so I'll, I'll put it that way. But they have, they have a system based on... The, the educational opportunity is based on your level of means. So the s- the schools are, some schools are quite expensive, and they're college preparatory. Others are more in the middle, and others are sort of pay if you can. And the m- I think the most they charge is about $20 a month.
Sean McDowell: Oh.
Scott Rae: And the kids a- the kids actually basically live at the school until- ... Their parents get home from work. And it's a, it's, it's just a wonderful system that an entrepreneur had a vision for how education- ... Could be transformed in his particular city in Indonesia. Now, I don't, I don't... They're not invoking any government assistance or anything like that.
Sean McDowell: Sure.
Scott Rae: But I think the idea that it's tiered based on what a person can afford, I think, I think is part of the wave of the future, where- ... Where I hope education might be headed.
Sean McDowell: The only thing I have to say is I'm impressed that you pulled an Indonesia example [chuckles] of education to make your point, man. I did not see that coming. Good response. [chuckles]
Scott Rae: Actually, on my only trip to Indonesia with-
Sean McDowell: Oh, okay
Scott Rae: ... With Biola, we visited these-
Sean McDowell: That makes sense
Scott Rae: ... We visited all of these schools.
Sean McDowell: Okay.
Scott Rae: Um-
Sean McDowell: That makes sense.
Scott Rae: So-
Sean McDowell: Fascinating. Great response. I literally have nothing to add to that. I was gone for that episode, so you nailed it. All right, I made a mistake. I said three more, but we will move quickly through these. We have three left. I did the wrong math. This might be the most [chuckles] interesting question we have received. This individual says, "My wife and I are so-
Scott Rae: Of course, it's a business ethics question, so you're defaulting to me on this.
Sean McDowell: Of course! That's your lane, man. I took it... I've taken some tough ones. "My wife and I are so thankful for all the wisdom we've gained through you and your guests on the podcast." Two questions, but we're just gonna take one of them. "My design agency has an underwear lingerie company as a client. Eventually, I will be part of a project for this client involving ads on social media. What do you think? Is it okay to work for this client as a Christian, or should I tell my boss that I ethically cannot do this?"
Scott Rae: All right, here's what, here's what I would do if I were in this person's situation.
Sean McDowell: Yeah, tell us.
Scott Rae: For one, I think as a general rule, we've told our business students for years, at the first hint of ethical challenge, don't walk away. Keep your place at the table-
Sean McDowell: Okay
Scott Rae: ... To see if you can influence the project in ways that might be a bit more redemptive.
Sean McDowell: Okay.
Scott Rae: So here's what... If I, if I were taking part in the project, here's one of the things I would suggest. I think it's fine to... I mean, underwear, lingerie, I think is fine. And what... But I, what I'd wanna do is I'd wanna ensure that I made it clear that, for one, it's, it's not, it's not same-sex stuff- ... For one, but also that-... You have one of the thing, one of the adaptations you'd make to the project would be, "Let's have the man and the woman in this both have wedding rings on."
Sean McDowell: Oh, [chuckles] that's interesting. [laughs]
Scott Rae: And so-
Sean McDowell: Okay
Scott Rae: ... So what you're advertising is basically-
Sean McDowell: Uh-huh
Scott Rae: ... You know, good sex in marriage. That, that would be the correction that I would make.
Sean McDowell: I didn't see that coming.
Scott Rae: And, and-
Sean McDowell: Okay
Scott Rae: ... And by, and by keeping my place at the table, I've, I've given myself the opportunity to have, to in- to shape and influence the project in ways that I think- ... Are more consistent with my own biblical values. Okay, now, you may find that you can't do that- ... Or the client's not open to that. In my view, you know, putting wedding rings on the two participants is a fairly innocuous thing-
Sean McDowell: Yeah
Scott Rae: ... But could be, could very powerfully send the right message. Okay? Now, I think what it would do for this person, at the least, would make the project less morally objectionable. 'Cause if the project is, you know, s- this sort of celebrating, you know, all sorts of promiscuous sex and- ... You know, things like that, then I m- I might... Then I, what I would probably say is, "I don't... I ha- I have, I have a, I have a personal thing about working on a project like this." I would, I wouldn't- I'm not sure, so I would, I would wave the moral-
Sean McDowell: Yeah, yeah
Scott Rae: ... The moral flag.
Sean McDowell: Yeah.
Scott Rae: But I say, "I, you know, I have a personal issue." It'd sort of be like, you know, if I, if my, if my son had been killed in a drunk driving accident- ... And I'm, you know, and I'm being asked... The project's not for lingerie, but it's for alcohol. And- ... You know, maybe alcohol that might feature people who are sort of close in age to underage drinking, things like that. I could say, "Look, I have a personal thing just because of my history with this. I cannot... Can I be assigned to a different project?"
Sean McDowell: That's fair.
Scott Rae: And to do it graciously.
Sean McDowell: Yeah.
Scott Rae: If you've been a good employee, and the company wants to keep you know, the chances are pretty good that they will reassign you. Okay? Now, the, if you find that you're getting... If your design agency gives you these moral conflicts, these conflicts of conscience, you know, once a month, once a quarter, you know, maybe you ought to conclude that this- ... May not be a good fit for you. But I would, I would use that more as a last resort than a first one.
Sean McDowell: Really good. I love the idea of leaning in and trying to use wisdom, which in a sense, what Daniel did in Daniel, chapter 1.
Scott Rae: Exactly.
Sean McDowell: Is there a way-
Scott Rae: Yeah
Sean McDowell: ... To reconcile what the king really wants without violating his conscience before the Lord? I think there's a lot of wisdom in that. The only distinction I would make that might help is I'd just say all, you know, underwear and lingerie commercials and advertisements are not the same.
Scott Rae: True.
Sean McDowell: I mean, they're just not.
Scott Rae: True.
Sean McDowell: I mean, the definition of pornography is an image, sound, or a word meant to sexually arouse. There are some underwear commercials or, you know, stands- ... We've all seen that it's like whether it's the posing or the kind of underwear clearly meant to sexually entice, and others are not meant to, and they're just not portrayed that way. Does that mean I'd walk my 12-year-old son through that? No, but it doesn't mean that, as a Christian, you couldn't potentially help if it's done in a certain fashion that's not meant to sexually arouse. And now, where that line is, of course, [chuckles] is another matter. But that's a-
Scott Rae: Yeah
Sean McDowell: ... Principle according to somebody's conscience that you could help with 'cause we all need underwear. It's not a bad thing, [chuckles] and we need to find it. So that's just a distinction I would throw in there.
Scott Rae: Good, good point. Good point.
Sean McDowell: Two more. We're gonna go from underwear to end times, Scott. [laughs]
Scott Rae: [laughs] This is all over the map here.
Sean McDowell: The last one is amazing, by the way. So it says: When I was back in college, Hal Lindsey's book, The Late Great Planet Earth, who was one of the top authors of, like, the decade of the '80s. The implication of that book and the message of other popular apocalyptic preachers were that Jesus would return by 1988. Any thoughts on why we're still waiting for Jesus' return? More seriously, what do you think Jesus is waiting for? What do you think God wants to see happen before He'll send Jesus back to Earth?
Scott Rae: I don't think this is that hard.
Sean McDowell: [chuckles] Okay.
Scott Rae: What God's waiting for is for everyone who have the opportunity to repent and come to faith- ... And be saved. And that's, that, you know, Great Commission is not finished. So I think that's, I think that's what it's waiting for. Why we are still waiting for Jesus' return, I mean, Jesus, when He was on Earth, did not even know the time of His return. So I don't expect that we would know the time, either. All the Bible teaches us is that it's imminent, that it could happen at any time. There are n- there's, there's, there's virtually nothing, in God's program, I think, except for... You know, I understand the delay. But there's nothing that absolutely has to happen before Christ could return. So I suspect the delay actually is because God desires all to repent and come to a knowledge of the truth.
Sean McDowell: That's a great answer, and of course, it's a biblical answer because we have in Galatians 4:4, which talks about-
Scott Rae: Right
Sean McDowell: ... "When the fullness of time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman under the law." So you could talk about the fullness of time prophetically, theologically, legally, that enabled the message to get around. So clearly, God is sovereign, sending His Son when it's the fullness of time. So Jesus is going to return, in a sense, when it's the fullness [chuckles] of time, and it's the best time and given enough people to repent. I gave a sermon... I've only preached twice out of the Book of Revelation, interestingly enough, and this is on the last words in the Bible. And the last words are, you know, Revelation 22:20. This is the ESV, "He who testifies to these things says, 'Surely I am coming soon.' Amen. Come, Lord Jesus." And he wrote that-... 2,000 years ago. [chuckles]
Scott Rae: That's right.
Sean McDowell: What is he waiting for? Now, I get this question. I'm like, "Legitimate question. I wonder the same thing, too." But remember, this message of Jesus came out of his Jewish roots, where we'd say, "The day of the Lord is imminent," and then it'd be 400 years. [laughing] The day of the Lord is imminent, and then it'd be 800 years. There has always been this tension that the day of the Lord could be any moment, or he could tarry, and every generation has to live within that tension. So why should I believe Jesus is coming back? Why should I believe this? Well, that's why I look back at the miracles that Jesus did, the prophecy that he fulfilled, that I can trust his teachings. So here, I don't have the answer to the question of exactly why he's waiting. I mean, honestly, when anybody frames a question... I'm gonna read this. It says, "What do you think Jesus is waiting for?" I'm like, "I have no idea"- [chuckles]
Scott Rae: Yeah.
Sean McDowell: ... Unless Jesus told me.
Scott Rae: That's right.
Sean McDowell: And he clearly hasn't told me. And if I said to you, Scott, "Jesus has told me this," you should rightly fire me as [chuckles] your co-host-
Scott Rae: [laughs]
Sean McDowell: ... And get me out of here, 'cause we don't know. So I get the tension. I understand it. It's a part of the story. But especially 'cause the resurrection of the dead, we have reason to believe we can trust Jesus and his Word, and we have to live with a sense of urgency-
Scott Rae: That
Sean McDowell: ... That Jesus could come back tomorrow.
Scott Rae: That's, that's the thing.
Sean McDowell: But a sense of trust-
Scott Rae: Yeah
Sean McDowell: ... That we're a part. It might be our great-great-great-grandkids, and I've just been faithful in the generation and time that God placed me.
Scott Rae: Yeah, the reason I think for some of that tension is so that we'd be prepared- ... And not be caught off guard with the Lord's return.
Sean McDowell: Amen. Well, well said. All right, now this is officially [chuckles] question nine, our last one, and this one is, this one is a doozy. This is a thoughtful one. I wanna know what you think about this. It says, "Our daughter and her husband were raised in Christian homes and graduated from Bible college. They attended church regularly until COVID. They have five kids. I also noticed they were more and more open to postmodern and progressive ideas. Recently, they shared they have an open marriage, and if we come in to visit, we should expect to see other people, their partners, in the home. They wanna talk openly and answer our questions, and we are thankful for their honesty. My main questions are, how does this lifestyle bring them closer to Christ? What did they tell their kids? What happens if one of them changes their mind? What advice do you have for addressing such things as this? My greatest concern is for their salvation and the salvation of my grandkids." I've got a lot of thoughts here, Scott, but I'm really curious what thoughts you have.
Scott Rae: Well, this is challenging.
Sean McDowell: Yeah.
Scott Rae: I say it's one, it's one thing to be open to postmodern progressive ideas. It's another thing to have an open marriage.
Sean McDowell: Yeah, I agree.
Scott Rae: That's a, that's a big jump. I guess my first bit of advice is probably when you come to visit, don't stay with them- ... If you ha- if you, if you are concerned about this.
Sean McDowell: Good.
Scott Rae: But I think it's a good, it's a good sign that they're open to talk about this and open to answering their questions. And so I would, I would try to ask my questions that at least at the beginning, are devoid of judgment- ... Just to, just to understand. That's why I think, how does this lifestyle bring them closer to Christ? I think, I mean, I think the obvious questio- answer is it probably doesn't. But I don't think that's a question that's looking for an answer. I think that's a rhetorical question.
Sean McDowell: [chuckles] I think that's right.
Scott Rae: So, but I think the question, what do they tell their kids, is a totally valid, totally fair question. And I might add, what would you, what would you do if one of y- if one or more of your kids objected? You know, would you- ... Would you stop and go back to m- go back to serial monogamy? And I think it's a fair question: what happens if one of them changes their mind? I suspect that they've thought about that. I would ad- I would go further to say, "What happens to our kids if they get attached to one of them, and they change their mind?"
Sean McDowell: That's an interesting question.
Scott Rae: That's a, that's a tougher one.
Scott Rae: But I... I guess I, [exhales] I just... I'd be open to have a conversation. The other thing, another thing I probably would ask them is, "How, how does this connect with your Christian faith?" Just, "How, how are you, how are you putting these together?"
Sean McDowell: Great question.
Scott Rae: And then I would listen, and their answers, I'm sure, will be very revealing. And then you... I just think you take it from there. But I would, I would sort of... I would make my points by asking questions that, you know, that you need to listen to the answers for. You kn- you may not need to know the answer. I would avoid the rhetorical questions, for sure. And that's, that's where I would start.
Sean McDowell: Yeah, that's great. I really resonate with the non-judgmental questioning approach. I think that's great. A couple things come to my mind is I wanna say to these parents, and I didn't sense this in the question, but I wanna encourage them to not take blame for this-
Scott Rae: Yeah
Sean McDowell: ... And feel like they're a failure, and make sure they give themselves some grace. Obviously, all of us as parents look back, and there's things we wish we had done differently, but they raised their kids in a Christian home, sacrificed to send them to a Bible college, so give yourself some grace. Second, their story is not over. It's not over. So you might have to take a longer-term perspective on this, and so you ask yourself, "If I wanna be a part of this long-term [chuckles] conversation, see them come back to the Lord, what does it take?" Now, there is a sense where Jesus divides families. I get that, and there's a time to speak clearly and cut off, but I would not start there. That would be a last resort to me. I would ask myself, "How do I be involved in the next 5 years and 10 years and 20 years?" Because here's one thing we know, Scott, you and I have done a sh- a whole program on this, is that open marriages do not last.... And they don't work.
Scott Rae: They're in- they're intrinsically unstable.
Sean McDowell: They are unstable, and it's almost undoubtedly within a matter of time before something breaks here. And you know what? The kids are going to see it. They're gonna see the brokenness, and yet if they see in Grandma and Grandpa a love amidst that, a love for one another, and a love for the Lord, and a relationship with them 'cause they've been prayed for, that, to me, seems like the best chance you have of getting them out of that in the long haul and seeing your kids, come to the Lord. So position yourself that when... Not that you, I mean, not that you pray that somebody's life is miserable, but you pray that they have awareness of their sin, and you pray that this sinful, broken relationship doesn't work out because the desire is to see them come back to the Lord. So for me, that's how I would approach things. I have a million questions I could think of.
Scott Rae: Yeah.
Sean McDowell: Like, questions such as, "What was it about COVID that things started to change?" what- "How do you reconcile this with some of the biblical teaching about Jesus?" And these aren't gotcha questions. I'm really curious about this. I'd ask questions like, "You know where we come from. How do you think this lands with us? I'm just curious to hear you talk about how you think this affects us. How do you see us being involved? You've opened a conversation now, but how do you see us being involved for the long haul?" And if anything, just get clarity on their expectations, where they're coming from, where they're at now, and then how you can be a part of that, and hopefully see them come back to the Lord.
Scott Rae: There's one thing I'd add to this, too. The other, I think the other reason for, at least at the beginning, making this non-judgmental is I think it may be that the, your ultimate goal needs to be to stay in the lives of those kids. Because if mom and dad are not headed in the right direction spiritually, these grandparents may be some of the, some of the few little bits of salt and light that's gonna be in these kids' lives.
Sean McDowell: Amen.
Scott Rae: And somebody is gonna have to be there to pick up the wreckage in the kids' lives when these unstable relationships actually go sour. So that would... And it's sort of a, you know, I would encourage, like in a previous question, [chuckles] I would, I would encourage the grandparents to keep their place at the table- ... For the kids' sake.
Sean McDowell: And I don't know how to navigate this. I haven't given this a lot of thought, but I would resist, especially in front of the kids, bad-mouthing Mom and Dad-
Scott Rae: Absolutely, yeah
Sean McDowell: ... Because that's just gonna not help in the long haul. Be positive, be loving, be encouraging, and over time, the kids will see that difference in you and know that you differ. So, man, Scott, this is great.
Scott Rae: It's, this was fun.
Sean McDowell: Nine fascinating questions.
Scott Rae: This was fun.
Sean McDowell: I wanna know from our audience, send a note in to us. Do you find this helpful for us to take a full session on Q&A? Do you want us to do it again, or is it like, "Hey, that was moderately interesting."
Scott Rae: [laughs]
Sean McDowell: "Keep the Q&A to the end of the Weekly Cultural Update," and we'll say-
Scott Rae: Yeah
Sean McDowell: ... "Memo noted," and adjust accordingly. But we love the questions, and we hope you'll keep sending comments in to thinkbiblically@biola.edu. [upbeat music] If you enjoyed this conversation, share it with a friend. I mean, my goodness, we covered death at the fall, we covered fires, we covered polyamorous relationships, [chuckles] COVID, and I c- I can't remember anything we covered now. So share this with somebody, and by the way, every rating on the podcast app really helps us to reach more people to think biblically. Thanks for listening. If you've ever thought about studying apologetics or theology or spiritual formation, we would love to have you with us at Talbot. We have programs online and distance. Thanks for listening. We will see you Friday when we have our weekly cultural update. In the meantime, remember to think biblically about everything. [upbeat music]
