Biola UniversityWe have so many great questions that come in each week and only have time for a handful of them on our Weekly Cultural Update. So we’re devoting this entire episode to your questions. This time the questions deal with the following:
- Is there a biblical mandate to vote?
- Should we use gene editing to cure Down syndrome?
- Where does national identity fit with our allegiance to God’s Kingdom?
- Does God control everything in our lives?
- Should women be held criminally liable for their abortions?
- and that’s just the beginning!
Join us for this stimulating conversation about a variety of important issues.
Episode Transcript
Sean McDowell: [upbeat music] Should Christians vote? How should Christians think about miscarriage? And why oppose laws that punish a woman who has an abortion if it ends the life of an innocent human being? I'm here with my colleague, friend, co-host Scott Rae.
Scott Rae: Thank you.
Sean McDowell: We've had people submit 10 good questions, and we have a bonus if we have time. You ready to rock and roll and tackle some of these?
Scott Rae: I love being able to do this, and we get... I think our listeners should know, we get way more questions than we can handle on a weekly cultural update.
Sean McDowell: For sure.
Scott Rae: And so this is a, this is a backlog of questions, and what we're finding is about once a month-
Sean McDowell: [laughs]
Scott Rae: ... Once every six weeks, we get a backlog of questions like this, and so it's a great opportunity-
Sean McDowell: Let's do it
Scott Rae: ... For us to just go for it and take all your- take all the questions that we have. They're all good ones.
Sean McDowell: They're all good ones.
Scott Rae: So we're look- I'm looking forward to getting into this.
Sean McDowell: And there's a range of different topics, which I think is gonna make it interesting. Well, let's dive in. This first question says: "How do you share the Gospel of Jesus Christ, particularly the deity of Christ, to a former Christian who now considers themselves spiritually and morge- morally Judeo-Christian, but who no longer believes that Jesus is God?" Now, let me jump in with some thoughts on this one. Before I would launch into, in someone like this, like, all the verses or fulfilled prophecy or evidences that Jesus is God, I want to hear this person's story.
Scott Rae: Of course.
Sean McDowell: Why did they leave the Christian faith? Was it experiential? Was it theological? Was there hypocrisy that they saw? Were they argued out of it? And why doesn't this person believe that Jesus is God? So step number one is if you want to bring somebody back to the fold [chuckles] of believing Jesus is God, identify the problem first as best as you can, and then address it.
Scott Rae: So, so don't provide a theological answer for what might not be-
Sean McDowell: It-
Scott Rae: ... A theological question.
Sean McDowell: Exactly, theological, biblical, and that involves just listening. I imagine there's a story behind this that could be hurtful.
Scott Rae: It has to be.
Sean McDowell: Could be painful. I just wanna know what's at the root of it. I also kind of want to assess how open is this person to hearing evidence? Do they wanna know? Are they eager to go to the Scriptures? Or is their mind made up, and they're like the rich, young ruler who's like, "Sorry," Jesus lets him walk away. So I wanna know the root of the issue. I wanna know their openness. Now, if this person is not convinced that Jesus is God, I think you can make this case from Mark. I think consistently, I think all f- all four Gospels do this. And I have a short YouTube video in which I walk through Mark 1 and Mark 2 [chuckles] and Mark 3 and Mark 4, in which He does and says things that point to His deity. But I do think the Gospel of John is the clearest. I would go right to John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God." And theos is used, like, in terms of theology, for Jesus. That's one of the few places. You see in John, chapter 5-
Scott Rae: I'd say go-
Sean McDowell: And-
Scott Rae: ... Go to verse 14, too, in chapter 1.
Sean McDowell: There's more in 14.
Scott Rae: It says the... It says-
Sean McDowell: That's right
Scott Rae: ... The Word, the Word, this, which the Word, the Word is identified as Jesus Himself, who became flesh and dwelt among us.
Sean McDowell: And then in verse 18, referred again as theos, as God. I think the clear passages are John 5, where he, it- they're saying He makes Himself... Refers to His Father, making Himself equal to God. Of course, John 8:58, when He says, "Before Abraham was born, I am."
Scott Rae: Yeah, now that-
Sean McDowell: John 10:30 and 31
Scott Rae: ... That takes, that takes a little interpretation.
Sean McDowell: Which goes back to Exodus 3-
Scott Rae: Right
Sean McDowell: ... The reference Jesus is referring to.
Scott Rae: It's, it's the way God referred to Himself to Moses.
Sean McDowell: Yeah.
Scott Rae: And Jesus is using the same, the same language that God used to describe Himself.
Sean McDowell: Exactly. Good. So in some ways, you're gonna have to read these passages, unpack them a little bit, but these are the passages that I would go to.
Scott Rae: Like, and I cut you off before you got to John-
Sean McDowell: You did
Scott Rae: ... John 10:30, and that's probably the clearest one of them all.
Sean McDowell: I think that's right, 30 and 31, where He says, "I and the Father are one," and they pick up stones to kill Him, and then it says later, because He's making Himself equal to God. And then John 20:28, where before Thomas, I think this is a climax to the Gospel, where he goes, you know, Jesus says to him, "You can feel the wounds in my hand and my side," et cetera, but just seeing Jesus is clear that He's God. And he says, "My Lord and my God." And this is not going... Thomas is saying, "Oh, my God!"
Scott Rae: [chuckles]
Sean McDowell: "This is my Lord and my God." So if this... So bottom line to me, I've been reading the Gospel of John daily for three months and just been overwhelmed and impressed with the clear claims of deity that Jesus makes. So I'd invite this person to go read through John and own it, and ask this person, "Are you willing to talk this through with me?" That's how I would approach it. What would you add?
Scott Rae: My... Sean, my first response to this is I would share the deity of Christ with this person, same way I would do with anybody else.
Sean McDowell: Okay.
Scott Rae: And I would, I would listen to their backstory of, well, you know, "What, what has sparked your interest in this? What's..." You know, "What's... Tell, tell, just sort of tell me a little bit about your spiritual journey." And then, you know, I'd also, I'd also wanna kn- wanna assess, you know, are they open to hearing evidence? You know, are they open to listen? Because, you know, Jesus warns us against giving, you know, giving hard truth to people who are not inclined to receive it. And so I think we need to be discerning about that. But assuming they're open to hearing it, which I suspect this person is, I would... Then I would go through exactly the same text that you described.
Sean McDowell: Love it.
Scott Rae: I might include the incident from Mark, chapter 2. That's the first part where Jesus- ... Heals the paralytic-
Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm
Scott Rae: ... And they bring him in through the roof, and-
Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm
Scott Rae: ... You know, the people... Jesus forgives his sins first, and the crowd's aghast and said-
Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm
Scott Rae: ... "You know, no one can forgive sins but God alone."... And then Jesus, they basically is, "To show that I have the authority to forgive sins, and by implication, and therefore I am God, I say, 'Pick up your mat and be, and walk.'" so there's-
Sean McDowell: That's a great example.
Scott Rae: I mean, there's... Yeah, the evidence is not hard to find.
Sean McDowell: Here's where I would go, is the book The Incarnate Christ and His Critics by Ed Komoszewski and Rob Bowman. I interviewed Rob about an hour and a half, and then we did a live Q&A answering the tough objections. I think that is the single best book on the deity of Christ that I think every Christian should read, The Incarnate Christ and His Critics. Read that, own it, and then you pick the best way to talk to your friend based on his objections.
Scott Rae: I'd say More Than a Carpenter is also pretty good, too.
Sean McDowell: Yeah, that's good for starters. I- fair enough. All right, so let's shift gears majorly here. This one's really in your lane. Now, you and I have done full episodes on this, but the question is just, should Christians vote? And I know Christians should pray for those in authority, but what biblical principles, it's interesting, it says, "compel us to vote?"
Scott Rae: Well, I think in general, we want to, we want to render to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's, which means you render to the political arena what it's- what it asks of you, and you render to God what He asks of you. And I think that's fair to say. The political system asks of us for our vote regularly- ... To make, to make our voice heard. Now, obviously, that wasn't the application in the first century because nobody had the right to vote. [chuckles]
Sean McDowell: Right. [chuckles] Fair enough.
Scott Rae: You know, you did- you didn't vote for Caesar-
Sean McDowell: Right
Scott Rae: ... Or vote a- [chuckles]
Sean McDowell: [chuckles]
Scott Rae: Maybe you, maybe you didn't vote against Caesar, we'll put it that way.
Sean McDowell: Fa- yeah.
Scott Rae: So but I think this is just part of our gen- the general stewardship of our obligations to our communities. And I think we vote for things that are local, I think as a stewardship toward our local and closer communities, but I think we also vote for national things. So I would, you know, I would, I would not take the stance of someone who says- ... "Yeah, I just vote for the big national issues. I don't care about the local ones." I'm, I'm not so sure about that theologically- ... Because I think we have an obligation to love our neighbors.
Sean McDowell: Okay.
Scott Rae: And I think our vo- our vote is a, an expression of our love for our neighbors and our ability to have our voice heard on things that we think are good for our communities, and good for our country. And I know we have, we have a lot of division at the moment, and so what you vote for may be an object of controversy, but I think whether you vote or not shouldn't be.
Sean McDowell: By the way, render to Caesar that which is Caesar and to God that which is God, of course, it's in Matthew 22. And the point is not that God doesn't weigh into politics, 'cause the image of Caesar's on the coin.
Scott Rae: Right.
Sean McDowell: The image of God is in human beings-
Scott Rae: That's correct
Sean McDowell: ... Everywhere in the political realm, so we bring our faith to our politics. But your point is, we have a sense of duty to and responsibility to the governing authorities above us. And voting... And again, you know, the word compel is strong. I think those of us who can vote, we can't forget that it's a privilege that we have this, and there's a lot of people around the world, probably some people watching or listening to this, who wish that they could vote-
Scott Rae: Oh, they would like very much to vote
Sean McDowell: ... As we do in the States and beyond.
Scott Rae: Right.
Sean McDowell: So I think it's a privilege, but the guiding principle is loving God and loving others in the way that we vote, in the way we support political candidates, and in policies that don't just favor us but are objectively good for society, uh-
Scott Rae: Yeah, it's the same reason we pay our taxes, although you don't go to jail for not voting. [chuckles]
Sean McDowell: [chuckles]
Scott Rae: So but I mean, it's just, it's the same reason.
Sean McDowell: It's a big difference. [chuckles]
Scott Rae: Same re- it's, it's, it's a, it's a statement that we love our neighbors and care for our communities.
Sean McDowell: Good word. Of course, there's a passage in Jeremiah that talks about operating towards the good of the society in which we live-
Scott Rae: Yeah, which-
Sean McDowell: ... And it has some crossover, too.
Scott Rae: Yeah, which, by the way, they, that was addressed to Israel in exile in pagan Babylon-
Sean McDowell: That's right. That's right
Scott Rae: ... To, you know, to seek the flourishing of their communities.
Sean McDowell: So it's not a command, but I think it's a principle that applies. Good stuff. All right, this one is totally in your lane, Scott. Somebody asked us: Could you speak to the ethics of using CRISPR, which is a kind of gene-editing technology, to cure Down syndrome? So maybe explain just kind of briefly what that is and if you would apply it to Down syndrome.
Scott Rae: Yes. Now, we actually addressed something very similar to this in a weekly cultural update a few weeks ago. I think before... I've got a date on this question, too.
Sean McDowell: Okay.
Scott Rae: It's before this question came in. But, CRISPR is a, basically a pair of genetic scissors, that enables in sex cells in early-stage embryos to do a sort of a cut-and-paste job- ... To eliminate the gene that's defective, in this case, the gene that causes Down syndrome, and replace it with a cloned copy of a gene that, when it's inserted, will function properly- ... And prevent. And I don't, I'm not sure of the, all the molecular biology behind Down syndrome, what genes are turned on or off, or-
Sean McDowell: Sure
Scott Rae: ... I'm not sure about that. And what we just recently talked about was a use of CRISPR with a, basically a molecular GPS- ... To find the exact place in the genome. This is a very young child, so it was, it was a little more complicated than embryos in ear- in sex cells. But they, you know, they found the place in the genetic code that was the glitch that was causing this rare disease this child has, and they pumped in, you know, millions and millions of copies of the corrected gene, so in the hope that it would take root, in the place, in the exact place, and all these genes had a, had the GPS locator on it, so it would get to-
Sean McDowell: That's amazing
Scott Rae: ... Get to the... Absolutely staggering technology.
Sean McDowell: That's incredible. [chuckles]
Scott Rae: Now, the, probably the... I think the point of the question, I think, is that-... You know, should we be using a gene editing technology to cure disease if it also has the possibility of being used in some other ways that we would not be in favor of? And I think the answer to that is yes, we are obligated, I think, to use medical technology as God's- ... Good gift to alleviate or cure the effects of the general entrance of sin, of which disease, decay, and dying are two of, are three of those. Now, we're not gonna cure dying, but we can alleviate some of the things that come with the dying process as a result. So I think it is possible that CRISPR technology will be used for things that we don't want, like enhancing otherwise normal traits or selecting, you know, traits on your child, producing designer children, selecting for eye color, hair color, height, things like that. Those-- none of those are things that we want to do. But I think, we have an obligation to use medical technology in ways that are consistent with the goals of medicine, which are theologically informed as correcting, alleviating the effects of the general entrance of sin into the world.
Sean McDowell: That makes a ton of sense, is that God has given us common grace to use medical technology, and given us the call to, you know, the cultural mandate, you might say, the cultural commission.
Scott Rae: Well, I'd say it could even-
Sean McDowell: And-
Scott Rae: ... Even continues the healing ministry of Jesus.
Sean McDowell: There, there you go. And this, and arguably, it seems something like Down syndrome is the result of the Fall. Of course, individuals with Down syndrome have no less value and dignity.
Scott Rae: Right.
Sean McDowell: And, of course, the efforts in a lot of countries to eliminate them through abortion is not for them, it's for other people that they're deemed a burden upon. A Christian could have nothing to do with that kind of approach.
Scott Rae: Well, and the countries actually are applauding themselves on hav- on having eliminated Down syndrome.
Sean McDowell: Countries like Iceland and others have specifically done that.
Scott Rae: Yeah, which of course-
Sean McDowell: Yeah
Scott Rae: ... I can eliminate any disease if you'll allow me to shoot everybody who has it.
Sean McDowell: [laughing] Shoot them. [laughing]
Scott Rae: [chuckles] That's, that's not rocket science.
Sean McDowell: That's, that's painful. You know, one just quick thing on this before we move on, is we do live in an age of kinda critical theory, in which we put people in categories based on their sex, based on their sexual orientation, based on their skin color, their socioeconomic status, and whether they have ability, disabilities or not. And these categories become an essential part of who somebody is, and it's wrong to change that, unless, of course, we're referring to biological sex, but that's an exception [chuckles]
Scott Rae: That's so-
Sean McDowell: ... To the rule. And-
Scott Rae: Or if we're referring to disability.
Sean McDowell: Or, or disability is the except... Oh, and that, and that's, that's my point, is
Scott Rae: That's right
Sean McDowell: ... Some would say, "No, no, this is a part of who I am," and it becomes an identity-
Scott Rae: Right
Sean McDowell: ... Rather than saying, "No, we all have varying degrees of disability." Sure, some far more significant than others, and we had a great episode talking about that a while ago. But to try to use medical care to care for disability is not dehumanizing, it's arguably recognizing the inherent goodness in an individual and reversing the Fall. So I think that's where cultural ideas sometimes would come in conflict with a biblical worldview.
Scott Rae: Yeah, now we've, you know, we've, we've got a lot of emphasis on diversity, except for disability. That's the one area that's, that I think has been bracketed out. It's just, it's, it's not, it's not one of the cool causes- ... That the diversity folks have been all that interested in.
Sean McDowell: Well, we've had a good conversation on that. That's one I think in due time we need to revisit. This one, to also [chuckles] shift gears again, these are fun, Scott. I actually really like these questions.
Scott Rae: These, these are actual... I'm getting a little case of whiplash here. [chuckles]
Sean McDowell: So this one has a little bit more setting up involved to get to the question. It says, "In our interview with Preston Sprinkle on his book Exiles, the point was made that Christians do not find their identity in being citizens of a particular country. Sprinkle said that we should not refer to the military in the country we live in as our troops, since God doesn't have troops. Later, I listened to a weekly cultural update," and I think this was with Jeff Myers, "where he discussed that around 50% of Gen Z-ers are ashamed to call themselves American citizens, as though they would want to call themselves citizens, but are simply ashamed to do so." Person says, "These points seem contradictory, and I'm trying to understand how Christians should navigate this tension. Should we claim to be citizens [chuckles] of our country or not?" What's your take on this?
Scott Rae: Well, I would amend the question slightly.
Sean McDowell: Okay.
Scott Rae: And it's, and it's a simpler answer. I said the point was made that Christians do not find our identity in being citizens of a particular country. I would say the point that should be made is that Christians do not find our primary identity in being citizens of a particular country. A, a, as a penultimate source of our identity, not the ultimate, but close to it, I have no problem with saying I'm an American and being proud of that. Well, you know, while at the same time recognizing that my country's not perfect. And is al... You know, we have, we've always had periods in our history where we have not lived up to our ideals. And we, and I think there's a, it's sort of a uniquely American tradition to be self-critical about that, which I think is a point definitely worth applauding. Now, I think, I, you know, I'm not sure about, you know, our, you know, the our troops, since God doesn't have troops. I'm not sure. I don't, I don't have strong feelings about that part. But, [lips smack] I think you can... You-- the tension is not difficult to navigate, in my view, as long as we have our loyalties in the proper order. We are first and foremost citizens of the kingdom of heaven, okay? Then we are-... You know, we are human beings made in the image of God, and redeemed by the blood of, by the blood of Christ. And then we are citizens of our particular country, and then, it goes on down from that for our local communities. So I don't, I don't think there's a huge contradiction here, as long, as long... But if, but if you're saying that our ultimate identity comes from being, you know, a citizen of our country, then we have a problem. But as long as you, kinda, I qualify that as ultimate identity, I don't, I don't think we have issues here that we have to navigate.
Sean McDowell: So we are ultimately citizens of heaven. We are new creations. We are part of the family of God. That is our primary identity, and so other things, such as the country from which we are from, there's nothing wrong with that. And I would argue, I think there can be something good about loving your country. Now, Christian nationalism, one version of it, errs by saying, "God uniquely favors my country," or, "God's promises [chuckles] in the Old Testament uniquely apply to my country." You and I have done episodes on that and given pause to that.
Scott Rae: Although I don't, I don't hear-
Sean McDowell: But that's different from-
Scott Rae: Yeah
Sean McDowell: ... Patriotism-
Scott Rae: Yeah
Sean McDowell: ... Which is a love for one's country, like a love for one's home, without saying God favors one's home.
Scott Rae: Yeah.
Sean McDowell: That's the distinction.
Scott Rae: Yeah. No, that's a great point, and I don't hear too many people who live in other countries referring to their country in the same way that Christian nationalists refer to the United States. You know, maybe some of the theocracies, but I don't hear, I don't hear people in the UK or- ... Sweden or Norway, you know-
Sean McDowell: Could be
Scott Rae: ... Or other parts of Europe referring to their countries as being theologically the locus of God's activity in the world.
Sean McDowell: I see a lot of other countries speaking as if they're the center of [laughs] the Earth and the universe, similarly to Christians, but maybe don't use the theological language-
Scott Rae: Yeah, that's my, that's my point
Sean McDowell: ... 'cause they have different historical roots. Here's where I would differ with Sprinkle a little bit, and he's not here to defend himself. We had a two-hour debate about using preferred pronouns and also gay identity. Should somebody with same-sex attraction identify-
Scott Rae: Mm-hmm
Sean McDowell: ... As being gay? His answer is, at least he started with where you start, as long as your primary identification is in Christ and God, a secondary kind of identification can be in one's same-sex attraction or gayness. So as I understand it, he is fine with that identity but not identifying in the way it's framed here as terms of a citizen finding our identity and being citizens of a particular country. Now, I don't remember exactly what we said in the interview, so maybe this person has misrepresented his argument, and they could come back. But if they've accurately represented it, I would say I'm not in favor of gay identity because although it might be more than same-sex attraction, it's no less. So if same-sex attraction in itself does not line up with God's desire for how we're supposed to live, we should have nothing to do with that as any part of our identity whatsoever, even if Christ is primary. Being an American or being Chinese or being Mexican in itself is not tied to something at odds with how God wants us to live, even if different governments, or all governments at some time, have done certain things that we think are wrong. In principle, the American experiment is not at odds and is sinful within itself. That's the distinction that I would make. So again, I'm relying upon this. I don't remember the particulars of what he argued in that interview or exiles. If Preston disagrees, he can certainly clarify, but if she's represented accurately, that's the distinction that I would make.
Scott Rae: Good point.
Sean McDowell: All right, let's keep going. This one, really interested in your take on this, Scott, because this is one I know you've dealt with a lot, consulting in hospitals and churches, and the question is related to miscarriage. And this person says, "I find miscarriage is missing in abortion pro-life discussions," and this individual said, "My wife and I experienced a miscarriage," and by the way, my wife and I did, too. They grieved over it and received support and care from their church community. "But should the knowledge that a fetus was a, miscarried because of development issues give us pause when we think about the status of its soul and existence in heaven? How do we biblically think about the unborn who were miscarried?"
Scott Rae: Well, I... My heart goes out to this couple, who's experienced a miscarriage. My wife and I, our, you know, our first pregnancy was a miscarriage. I mean, it took us probably four years to conceive again, which introduced a huge period of pain and-
Sean McDowell: It's a long time
Scott Rae: ... Suffering, and it was, it was, it was... I say, those were, those were the- those have been the worst four years of my adult life-
Sean McDowell: Wow
Scott Rae: ... Going through that time. I think my wife would probably say the same. Now, I think one of the things we need to think about here is, yes, the f- the, you know, embryos and fetuses miscarry for a whole host of reasons, okay? Some because they have genetic abnormalities that are inconsistent with life, some because there's some biological, physical problem with the mother that it, she just can't carry a child to term. Sometimes in an ectopic pregnancy, the embryo implants in the fallopian tube and not in the uterus, a condition which is fatal for both if it's not immediately corrected. So, the reasons, and sometime- and in a lot of cases, nobody knows what the reason for the miscarriage is. They we're just speculating. Now-... The point, well, the point that comes out of the question, I'm not sure you read actually this part, but, is he said, "I read that early miscarriage are the result of the fetus not developing properly, and the sanctity of life argument seems to be based on the potential of a fetus's full development and ability to survive outside the womb." Sanctity of life argument is based on neither of those things.
Sean McDowell: Be clear for people.
Scott Rae: Those are, those are outworkings of a, of a prior ontological condition that gives the f- the unborn child the sanctity of life from conception forward. At that point, it's true that... I put it, although I put it a little differently. It's true that the unborn child has all the capacities that he or she needs to mature into a full-grown adult. I would not use the term development, 'cause this is not metamorphosis. You know, we're not talking about embryos becoming something different at the fetal stage or becoming something different at the newborn or toddler stage. No, there's a continuity of personal identity through time and change because we are not just the physical stuff of which we are made. We have an immaterial component as well. So, and the ability to survive outside the womb is more a commentary on medical technology than it is on anything ontological with the, with the unborn child. So I would, I guess I would have a big issue with the way that this person, who I, you know, I sympathize with for miscarriage, but I think the way they are conceiving the argument for the sanctity of life, I think is not, is not quite right.
Sean McDowell: That was really helpful. So maybe this illustration would help. If we... And maybe it's a morbid illustration, if we had, like, a three-year-old that was alone on a small island, parents left, parents died, whatever, that three-year-old has the capacity to become an adult in the way a fish or sand or a tree doesn't. It has the potential, but if no one comes and rescues it doesn't have the practical potential-
Scott Rae: Right
Sean McDowell: ... To do so.
Scott Rae: But we say those capacities will actualize themself under the right condition, under conditions-
Sean McDowell: That's right
Scott Rae: ... That are conducive for that.
Sean McDowell: So it's the kind of thing that it is, being a three-year-old, that naturally has the capacity to develop under the right conditions. The unborn, there might be problems in the womb of a particular woman that's not allowing it to develop, but it still is the kind of thing that can develop if those corrections are made, akin to the three-year-old. So we'd say there's nothing substantial in the kind of thing the unborn is and a three-year-old is, just a different environment. So if that's the case, then from... And we'd have to argue this, I think the Bible does, but from the moment of conception, you have a distinct living human being, that for some reason, maybe it's sin, maybe it's just something that happened, maybe it's natural, I have no idea-
Scott Rae: Or we- sometimes we don't even know
Sean McDowell: ... This child, and like you said, sometimes we don't know, dies, inherently there's no difference than a one-year-old or a two-year-old or a five-year-old. How, you know, and we could talk about the age of accountability, which we don't have to go into in detail, but I would tend to believe that God's grace would cover this child 'cause it's not accountable. But in some ways, we can just rest in the goodness of God and who He is, that He will do what's in the best interest of this child, and that's what it is, who died through a miscarriage.
Scott Rae: One other point on this, too.
Sean McDowell: Yeah.
Scott Rae: The, the last part of the question, I think, again, I think it reveals something about the worldview of this person.
Sean McDowell: The assumptions.
Scott Rae: What should we, what should we think about children who did not have the potential of full development and were miscarried? Now, this, every embryo and fetus has the potential for full development, okay? Now, they may have genetic abnormalities that, you know, that w- don't allow those capacities to be actualized, and maybe something in the way the mother's carrying the child that won't allow those to be actualized. But they have all the capacities that they need to mature into a full-grown adult from conception forward, as long as con- the conditions for their flourishing are met- ... Which are pretty simple and straightforward- ... Actually.
Sean McDowell: So really, this distinction is irrelevant to the status of the unborn and the fate of the unborn because of the kind of thing that it is-
Scott Rae: That's right
Sean McDowell: ... And the capacities it has. Okay, great distinctions. [chuckles] That was really helpful. All right, this one, we're gonna shift again, Scott, and you've written some books on business ethics.
Scott Rae: How come these are all in my lane here, man? [chuckles]
Sean McDowell: I don't know if they're all in your lane.
Scott Rae: Not quite.
Sean McDowell: You maybe got the weight of some of these. I'd have to do some math here.
Scott Rae: You, you get, you get the rest of them here. [laughs]
Sean McDowell: I think you're right. You probably did get more than half. That's fair. But I'll weigh in and give you my two cents. This person says: How might viewing work as mission, being, to use a dated term, thinking biblically about work as a mission field, some would say missional, ultimately dovetail with David Bonsin's, what he expressed when we talked about his book Full-Time? So we interviewed him a number of weeks ago, and he expressed a certain approach to this. Bottom line, how should we think about work as mission?
Scott Rae: Well, here, in a word, I would say the business or the workplace as mission is accurate but incomplete. It's one component of how to view your work within a biblical framework. It is, and the reason for that is because, you know, when most people, when they go to work, they're gonna work in places, unless they're at a place like Biola, they're gonna work in a place where they're... Where being a Christian puts them in the minority in their company- ... For the most part. And it may be that, the people that these, that these people work with-... You m- you may be the only time that they ever have meaningful contact with anybody who's a follower of Jesus. And the mo- in fact, I think most of the folks that we work with are probably not gonna darken the doors of our church unless they were already, they're already believers. And so I w- I wouldn't wanna minimize the place of, the workplace being what I, what I would call a strategic soapbox for the gospel.
Sean McDowell: [laughs]
Scott Rae: And more, and I think i- also in the way that you just, you live out your faith consistently in the workplace. And so living it out, I mean, you need words to explain the reasons why you do things the way you do, but the, that combination of living out your faith and verbally sharing the gospel with people is part of what is involved in the- ... Business's mission. Now, the idea of the workplace's mission also is used as a strategy used overseas to get people into closed countries-
Sean McDowell: Sure
Scott Rae: ... For the gospel when missionaries-
Sean McDowell: Sure
Scott Rae: ... Will, I mean, don't, don't bother. But if you can come into a place, you know, say, in the Middle East or other places, and start a business- ... And contribute to your community, you may also have other great opportunities to present the gospel. So I would say the other thing that we need to recognize here is that often the business as mission folks will minimize the actual work that's done and how that contributes to the community that you're in. And I don't... The Bible doesn't allow us to do that. 'Cause in Colossians 3, Paul is speaking to household
Sean McDowell: Servants
Scott Rae: ... Where he says, "In whatever you do your work heartily as unto the Lord." "For, parenthesis, in whatever you do," here's the punchline, "it's the Lord Christ whom you are serving." Which mean, if that's true, what that means is that you, the work that you do is part, not all of it, but part of your service to Christ- ... Is kingdom work and has eternal significance. And I think that to view our work in that way is, I think, a much more full-orbed way of seeing it, though what this listener points out, I think, is right. It's just not the whole story.
Sean McDowell: That's a great answer, that we are to view our work as a mission field, but it's more than that. It's glorifying God, doing our work unto the Lord. It's caring for our neighbors. It's just contributing to something using the gifts that we have. So it's all Christians should see themselves as missionaries, in a sense, wherever they are, but our work is more than just a tool to reach people with the gospel. We're contributing to the cultural commission and doing good and loving our neighbors amidst that.
Scott Rae: Yeah, and I think if you don't do your work well, chances are-
Sean McDowell: [laughs]
Scott Rae: ... You're not gonna have an audience for the gospel.
Sean McDowell: Fair enough.
Scott Rae: So.
Sean McDowell: Which, you know, we don't... So we don't wanna turn work into just a utility that has the ends of-
Scott Rae: Yeah
Sean McDowell: ... Accomplishing the gospel. The work has a good within itself.
Scott Rae: Well, yeah, it has intrin-
Sean McDowell: Right?
Scott Rae: ... It has intrinsic value because God ordained work before the entrance of sin into the world. And remember, in Genesis 3, God cursed the ground, which is different than saying that God cursed work. Work maintained its nobility, even though the setting in which it take- took place had been tainted by sin.
Sean McDowell: Good stuff. That's a great answer. That was, that was really helpful. All right, so I'll give my two cents to this one first, although I... It might be to both of us. This person says, "I have two questions," and just for the record, they listed three, but you know, I digress.
Scott Rae: [laughs]
Sean McDowell: "I have a few questions about art and entertainment."
Scott Rae: [laughs]
Sean McDowell: "Given the potential tension of Philippians 4:8 to think about what is true and noble and lovely and pure, et cetera, and the reality of living in a fallen world," which is a great point. "The questions are, where's the line between understanding empathy with darkness and pain in the world, and appreciation of art that turns our attention towards God? The second one is, should Christians be entertained by manifestation of sin? Should Christians spend time watching horror movies? If watching such films or other manifestations of sin is acceptable or possibly useful, how do we set such boundaries and limits?" Now, actually, it's one, two, three, four, five questions, but I get the point.
Scott Rae: [laughs]
Sean McDowell: Here's my basic take. In both of these A and B, the person's looking for a line and looking for boundaries and limits. I don't think there's always a line, and I don't think there's always a boundary and a limit. Why? The Bible said... First off, the Bible would never say you could see up to, say, PG-13 movies, because that was not such a rating then. But even then, even all PG-13 movies aren't equal. Right? I've seen PG-13 movies, and I'm like, "Oh, that's PG." I've seen others, I'm like, "That really could be R. I don't know how it got this rating." So the Bible doesn't give us a line. Why? Well, because people have different levels of maturity. People have different levels of experience. People might have different trauma and pain in their life that are triggered by different things. So should we watch horror movies? I'm not gonna make a blanket statement. In some ways, it depends upon [chuckles] the horror movies. Not all are the same. But my friend Brian Godawa said, "There's actually, in horror movies, there's often a recognition that there's good and bad and there's right and wrong," and it pushes back against this relativistic notion within our culture, and sometimes reminds us that evil is real and exists. That doesn't mean everyone should watch a horror movie, but I'm less... You know, I'm more reluctant to make a blanket statement that it's always wrong to do so. I just, I wanna push back on the idea of boundaries and limits, and I think the Bible gives us principles. So if a movie-... Is really encouraging you to think about things that are not good, that are not true, that are not lovely. That should give you pause to stop. Now, thinking about things that are evil and broken is not necessarily a bad thing. I mean, I read Judges. I don't walk away thinking about things, to quote this, like, "Oh, it's lovely, and noble, and pure. I'm kind of broken, and I'm disgusted." Now, we should be broken and disgusted by the kinds of things in the Book of Judges, because the root of that book is that when everyone does that which is right in their own eyes, it leads to this egregious sin and brokenness. So we're gonna have to live in that tension. That's what it means. We can err one way or the other. Could be our experience that does it, could be our community that does it, but I think we're gonna have to live in that tension. And the last thing I'll say at this first point is always remembering that we are the easiest one to deceive. We can fool ourselves, and I speak more for myself than anybody else, "Oh, I can watch this, not a big deal," 'cause we wanna justify things. That's where we've gotta be really honest with our motivations, how these movies are affecting us, and then before the Lord, just have wisdom. Agree, disagree? What would you add?
Scott Rae: No, basically agree. And one thing I would like to clarify, I wish we had this listener in the studio with us- ... I could ask, but, he's... The person talks about, you know, the appreciation and production of art that turns our attention toward God. I'd like to know what the person means by that- ... Because the horror movies you described, I think, have the ability to turn our attention to God.
Sean McDowell: That's right.
Scott Rae: Because there's-
Sean McDowell: Arguably
Scott Rae: ... Because it reveals an, you know, a standard of right and wrong. You know, there's, there's clear distinctions between good and evil, which implies that there's clearly a lawgiver who decides what is good and what's evil. So I think the, you know, the things that turn our attention to God don't always have to be explicit. And I think sometimes what makes good art so good is that, you know, you have to dig a little bit to catch the artist's intent. And there are movies that I think can portray really good moral points without being preachy or without being cheesy. And I think some of the, you know, some of the, some of the, some of the best films out there are the ones that have, that exemplify really good virtues. But they often do so in contrast to really terrible vices. And so I'm not sure how you can have a full appreciation for one without also recognizing the reality of the other. And I, you know, I've had... My, my oldest son is in the film industry. And we've had a lot of conversation about-
Sean McDowell: I know you have, [chuckles] yeah
Scott Rae: ... About what to include in films, what's gratuitous, versus what's a portrayal just of reality. And, you know, filmmakers don't hide from the darkness and the reality of living in a fallen world, nor should they. Now, they don't... I would hope they don't glorify it, or they don't- it's not gratuitous, and I think there... We can all think of films where both of those things occur. But I think just because something is dark, and something is painful, and it's ex- it's expressed in film because it's the reality of somebody's experience, even if it's heightened a bit, which films normally do, I don't think that puts it out of bounds at all. Because that just forms the black background in which, you know, the diamond of the virtues or whatever the point of the story is, can come out. Now- ... If there's, you know, I'd like to think that, you know, a lot of our films have, good redeeming value to them. There are some that don't.
Sean McDowell: Sure.
Scott Rae: And so you... But you have to use discernment about how much of the reality of life in a fallen world that you can handle being exposed to. I've got a friend who's in the early stages of dementia. And, you know, this person can't, they can't li- they can't watch anything that has profanity in it- ... Because as part of the dementia, that's what they remember.
Sean McDowell: Interesting.
Scott Rae: And it, and it, and it, and it stores in their memory, and it comes-
Sean McDowell: Wow
Scott Rae: ... And it, and it comes out, it will come out more readily as their memory goes. So that's, that's a no-brainer.
Sean McDowell: Sure.
Scott Rae: But I think we probably shouldn't... We probably should be careful just to take, just take stock of how some of this stuff affects our souls. You know, there are certain things I don't really care to watch- ... Because I know it's not good for my soul. Other things I think are fine. But I think you're right. I don't, I don't see strict boundaries or limits. I think, but the Bible calls us to use good discernment.
Sean McDowell: And good wisdom. There's multiple books in the Bible about good wisdom. By the way, you and I interviewed Tom Halleen, who's our wonderful head of our film and theater program here. Folks can go back to... It's on the podcast, also on my YouTube channel, where we untie some of this. All right, got three more for you, if we can squeeze these in. This is a theological question now, and also somewhat apologetic. It says: "Regarding God's sovereignty, does God control everything that happens in our lives, no matter whether it's good or bad? If I get sick and die, can I say that God killed me, or does God [chuckles] only do good things to us?" Now, this is a huge question, Scott.
Scott Rae: [chuckles]
Sean McDowell: But maybe just, maybe kind of just some principles or guidelines-
Scott Rae: Yeah
Sean McDowell: ... Of how you'd approach a question like this.
Scott Rae: Here's... I would, I would amend the question again to m-
Sean McDowell: Okay
Scott Rae: ... And we can make the answer clearer. I'd say, regarding God's sovereignty, does God ordain everything that happens in our lives, no matter whether it's good or bad?... That's an easy question, 'cause the answer to that is no, because God does not ordain evil. God's not the author of evil. And if I get sick and then die, can I say, "God killed me?" No.
Sean McDowell: [chuckles]
Scott Rae: You can say that God allowed you to die from that disease for wh- for reasons that we'll, we'll know more fully when we get to glory. And God, you know, God does not, God does not cause evil. That's, I think, the big takeaway from this. So, I d- I don't believe God causes, say, genetic abnormalities-
Sean McDowell: Sure
Scott Rae: ... For His glory. I don't think, I think God doesn't cause, God didn't cause Chris Ralston to be exposed to measles- ... In his mother's womb- ... And give him all sorts of disabilities that he has. So.
Sean McDowell: That'd be your response. So I think with this qualification, I think you'd agree with me. You'd say, "If somebody dies, can they say, 'God killed me?'" Well, there are times where God has killed and has judged through sicknesses-
Scott Rae: True
Sean McDowell: ... Probably with Herod in the Book of Acts, through plagues in the Old Testament. So there are times which seem to be the exception of God's judgment, not the norm, and it seems to be in most those conversations, God makes it clear what He's doing, so we should be hesitant to say, "Yep, God killed you." But the f- it also says, "Or does God only do good things?" Well, ironically, those are good things. Now, there's a difference between somebody dying of a sickness because of sin and saying, "That's good," but God judging and sometimes taking life is good. Why? Because God is good. So it's important we don't confuse what we think is good according to a human-
Scott Rae: Fair enough
Sean McDowell: ... Metric and standard, according to what is good. So even if we don't understand, if we really believe God is good, like the Scriptures say, He's righteous, and He's justice, and He's merciful, and He's good in His character, He's holy, then His commands and actions will flow from that, even if we don't understand it. So I wouldn't say if someone gets sick and die, "God killed me." Now, God chose not to heal and chose to let us die. We may know why or have a good guess. We might not know until we get to Heaven, it might just be the natural result of sin. But barring some very clear prophecy that God is doing this, like we see the exception [chuckles] in the Bible, I would resist that. And I also think when you talk about God ordaining in terms of controlling, yes, God is sovereign. All Christians agree on that. We believe God controls, but the question is, how does God control? There's no debate among Christians-
Scott Rae: Right
Sean McDowell: ... That God is sovereign, as He does control, and He's moving history where He needs to. There's just going to be differences between, say, a Calvinist view, which leans into God's sovereignty, and not all Calvinists, but more God, some moves in a deterministic kind of direction. Some would have more of God as maybe controlling and shaping our desires, and we just act according to those desires. And then others would say, "Yeah, God controls, but we have genuine libertarian freedom, and God knows the free choices we're going to make and creates a world in which we carry them out by our own volition, but God is aware of it." So all... Every Christian [chuckles] perspective, from Arminianism to Calvinism to Molinism, is going to say, "God is in control, and He's directing things," but they're going to differ over the means by which God does it, and answering that would take us way beyond this podcast. [laughing]
Scott Rae: Yeah, I just, I think to summarize, I would say that we would distinguish between God's decreed will and His permissive will.
Sean McDowell: Okay.
Scott Rae: Of those things that He directly causes and those things that He allows in His sovereignty.
Sean McDowell: Fair enough, and even how we reconcile those two, [chuckles] your answer to that's gonna depend on your-
Scott Rae: Exactly
Sean McDowell: ... Theological system. And at Talbot, we have people who are more Arminians, some who embrace Molinism, and some who have a Calvinist perspective. That's one thing I love about our school is you can come get, you know, weigh and debate and discuss this and figure out what you think Scripture says. All right, two more. This one, shifting gears [chuckles] yet again, this person says: "In Seven Days that Divide the World, John Lennox tries to reconcile the following ideas." So the universe seems old. God specially created the universe and life and human beings. And his model, I'm not gonna go into details, is an old Earth model. And the question is, "Can you speak to whether you think these kinds of arguments are valid ways to reconcile on the biblical and scientific data?" I'm gonna make a 30,000-foot response here, so to speak. There has been difference, and there are differences within the Church about how to reconcile what we understand as science, even before the formal scientific revolution and the Scriptures. There's not been one unanimous model throughout the history of the Church, like there has been for marriage, by the way. That is a Catholic lowercase C view. There's been unanimity within the Church, not in practice, [chuckles] but in belief, until 50 years ago. That is not the case with the age of the Earth. So actually, in the updated Evidence Demands Verdict, we put a chapter in there, and I think there's eight or 10 where we said, "These are broadly within orthodox position that Christians can differ over." And some of those points are that the Bible is true, that God is the Creator, I would say a historical Adam, a historical Fall, and then how we work out some of those details, Christians are going to differ. Now, a lot is obviously at stake in terms of how we understand science.... Old Earth versus young Earth, the way we would interpret modern physics in cosmology, for example, or evolutionary, biology. There's a lot at stake for how we think about science, but there's also a lot at stake for how we understand the Bible, and theologically, how do we understand the genre of Genesis? Is this poetry? Is this history, these long days? Is it not even trying to map up science with history? So I would just say, I think we even have some people here at Talbot, again, some that are old Earthers, some who are young Earthers, but all believe in kind of those guideposts that I laid out. And I would say John Lennox's book, Seven Days That Divide the World, is one old Earth perspective, and he points back to some church fathers to make his case in the second, third, and fourth centuries. That is a piece of a tradition within the church. Not gonna wade into the details of it, but I think it's a live option that Christians should look to, as well as other positions when addressing this topic.
Scott Rae: That's, that's a really good take on that. I appreciate the framework that you put this in. And I think as long as long as people recognize that the uniqueness of where the Earth is placed in the solar system is a marker of a brilliant creator God-
Sean McDowell: Amen
Scott Rae: ... And that there are lots of things in the human body that are signposts to a brilliant creator God, then I think that's more what matters to me- ... That we see. I think that you're right about a historical Adam and Eve, because Paul's statements in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 about death and resurrection of Jesus-
Sean McDowell: I think that's right
Scott Rae: ... Have a lot to do with the Fall.
Sean McDowell: That's right.
Scott Rae: Adam and Eve and the Fall being-
Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm
Scott Rae: ... Historical people and events. So I'm not sure, I'm not quite sure how you put those things together-
Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm
Scott Rae: ... If you, if you don't hold to a historical Adam and Eve and a historical fall into sin. So, I, whether, you know, I don't, I don't have a big set of preferences about whether the Earth is old or young. But I, what I, what I am most interested in is that we acknowledge that the, sort of what I, what apologists refer to as the teleological argument from God, that God, that the, that the Earth's, the Earth speaks forth the glory of God. The Earth speaks forth His handiwork as a creator. That's, I think, what matters to me, and I appreciate... I think that's what matters to this listener, too. That at the end of the day, that we recognize that God is an intelligent designer, and that the complexity, even at the cellular level, the complexity of the body is not, probably not something that could have arisen by chance alone.
Sean McDowell: I agree with that. I think the key is that God is the Creator, has revealed Himself through His Word, sent His Son to die for death, to reverse the sin of Adam. This is the broader story that matters. Exactly when God created and how He created, not unimportant to how we understand science-
Scott Rae: Right
Sean McDowell: ... And the text, but not central to the faith itself. I actually view it as a strength that there's different views, and we have these debates within the church. I mean, one of the arguments young Earthers will make is, "Can you have death before the Fall?" And that's a really interesting question.
Scott Rae: Good question.
Sean McDowell: There seems to be death built into the world, and it seems to the result of Fall. How do you reconcile that with an older Earth? Fair question. Old Earthers like John Lennox will bring in some of the challenges of science that seem to push back firmly against a young Earth, and then there's science from the other side, of course, and theology from the other side. We don't have to settle that here, but I think it's a strength, not a weakness, that there's a range of options faithful Christians can hold. Last question for you. You ready for this one? And this one is in your lane, [chuckles] so you probably got six or seven of these, in fairness.
Scott Rae: Fair enough.
Sean McDowell: So this person's talking about the conversation we've had about abortion, and we both clearly consider abortion a moral wrong, but we oppose laws that would impose crit- criminal penalties on women. Help us understand the reasoning behind this position. Why does it seem like you both would prefer an exception kinda to the rule for women who do something that's morally wrong and not have a penalty, when you seemingly would for other moral wrongs like this?
Scott Rae: Well, let me think, let me think about it prin- by principle first.
Sean McDowell: Okay.
Scott Rae: 'Cause I think, to be fair, it is largely driven by, not largely, but somewhat driven by pragmatism on this. And the re- the pragmatic- ... Thing is that if there, if there are criminal sanctions on the women who have abortions, then the likelihood of laws being passed in those states that would protect the unborn, I think diminishes significantly. And if our goal is to protect more unborn children than less, and this can be a means by which we do that's not fundamentally immoral, then I'm in favor of that. But here's another way to think about this, is that the woman is actually not the one who is committing the crime. It's the physician- ... Who is the direct agent of the death of the unborn child. And this is... I think this is the reason why in s- in some states that have laws where abortion is illegal, it's the physician's action that's criminalized, not the mother's. Now, I think you can make, you can make a pretty decent moral argument that the mother is at best, highly complicit in that decision, but I think she's, she is one step removed from the cause of it.... And I think I'm o- I'm open to conversation about the degree to which that makes a moral difference. But I think that's, in part, the reason why, the laws are structured the way they are. And I would, I, again, I have, I have huge s- huge sympathy for pregnant women who are desperate, who, you know, maybe, you know, maybe having a child, they have no way to think about even how they're gonna care for this child. They may be, you know, they may be addicted, they may be poor- ... They may be out of work, or they may be, they may be very young. The, the pregnancy might be the result of a relationship that they regret, and there are a whole host of things. And so I don't, I don't, I don't-- I'm uncomfortable piling on to the woman who may be in very desperate circumstances, where I think the physician, this is recognized, the physician is the actual direct cause.
Sean McDowell: That's a really interesting answer. It's a combination of pragmatism to save lives, but also the nature of who is doing the wrong. And of course, the question comes in, how much might a woman still be complicit? I think in some of the interviews you and I have done, ones I've done separately, of women who've had abortions and repented from this and experienced healing, a number of women who have survived abortions and talk about the conditions that their mother was put in, and really just, in some ways, powerless and victims in many cases, gives me a lot of sympathy for a woman who has an abortion. That's great. We-- There's... In some ways, we could probably do a full show on that, as I think about it, 'cause it's a question that comes up, and I don't hear a lot of clarity on that point. I think you've given us, you know, two or three good principles to think about, but maybe that's something we'll-
Scott Rae: But we've, we've, we've just scratched the surface on that one.
Sean McDowell: Yeah. Maybe we'll come back full circle on this one.
Scott Rae: Good.
Sean McDowell: All right, folks, there you have it, 10 questions all over the map, from miscarriage to, all sorts of topics related to abortion and the age of the earth and the sovereignty of God, et cetera.
Scott Rae: And, and everything in between.
Sean McDowell: And everything in between. If you have questions for Scott or for myself, send them our way. You can email us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu. We're gonna come back maybe once a month and take your questions like this.
Scott Rae: Yeah.
Sean McDowell: So make sure you hit Subscribe to this podcast, Think Biblically. Follow the YouTube channel. We've got a lot more coming for you from Talbot School of Theology at Biola University, and we'd love for you to think about coming and studying with us. Thanks for watching. We hope you'll consider sharing this with a friend. [upbeat music]
