For the first week of the new year, Sean & Scott discuss:

  • Update on the wildfires in Southern California.
  • Atheist author argues that true Christianity is key to saving America.
  • The California Senate revisits expanding aid-in-dying laws to include dementia and Alzheimer's patients.
  • AI’s role in selecting embryos raises significant ethical and moral questions about life and reproduction.
  • Listener Response to Jim Daly on singleness
  • Listener Question: Responsibility to leave inheritance to a child living a life you don't agree with.



Episode Transcript

Sean McDowell: [upbeat music] A self-described gay atheist Jew says Christianity is key for saving America. AI is now being utilized to help select embryos for use in reproductive technologies. And the California Senate is reconsidering and revisiting an expansion of its aid-in-dying policies. These are the stories we will discuss, and we will also address some of your questions. I'm your host, Sean McDowell.

Scott Rae: And I'm your co-host, Scott Rae.

Sean McDowell: This is the Think Biblically weekly cultural update, brought to you by Talbot School of Theology, Biola University. Scott, two things before we jump in. First off, it's good to be back. [chuckles]

Scott Rae: Hear, hear.

Sean McDowell: It was nice to have a two-week break, but it's wonderful to be back. When stories pop up, I think, "I wanna comment on this and help people think biblically!"

Scott Rae: [chuckles]

Sean McDowell: So it's great to be back in the saddle. But second, a lot of people have seen the news, and I've gotten a number of texts from concerned friends about the fires. Now, I'll let you comment on Biola, but I live in Southern Orange County, so as of right now, a long ways away from this, so I appreciate the personal concern. But we have some faculty who do live closer, some families and students who live closer. The campus is a way south. We appreciate the concern there, but any thoughts you wanna make regarding that?

Scott Rae: Oh, this is just utterly heartbreaking, Sean, to see, the, just the devastation in these neighborhoods. These winds are un- have been unprecedented. And the, just the way the first responders have been completely overwhelmed by the need and just all the devastation that's taken place. Some of these neighborhoods, I think, well, in Pacific Palisades, I don't think will ever be the same. And, you know, these places in Malibu, right on the ocean, the, you know, a lot of those got wiped out. You know, it's just, it's just really heartbreaking to see all these people who have lost everything. So I just... We just wanna emphasize, our hearts go out to the people who are, who have been suffering from this. You know, tens of thousands of people have been, forced to evacuate their homes. Over a thousand structures just in the Pacific Palisades, Malibu area, have been destroyed. That's not to mention the fires that are in other regions. Biola campus is about 30 or so miles south of where all the fires are taking place. And the campus is not in danger. We do have some staff who live sorta close to the Altadena, Pasadena area. You know, my son and his girlfriend came to stay with us. They live in the Highland Park area. And the air, the air quality, a hund- 150 air quality rating is hazardous to health. The air quality rating in their neighborhood was 500 yesterday.

Sean McDowell: Oh, my.

Scott Rae: And so they, [chuckles] they decided they were gonna work out of, out of our house here in Irvine, where the sky is blue, and the air is clear. And, you know, we live, you know, we live probably 50 miles from where the fires are. You're probably, you know, closer to 60 or 70 miles away from there. So we're not... Neither of us are in danger, but I appreciate people's, thoughts and prayers for us. But I would focus your thoughts and prayers on the folks who are, you know, who are right in the middle of this. It is, it's just historic devastation for Southern California.

Sean McDowell: Scott, maybe next week we'll just kind of revisit and talk about how do we make sense of a story like this biblically? Right now, it's still so urgent that it feels like Romans 12:15, "Be happy with those who are happy. Be sad or weep with those who are sad"-

Scott Rae: Yeah

Sean McDowell: ... Is what you've just demonstrated here. Pray for people involved in this. Send funds and support as you can. Maybe next week we'll bring full circle and bring some biblical perspective-

Scott Rae: Good

Sean McDowell: ... On this, as we see it.

Scott Rae: Good call. It'll give, it'll give us a chance to think about it a little bit further, too-

Sean McDowell: [laughs]

Scott Rae: ... Other than, other than just... I mean, all I've been able to do is just respond to what I've seen- ... To what I've seen on television, which is just, you know, absolutely devastating.

Sean McDowell: Well said. Well, we're gonna shift some pretty serious gears here, because this is a story both of us saw over the break, and I tagged it and thought, "Wow, number one, we gotta get this book. Number two, we gotta talk about it." And the title is, Atheist Writer Asserts that True Christianity, true Christianity, is the Key to Saving America. Now, before we jump and realize, we are hearing this narrative over and over and over again, Scott, from atheists, from skeptics, [chuckles] from agnostics. It's like this push towards secularization that would make the world better. Now, even atheists are giving this pause. So here's, like, another story. But what's interesting about this is Jonathan Rauch is a self-described gay atheist Jew, and he was interviewed in the New York, New York Times. And according to this article, it says that, his claim is that the US needs to embrace more Christian values to get back on track, but that the church is failing in its role of representing Jesus. This is Jonathan Rauch in his book, Cross Purposes, that, by the way, I'm hoping you and I can do a deep dive on this together and discuss it-

Scott Rae: Yeah, me

Sean McDowell: ... In the future.

Scott Rae: Me too.

Sean McDowell: He says, quote, "What really, what really needs to happen to get our country on a better track is for Christianity to not become more secular or more liberal, but to become more like itself, to become more truly Christian." When I first heard that, I'm thinking, like, "These voices are like John the Baptist in the wilderness," [chuckles]

Scott Rae: [chuckles]

Sean McDowell: ... Prophetic-type voices, calling us back to what it means to be Christian. So he talks about fundamentals for Christianity he sees in line with Madisonian liberalism. We don't have to go through that, but he says, "The Founding Fathers," Rauch said, "believed Christianity was foundational to a healthy nation." I hear that, and I'm thinking, "My word, the conversation has shifted."... From when we tried to secularize the Founding Fathers and said they were cryin- trying to create a separation of church and state, now more voices are, like this are saying, "Wait a minute, the Founding Fathers believed Christianity was foundational to a healthy nation." Now, here's a quote from the interview. He said, "Christianity is a load-bearing wall in democracy, and the founders told us that," said Rauch. "They didn't specify that you have to be a Christian per se," and of course, Rauch is not, "but that our liberal, secular constitution relies on virtues like truthfulness," Christian virtue, "lawfulness," Christian virtue, "equal dignity of every individual, a Judeo-Christian virtue." [chuckles] and then he says, "And they understood that these have to come from an outside source." So the government doesn't give these things, the government recognizes these things that exist. He says, "Christianity has been good at this." Now, he makes a distinction, between thin Christianity, which when Christianity becomes secularized, and it's like a consumer good, maybe a kind of a cultural Christianity. He says that doesn't do it. Then he talks about sharp Christianity, which he would characterize as more of kind of a us versus them, cultural confrontation model. That's how he sees it, where hope is put that the next election will end Christianity as we know it, if it doesn't turn out as some Christians hope it does. But then he has what, it's not in this article, but he calls it thick Christianity, and he positively cites the late pastor Tim Keller, as influence him. And let me read this last quote, and then I wanna, really wanna know what you think, Scott. He said, "I think it can only do good and not harm to the country and to Christian witness if Christians can [chuckles] do the work of rediscovering and elevating those elements of the Christian faith which uphold our democracy and which uphold the teachings of Christ. I can't see any possible harm would ever result from that. And so what I come down to is addressing my Christian fellow citizens, saying, 'Why not give Jesus a try?'" Now, by the way, very qu- very quickly, let me explain this for people. When he says, "Give Jesus a try," he doesn't mean believe in Jesus. He means give him a try in terms of culturally helping us survive as America, rather than personally giving him a try. But with that said, your take on this [chuckles] article.

Scott Rae: Well, let me... Sean, let me go for our listeners a little deeper and- ... Tell you exactly what the Founding Fathers said- ... About the place of religion, which they meant basically Protestant Christianity. Here's what Thomas Jefferson said: "Religion should be regarded as the alpha and the omega of the moral law, and a supplement to law in the government of men and women." Pretty strong statement. George Washington, in his farewell address after his, after his second presidential term: "Religion and morality are indispensable supports to political prosperity. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." And then here's James Madison. This is in the government charter for the Northwest Ordinance that went with the people who were settling in the Northwest. It said, "Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind shall forever be encouraged." And even a skeptic, a deist like Benjamin Franklin, put it like this: "The necessity of a public religion, the great mass, have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue, and retain them in the practice of it until it becomes habitual." The, the founders, I think, w- you know, they did not stutter when they talked about the importance of religion. Ma- and what they meant by that was Protestant Christianity, though they didn't limit it to that exclusively, but that was part, that was basically part of what was in the water, at the time of the American founding. And they connect- they connected religion and morality much more closely than we do today. I think, you know, some of, some of the ways we separate religion and morality, w- for understandable reasons, because, you know, religious people sometimes are not the most moral folks, and the place, you know, the place of these various scandals. And, the interesting thing I found, Sean, is that, Rauch is, he's very kind to what he refers to as family values.

Sean McDowell: Yeah.

Scott Rae: And in the interview, he actually praises Mormons for their family emphasis. But what he recognized is that Christianity produces good citizens, not only for God's kingdom, but also for one's country. And here, I think here's the reason, he doesn't go into this entirely, but I think the reason that it's necessary is that, like market-based economics, for democracy, it's based on the individual's ability to self-govern. And it presumes that individuals have the moral, internal resources to govern themselves. This is why the founders could expect to have thing, something like limited government, because they trusted the individual to essentially govern themselves based on the religious boundaries that their faith had set up for them. And, and market-based economics is the same way. Adam Smith saw moral principles as the boundaries around the pursuit of self-interest.... You know, most people don't realize that he wrote his book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, his moral philosophy, before he wrote the book, The Wealth of Nations.

Sean McDowell: That's interesting.

Scott Rae: And I- and both, I think both democracy and market capitalism require, both require and nurture a set of virtues that are, that are indispensable for their flourishing. Think, think about just one example of this. Think about, Sean, who would you rather hire: somebody whose life is characterized by the fruit of the spirit, or somebody whose life is characterized by the deeds of the flesh? [laughing]

Sean McDowell: I'm gonna guess that's a rhetorical question. [laughing]

Scott Rae: That, that is... Let's, let's hope so. So there, I th- but I think there's- it's really important, I think, to see that what the founders understood was that the individual's ability to govern themselves, provided by the guardrails of their faith, what was the essential element that made democracy plausible? So that, and I think that, you know, and what it, what it, what Roush also mentions here is the place of forgiveness as a virtue. He look- the three fundamentals of Christianity are imitating Jesus, not being afraid, and forgiving one another. And he said those things are very much how you, how you want a constitutional republic. So he said, "When I saw that, I thought, well, there it is. It's in the scripture, so why aren't Christians doing that?" And I think that's a, that's an insightful, a really insightful point.

Sean McDowell: Such a good take. That's so helpful, and what's interesting about this, Scott, is the things you said Christians have been saying for decades and maybe even centuries plus, but we've been shamed and silenced and criticized from many in the atheist, secular crowd. And this is... This article is a kind of repentance on his part, is how I read it. He said in the article, he... Not the article you and I are reading, but in the interview in The New York Times-

Scott Rae: Mm-hmm

Sean McDowell: ... Podcast. He said, quote, "A lot of this book is an apology for my own previous view that secularization is great." Like, wow! Repentance, of course, is a change of mind, metanoia. It's a shift, so to speak. This is a kind of repentance, and it's powerful to see this. And again, he's just one voice of more and more voices speaking up, not just saying religion is key. They're not making the case for Hinduism or Buddhism or Islam. The uniquely Judeo-Christian values are what-

Scott Rae: Mm-hmm

Sean McDowell: ... Is key. And I think that's right. You and I would agree with that. Now, as an apologist, I look at this, I think we have a unique cultural opportunity to take this a little further and say: Why? Is this just coincidence? Is this just sociological, or does Christianity actually describe the world as it is? Does it capture human nature? Does it capture what it means to flourish? And I think this is a new kind of apologetic and an opening and a willingness in our culture that people will entertain, which of course, will bring us to things like the resurrection, the deity of Christ, et cetera. So I think there's an opening here that's really fascinating. Last thing I'll say, it hit on your point before. I see he said this again in the interview with The New York Times. He said, "Although the persecution of homosexuals, per se, was totally unjustified," he said, "that the so-called religious right, when they talked about family values, were onto something." [chuckles] And I read that and thought, how interesting. How many times have we seen, Scott... You go back to 1992, Dan Quayle was criticized, the vice president, for talking about family values and criticizing a show, popular, called Murphy Brown at that time. People piled on him and hated him. There was an article in the Brookings Institute. It said, "20 years later, it turns out Dan Quayle was right about Murphy Brown and unmarried moms." It just reminds me, Scott, that we are on the right side of history if we hold the worldview of Jesus, and there's a boldness that we can have, there's a confidence that we can have, and we should lean into that in this cultural moment, not away from it.

Scott Rae: Yeah, I think there-

Sean McDowell: Anything else on this?

Scott Rae: Well, there's, there's a lot of merit, I think, to staying the course and trusting that what we, what we hold to be true actually is true.

Sean McDowell: Amen.

Scott Rae: And, and there's empirical evidence that now is, I think, almost undeniable. One, just one other comment on this. I think he, what he, what he maintained in the interview was that the moral revival that is, that nurtures these virtues that are necessary to democracy only comes when people take their Christian faith really seriously. And, you know, our friend, James, the sociologist James Davison Hunter, s- talked some time ago about, the idea of a moral revot- revival apart from a seri... People seriously taking religious, Christian faith, taking it to heart. And here's... I just wanna read what he s- he said. It's so insightful. He said, "We want a renewal of character in our day, but we don't really know what we ask for. To have a renewal of character is to have a renewal of a creedal order that constrains, limits, binds, obligates, and compels. This price is too high for us to pay as a culture."... He said, "We want character, but without unyielding conviction. We want strong morality, but without the emotional burden of guilt and shame. We want virtue, but without the particular moral justifications that invariably offend. We want good without having to name evil. We want decency without the authority to insist on it. We want moral community without any limitations to personal freedom. In short, we want what we c- what we want, what we cannot possibly have on the terms that we want it." And what he's referring to there is the idea that you can have a, have a moral, renewal, apart from really taking their-- somebody taking their Christian faith very seriously. And I think this is exactly the point that Rauch is making when he's referring to a thick Christianity that actually takes the teaching of Jesus seriously in all of its dimensions, particularly the moral ones.

Sean McDowell: Now, I do wonder what Rauch thinks as, a, as a self-described gay man, if he wants us to take [chuckles] seriously that marriage was designed by God, and it's a sexed institution. I don't know his answer to that, because you can't say thick and then pick and choose-

Scott Rae: Yeah

Sean McDowell: ... When it's in Genesis, all the way through the Old Testament, all the way through the New Testament. That comes with it, so I would love to have-

Scott Rae: That fair

Sean McDowell: ... That conversation with him-

Scott Rae: Yeah, fair enough

Sean McDowell: ... And see how he fleshes that out. All right, so let's shift to this story. You sent me this one, and I love that you're kind of tracking a lot of these questions as they come to bioethics, [chuckles] and this one's interesting. The title is "Using AI to choose embryos in assisted reproduction raises significant ethical worries." Now, one of the lead authors on this study said, "The use of AI in embryo selection means that computer algorithms are beginning to make decisions about who is brought into the world." He says, "There are some important benefits to this technology, but it does involve AI interfering with a particularly sensitive area of human life, which needs to be handled carefully and respectfully." Now, they argue in here that AI embryo assessment tools analyze images and/or videos of embryos and then provide kind of models based on their analysis of embryo quality, and then are help to determine which embryos are used in a technology, maybe such as IVF or not used. According to this article, early evidence suggests it may outperform human embryologists, which is [chuckles] kind of a crazy thought, this issue aside. A co-author says, on one of the studies in Australia, he says, "Several assisted reproductive clinics in Australia had begun rolling out AI in clinical practices, with many others like it soon to follow." So this is a clear example of the technology marching forward, and then people go, "Uh, wait a minute, maybe we should think about this ethically-"

Scott Rae: [chuckles]

Sean McDowell: "... But the cat is already out of the bag." A little scholarly attention has been paid to this, and there's a lot of ethical concerns that are raised, and they said, for example: "We argue that since some patients may have genuine moral objections to the use of AI, about which children they have, they should be informed about its use." So one response they're saying is simply, we just need to inform people whether AI is used or not. Your take on this whole technological advancement?

Scott Rae: Well, Sean, I think we've talked a lot about AI in the past few months.

Sean McDowell: We have.

Scott Rae: And I think we've not been particularly surprised at, i- at any of the applications that we've seen. But I'll confess, this is an application I did not see coming.

Sean McDowell: Okay.

Scott Rae: And now let's just to be, to be clear for our audience, embryos in IVF that are, that are produced in a Petri dish, are selected based on their shape, their, the shape of their cell, their morphology, the coherence of the inner cell mass, how quick, how quickly and coherently they develop, or through a more sophisticated genetic testing, which is essentially a, an embryo biopsy, where they'll take a cell out of the embryo and screen it for particular genetic abnormalities. And they're graded on a scale of one to three, uh- ... On the likelihood of successfully implanting, high, medium, and low chances. And only the high-grade embryos are typically implanted. And but in my view, I think we... Let's back up a bit, and say, what happens to the embryos that are not chosen? Now, sometimes they're, the couple elects to have, to just discard them, or they just keep them in storage because they're ambivalent about having to make any decision about what to do with them. But embryos that are graded medium or low chances to implant, we should, our listeners should be aware, those embryos are- they're gonna be pretty challenging to put up for adoption, to donate them to another infertile couple. So it's, the options are somewhat limited based on this rating system. The fundamental principle, I think, I, which I'll give to our listeners, we've talked about before, for using IVF ethically, and I know you and I have a, you know, we have some differences about this, but I know we agree about this, at least, that every embryo created in the lab deserves a chance to mature in the womb. Now, again, my issue is more with embryo grading and selection and less with the use of AI to aid in the process. The clinical study that was done, for example, the embryologist did perform a little bit better than the AI on predicting this, but it was only a couple percentage points, and the AI application did it 10 times faster than the embryologist was able to do it.... And there, I think there's comes concern about bias in the algorithms. But I'm, I, again, I wanna take that step back and say, "You know, what happened? What are we endorsing happening to these embryos that are not selected?" You know, I, some time ago, I met with a couple who used IVF, tried to do everything correct. They told the clinic to limit the number of eggs that were fertilized. They harvested all the eggs that she produced, but the clinic dropped the ball and fertilized all of them. And they are, they are left with, you know, like, a, like, over a dozen embryos, which was far more than what they wanted, 'cause they wanted to try and do this in a way that would minimize the risk of having some left over. So even trying to do it correctly, you still have to deal with the fact that maybe, you know, maybe not all of your guidelines are gonna be followed, by the particular clinic. So, I, you know, I'm concerned that we are, you know, we are grading and discarding. I'm not, I'm not, I'm not so sure that assessing them for their likelihood of implantation is a problem, but what we do with them after that assessment, I think, can be very problematic, given our view, and I think correctly so, that we have a person from conception forward.

Sean McDowell: Now, that last point I agree with in the sense that if IVF is considered moral, and it's okay to make a embryo in a lab, then using IVF to assess which ones are likely to survive is not any more problematic in principle than a human doing so, if it helps us better determine them, their quality for life. Now, there were a lot of clauses in that in which I said, "if." I think for me, what you said earlier, you mentioned about embryos created in the lab, that's where we differ, and we don't have to revisit that debate. I would really encourage folks to go back, and it's on-

Scott Rae: Yeah

Sean McDowell: ... Audio, a few podcasts back. They can watch it on my YouTube channel. And, my concern is that the children should not be created outside of the lab, that this is in- going outside of God's design for the creative process. Now, with that said, I... You gave the example of a dozen embryos that were created by this couple trying to do everything right. Now, I don't know who this couple is. I don't know their names. I'm not [chuckles] trying to pile on anybody who's trying to do it right, but these kinds of misuses and mis, not intended results happen so frequently. I don't think we can separate IVF from these kinds of things. That will happen when we remove reproduction from God's intention within the womb. Now, I know you differ, and we could debate-

Scott Rae: No, we won't

Sean McDowell: ... And go back on that.

Scott Rae: We won't.

Sean McDowell: But-

Scott Rae: It's, it's, we al- we already did that.

Sean McDowell: We already covered that.

Scott Rae: Uh-

Sean McDowell: But that's just... That's my take on this. I did wanna draw-- as I read this article, one thing that's interesting here struck me. This Dr. Julian Kaplan, who was one of the authors on the article published in Human Reproduction, said this, and listen carefully. He said, "The use of AI in embryo selection means that computer algorithms are beginning to make decisions about who is brought into the world." Now, think about that. There's an assumption within that, a philosophical and arguably theological assumption, that embryos are not already existing beings in the world. That's an unbiblical assumption at the root of this. So they have concerns about using AI, and I say, "Fine, good for you." We have to r- analyze and consider those concerns, but they're bringing a secular understanding, in many ways, not a biblical one, to this concern, and don't consider embryos human. Embryos are distinct, living, human organisms that exist. Now, what they are deciding is which embryo is going to be inserted and have a chance to develop and mature according to the kind of [chuckles] thing that it already is in the world. So that assumption, biblically, you and I would completely agree on this and totally challenge that's built into this, into the article and this technology.

Scott Rae: Yeah.

Sean McDowell: I assume you're with me on that point.

Scott Rae: Oh, yeah.

Sean McDowell: Anything else in this article?

Scott Rae: Well, yeah. Well, we would say that the child has already been brought into the world-

Sean McDowell: Exactly

Scott Rae: ... Before he or she is screened. And location does not make any moral or ontological or philosophical difference in what kind of a thing an embryo is. So I, yeah, I think... And neither does its size. So yeah, I think you're- yeah, I think we completely agree about that.

Sean McDowell: Let, let me ask you a quick question on this. Why does it surprise you that they use AI? The only reason it surprised me is I hadn't thought about, really, the, how much they select embryos. The moment I think about it, I'm like, "Oh, it makes perfect sense." I mean, basically, everything humans can do, [chuckles] AI is going to be used to try to help us do it more effectively. Now, in principle, I don't have a problem with that, in principle, as far as it goes, but is it just that you hadn't thought about it, or is there something else here that surprised you so much about this advancement?

Scott Rae: Well, I think that what I'm beginning to see is with, you know, with the way AI is-... The incursion of AI into, you know, virtually every sphere of life, nothing seems to be off limits for it. And, it sort of raises the question, you know, Sean, is no- is nothing sacred?

Sean McDowell: [chuckles]

Scott Rae: You know, is no- is nothing so the domain of human beings that we wanna say, you know, "This is an area that AI shouldn't be involved in?" and that's, I guess, what struck me about it. You know, that, you know, screening human beings for their, [chuckles] for their likelihood to be, you know, successfully mature into a newborn, I don't know, that just strikes me as one of those sacred areas that maybe we ought to, maybe we ought to leave that to human beings.

Sean McDowell: Yeah, you know, as I think about it, I mean, for me, I think we've opened the door for this. Once we start IVF, and once we do embryo selection, and we remove it from a certain unknown that takes place inside the womb, and you might say God selects in some fashion, this just doesn't surprise me once the door has been opened for this. So I guess that's how I see it, maybe in, maybe in contrast a little bit, but any other thoughts on this one?

Scott Rae: Nope.

Sean McDowell: All right, you sent me this one, and Scott, I'm gonna give you a little hard time here because you took a screenshot of this. Do you still read the physical Orange County Register? [chuckles]

Scott Rae: On, on Sundays, I do.

Sean McDowell: Okay. [chuckles]

Scott Rae: And this was in, this was in the Sunday Register, and I don't have a s- I don't have a digital scr- subscription to it. So this was the best I could do.

Sean McDowell: All right, fair enough. I'm like, "There's three files here. How do I take notes on this?" I didn't even know. Half of our audience might not even know what a physical newspaper is, but nonetheless, fascinating take, and the title is, "A Right to Die for Mental Decline." And it starts off by saying, "California is only a handful of states that allows what's called medical aid in dying," which is a nice euphemism, by the way, "the option for people diagnosed with a terminal illness and who meet a tight set of criteria," and of course, that is a questionable assumption as well, "to end their lives with doctor-prescribed drugs. But should the nearly decade-old law be expanded to include more people, particularly people with Alzheimer's and with other kinds of, dementia?" they say. Now, the moment I read this, Scott, this hit me because, my father, 85 and a half years old, and he's been public, he has Alzheimer's. And I was like, "Wow, this is a very personal thing." And I understand 85 and up, my doctor told me that over about half of individuals, at least in the US, have a kind of Alzheimer's or dementia. That's what he told me. So with that said, California law, called the End of Life Option Act, allows for an adult California resident who's diagnosed with a terminal illness that is expected to result in death within six months to request an aid-in-dying drug from a physician, which is self-administered. So the doctor's not giving them a lethal injection. The doctor's not killing them actively, but giving them a drug that they take, which will end their life. Now, the law went into effect in mid-2016, and I was not aware of this, but 6,516 people in California were written prescriptions for these drugs, and 4,287, that's 66%, have actually taken them, based on the data that was given out. Now, California law mandates that a request for, again, quote, "aid-in-dying drug must be made by the diagnosed individual," not through a parent, have an advanced healthcare directive, conservatorship. The rest of this article walks through how at least the author of this perceives that there's appropriate boundaries set in place for this in California. But as you and I know, based on what happened in December in the UK and what has happened in other places around the world, these so-called tight restrictions are always revisited in the name of compassion and care. I didn't-- I was not following the details of this, so I wasn't really surprised by it, but it's a really important development for us in California and beyond. Give us your take.

Scott Rae: Well, we've alr- we've already seen this extension of, both assisted suicide and euthanasia in U- for mental illness in Europe. So what, you know, what's been going on in Europe for the past decade is now heading across the pond. And this is personal for me, too, 'cause my mom just turned 93 a few days ago.

Sean McDowell: Wow!

Scott Rae: And she's, she has very serious dementia. In fact, I'm, I'm very concerned that the next time I visit her, she won't recognize me. And so it's just, it's, it's just heartbreaking to see this. And, you know, it's, it's understandable why people would want to entertain this option because, you know, actually, I've, I've actually started to wonder, you know, th- she's got a... She- my mom, I'm pretty sure, has a genetic connection to this 'cause her mother was just like this. And I'm wo- you know, my sister and brother and I all wonder if, you know, if there's a genetic connection that we've inherited for this. Which is, you know, frankly, just honestly, that's, that's one of my worst nightmares-

Sean McDowell: Sure

Scott Rae: ... Is for my body to keep functioning and my, for my, when my mind's given out. [lips smack] so this is, you know, I wanna evaluate this, you know, philosophically and academically, but it's really hard to separate this from the personal side, as you pointed out.... So here's my initial take on this. The first thing I thought about was, I could see this being extended even further for p- for somebody like your dad, who is in kind of in the early stages, just not, the diagnosis was not that long ago, but anticipating what the road is gonna be like-

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm

Scott Rae: ... And saying, "Uh, I'm opting out of that. That's a road I just don't wanna go down." and opting for, medical aid in dying or whatever we're calling it, sooner rather than, you know, when he sort of gets to the endpoint. This is, you know, we got lots of parallels to this. This is what happened with when we first encountered AIDS back in the '80s. AIDS patients were refusing treatments that would keep them alive because they knew what the road was gonna be like, that they were gonna go down. And even some of the European advocates for medical aid in dying have admitted publicly that some of the patients that they've administered this to choose to go too soon. And they ha- they, I think they have some regrets about providing this for people who still have very productive years ahead of them because they don't wanna face the road that they know is ahead of them.

Sean McDowell: Yeah.

Scott Rae: That's, I think, the next, kind of the next extension of this. And I, Sean, I also wonder, because in California, and this is pretty standard in every place that has legalized this, that the person who requests this has to make a fully informed decision about what they want. It can't be a spur-of-the-moment thing. It's gotta endure over time. It's gotta be repeated in most cases. They just have to make sure that it's a stable, informed request, and I don't know how a patient with dementia, particularly if it's, if it's pretty advanced, can make an informed decision about that. My mom, I know, I mean, probably two years ago, she was unable to make that decision for herself, and she's declined significantly further since then. And we... You know, the interesting thing is, we normally [lips smack] consider these kinds of patients at the end of dementia to be incompetent to make their own decisions, and when it comes to decisions about treatments, say, for a ventilator support or, CPR or something like that, we routinely let family members make those decisions for their loved one who's clearly not capable of making it for themselves. But yet, in this, in the proposal here that's gonna go before the legislature again, families are prohibited from making those decisions, yet we're assuming that the person at the end, you know, at the, you know, in the whatever stage of dementia they're in, is actually competent and capable of making that decision. So I think that that's a r- a really significant part of this, that I don't see how that can be overcome. [lips smack] so one other thing that, caught my attention that maybe some of our listeners who read this article missed. It's the easy thing to miss because the assembly person who's bringing this back to the legislature put it like this: she says, "As we have an aging population and people living so much longer-

Sean McDowell: Yeah

Scott Rae: ... We need- basically, we need to do this." What she doesn't, she doesn't come out and say it directly, but the demographic challenge is clearly there. Now, we've said, we've talked about this before. We got- we have record numbers of people over the age of 65 already, and that's gonna get worse. And my fear, Sean, is that the right to die will morph into a duty to die, and it- ... Will be coercive. People in Europe are already talking more directly about that option, and we've had some, you know, episodes in Canada where people have been going for treatment and been, and been for life-saving treatment and been off- and been offered assisted suicide instead. I just don't think there's any way in the next decade or two that that doesn't have the potential to become seriously coercive for people, and that people will exercise this option because they feel like they have a duty to do that, not because they really want to do that for themselves.

Sean McDowell: It's kind of a perfect storm with the declining fertility rates, where there's less workers economically-

Scott Rae: That's the other side of that coin.

Sean McDowell: Yeah, right? And it just, it's like a perfect storm coming together, you might say, morally, economically, on so many levels. Something has to give, and this seems like you're right, it's moving in that direction. [lips smack] do you have any sense of when California might vote on this or potentially pass it, or it's just-

Scott Rae: Well

Sean McDowell: ... Being revisited?

Scott Rae: It, it came up last year, and thankfully it failed. But the legislative person who's heading this up has determined to take a little different tack and is fairly confident that she's gonna get a hearing in the legislature. So I would encourage our listeners to keep, just keep your eyes and ears open for this, because my guess is in the next three months, we'll hear a little bit more about where this is gonna go. Let me just say one other thing on this too, Sean.

Sean McDowell: Sure.

Scott Rae: We've, we've- remind us what we've emphasized before. If, as this person is pointing out, and as the ar- the title of the article suggests, if there is such a thing as a right to die, that it's a fundamental right, then, you know, n- there really are no conditions or eligibility rules that you have to have for somebody to exercise a fundamental right. So any- basically, anybody who's an adult for any reason-... Should be able to exercise that right. But yet we don't, we don't really believe that, because most people who are not seriously ill, who are not in these dementia phases, if they ex- if they say they have a desire for suicide, we give them suicide prevention. And it's all hands on deck to prevent them from taking their life. It's only when people's health gets compromised that we've changed our mind on that.

Sean McDowell: I think that's in part why the first line of this calls it medical aid in dying rather than physician-assisted suicide, because that term is, should physicians, first off, be helping in harming patients? That's a fair question. And suicide, in all other circumstances, like you said, when someone's going to take their life, we stop them, and yet in this instance, we don't. So... And the big picture thing is I'm not surprised by this. I'm saddened by this movement, but we've seen in countries-

Scott Rae: No, this was in- yeah, this was entirely-

Sean McDowell: Yeah

Scott Rae: ... Predictable.

Sean McDowell: Entirely predictable. I mean, get-- the amount of time gets expanded, the conditions get expanded, age gets lowered. These boundaries are pushed, like you said. Well, let's keep tracking this. We will bring it back if there's significant advancements here as well. You ready for some questions, Scott?

Scott Rae: Yes. We got some good ones this time, too. And we do-

Sean McDowell: We always do!

Scott Rae: As we do every time. [laughing]

Sean McDowell: [laughing] All right, this is on a recent episode with Jim Daly, president of Focus on the Family. He said, quote, "Singleness is a good, marriage is great, and having children is wonderful." He did recognize the points that some people don't get married and some who do marry can't have kids. But the main thrust of his comments follow this kind of good, better, best spectrum. You comment this a bit more deeply, given that there are New Testament passages that clearly indicate that marriage and biological families are not for everyone. There's a way to evaluate this spectrum, that equally values what God calls people to more than good, great, wonderful option does. What are your thoughts, Scott?

Scott Rae: Well, for somebody who was a singles pastor for about four or five years before coming to the Talbot faculty, I've actually thought about this quite a lot. And I think what Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 7:25-35, basically tells us that singleness and marriage are moral equivalents. And w- and there are times and circumstances where singleness may be more expedient than marriage. And he gives, he gives several reasons for that. And some have to do with just practicality. The cult- the crisis of persecution that they were facing just makes it more, I think, more practical to be single than to be married. If you are facing imminent persecution, you know, Sean, I don't know. I'd like to think that I could handle any type of persecution myself, but if you start, you know, start persecuting my wife and my kids- ... You know, honestly, I s- all bets are off. I honestly don't know what I, what I would do with that, and that's the kind of vulnerability to persecution that was an everyday experience for Christians in the first century that Paul's trying to prevent. But he has a couple other reasons why, that I think have more to with the intrinsic value. And he said, you know, marriage will not exist in the resurrection. Now, I think, I think we will know our spouses, but we'll be married to the bri- the church is the bride of Christ, that w- that we'll be married to the bride at that point. And he also points out that, you know, with marriage, you have a divided, you have a divided set of interests, how to please the Lord and how to please your spouse. And as opposed to singleness, you don't have that. You have undivided devotion to the Lord. And I think, you know, think about how your life changed from being single to when you were married. You know, and it was... And especially when we had kids. I mean, that was a really significant change. I mean, I said, I said no to ministry opportunities reflexively that I took, you know, without a second thought, while I was single. And I, you know, you and I have talked about this before. I had about a 10-year period where I didn't take anything- ... That involved out-of-town travel while my kids were playing sports, and in that critical time when they really needed a dad around. And so I think they're- I think Paul is right about that. And I think those have to do, you know, tho- some of those things are just as true today as they were in the first century. So I would say, you know, singleness doesn't-- I mean, marriage doesn't complete you. You are complete in Christ. And, don't, don't get me wrong, listeners, I am deliriously, happily married, and have no desire to go back to being single. But I think the Bible, I think, affirms that singleness and marriage are just two different states that God calls people to, without a moral assessment of one over the other.

Sean McDowell: That's really helpful. I'm not sure I knew that you were a single pastor for that many years, Scott. Come-

Scott Rae: Mariner, Mariners-

Sean McDowell: That's fascinating

Scott Rae: ... Church in Newport Beach, so.

Sean McDowell: Excellent. I love it. Now, let me just comment on here somewhat quickly, is Paul and Jesus were both single, so clearly someone can live a fulfilled, meaningful, God-focused life, without getting married. That's a fact. Now, I do think in part, I mean, I can't speak for Jim, what his point is, but he was expressing, saying, if I w- he was saying if he went back, he would have had more kids. That was one regret that he had, only having two.... There's a lot of data that has come out from Bradley Wilcox in his book, Get Married, who I interviewed here. He's a professor of sociology, University of Virginia. And there's an increasing narrative that says, "Marriage is an option. It doesn't make you happy. Find yourself first. Maybe or maybe don't have kids, it's an expense." And he says, "For most people, getting married and having kids, and a lot [chuckles] of kids, is what brings happiness." That's a sociological fact. That doesn't mean everybody's married with kids is gonna be happier. That doesn't mean singles can't be happy. Sam Allberry, a single pastor, has said, "Sometimes married couples have more issues [chuckles] than a lot of single couples," in his church. So I love that he said singleness is good. A lot of people don't even bring that out and make that point.

Scott Rae: Right.

Sean McDowell: So whether he meant good, better, best, I don't know the answer to that, but singleness is good. Marriage is good. Singleness can be great. Marriage can be great. Having kids is wonderful, and the facts show that when we do that as a whole, that's how most people tend to be happier. So I think we just need to keep that in balance. Um-

Scott Rae: Yeah, I d- I don't think, I don't think Jim would disagree with my assessment of 1 Corinthians 7 and, ... And the way you described it. I d- I don't think he was setting that on a, on a value gradation scale.

Sean McDowell: Fair enough. So let's take this one. It's interesting. [chuckles] It says, "I'm a new listener, grateful that a friend put you in touch with Think Biblically." I put her in touch with, awesome. She wants to know our biblical understanding of inheritance. She lost her husband a little over a year ago, for which I just... I'm so sorry that happened to you, "And I need to have our will redrafted. I'm struggling with the idea of leaving an inheritance for our only son, who has chosen to live as transgender. I don't want my money to support the life that he is living and the choices he's making. I'd rather bequeath my estate to a ministry. Is that wrong?" What do you think, Scott?

Scott Rae: Well, this is, this is a tricky one, Sean, because- ... You know, there, you know, other than the, you know, the episode of the Prodigal Son, [clears throat] the Bible just doesn't have a lot to say about this. And I think-

Sean McDowell: The New Testament.

Scott Rae: The New Testa- yeah. And the reason is because there, you know, in the, in Bib- in the biblical times, there were no 401 [k] accounts. There were, there was no-

Sean McDowell: [laughing]

Scott Rae: ... Kind of investing for your future. You know, I mean, you worked until you dropped dead or you died, and you, and, you know, you worked until you couldn't work anymore, and your family then took care of you. So, you know, inheritance for the average person, I just don't think there were any categories that they had for that. They, you know, people who had assets and wealth had inheritance issues. But the average person, other than h- other than maybe the land that they farmed, that was about all that they had to pass on to a, to a child. So, I'm not surprised that I don't think there's a lot, in the Scripture that directly addresses this. And so I would suggest that, you know, for this particular listener, and again, I'm, I'm grateful that you're... Somebody put you onto our podcast, and again, I'm, I'm very saddened that you lost your husband. But I think for the most part, this is, this is your money. I don't think you are obligated to leave it to any particular person or organization. I think that is for you to determine before the Lord what you think is the best contribution to His kingdom, in, you know, in the long term. So I would, you know, I would say, you know, nobody has a claim on you for that inheritance. I think if you, if you wanted to give some money to your son to help, you know, maybe for something specific, leave them for your son for a specific purpose, I think that would be fine. But if you wanted to bequeath your estate to some, you know, some nonprofit or some, you know, Christian organization, I think that'd be fine, too. It's your, it's your decision before the Lord what you think is best.

Sean McDowell: That's a great take. I think I would, I would concur and just emphasize, in the Old Testament, there's examples and assumptions that inheritance would go to the kids, and the most to the firstborn, which is the backdrop of the Prodigal Son story. Now, of course, while Jesus is teaching, He hasn't died yet, and the New Covenant has not been initiated, so they're still kind of operating under the Old Covenant. But I think there's a difference between the Bible describing these kind of patterns and assumption and prescribing that we are to continue to follow those today. I don't think that teaching is present. What's interesting, though, when Jesus is told his mother and brother and sisters wanna talk with him in Mark 3, He says, "Who are my mother and brother and sisters? Those who do the will of my Father." It's as if Jesus is re... Kind of realigning our commitments, not just biologically, but spiritually to the family of God. So we do have commitments to our offspring, that's for sure, to care for them, to love them, to raise them. But in terms of our largest, commitments, I think it's to the body of Christ. So I wanna liberate you writing in to say, if your heart is to give this to a ministry, do so. Bless the kingdom of God, and I pray that God gives you the ability to maintain this relationship with your son through what might be hurtful, and just the wisdom to navigate that well, so it's understood and lands well. That's my encouragement. Thanks for listening. I hope this gives you some biblical encouragement. Scott, this is fun, man.

Scott Rae: Oh.

Sean McDowell: Just being here reminds me how much I enjoy-

Scott Rae: Yeah

Sean McDowell: ... This back and forth with you, and I'm already looking forward to next week.

Scott Rae: Me too. It's a lot of fun.

Sean McDowell: Well, this has been an episode of the podcast, Think Biblically: Conversations on Faith and Culture, brought to you by Talbot School of Theology, Biola University. We offer master's programs in theology, Bible, marriage and family, spiritual formation, apologetics, and more, online and in person. Please keep your comments coming. We read them, even if we can't respond to all them. And your questions, [chuckles] your excellent questions, keep them coming to thinkbiblically@biola.edu. And if you enjoy this, like one of our listeners today, please think about sharing an episode with a friend to help others think biblically as well. Consider giving us a rating on your podcast app. This past year, we passed 1,000, which was significant. Every rating really helps with the metrics to get the word out. We'll see you Tuesday, next Tuesday, when our regular episode airs, in which we have a conversation with Biola Professor Jeanine Hanger about her new fascinating book called Engaging Jesus with Our Senses. She will unlock some insights reading the New Testament and the Gospels that you probably haven't thought about before. In the meantime, remember to think biblically about everything. [upbeat music]