Biola UniversityThis week's topics:
The Ethics of Embryo Research: The abortion debate is shifting toward the status and treatment of embryos—especially in light of new scientific experimentation pushing past the 14-day research limit.
Science vs. Philosophy: Scott and Sean discuss the crucial distinction between biological life and personhood—and why science can’t answer moral questions about human identity.
Christianity’s Resurgence in Silicon Valley?: A Vanity Fair article highlights growing interest in Christianity in tech culture—but is it genuine faith or just a useful tool for success?
Faith as a Business Strategy: From Peter Thiel to AI startups, some leaders are invoking Christian values in surprising ways—but Sean and Scott caution against reducing Christianity to a productivity hack.
The Rise of Vigilante ‘Pedophile Hunters’: Viral videos of vigilantes confronting suspected predators are gaining popularity—but the hosts unpack the dangers of vigilante justice and the biblical call to trust God’s authority.
Listener Q&A: Can Christians identify as gay? Is same-sex attraction a “thorn in the flesh”? The hosts clarify biblical teaching while emphasizing grace and transformation.
Episode Transcript
Sean McDowell: [upbeat music] The abortion debate shifts to the status of the embryo and the ethics of creating embryos in the lab for scientific experimentation. Christianity is apparently making a comeback in Silicon Valley, but are there pitfalls? And an online trend of pedophile hunters turns violent, which reveals much about our current cultural moment that requires biblical reflection. 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, these stories are so interesting to me, and this first one, we both tagged it reading through the New York Times this week. It is so in your lane. I'm literally dying to hear your thoughts on this because the title itself is so revealing. The title is, "This Is the Embryo That Became My Daughter." [clears throat] Now, the article is about how apparently the abortion debate is shifting now specifically to the status of the embryo, and some of this is brought on by some of the bills related to IVF. She says: "An embryo, in medical terms, is a fertilized egg that through the eighth week after, fertilization. At that point, the tiny ball of cells is no bigger than a raspberry, but its impact on the body can be mighty." And she says, "Whatever it was at that stage," so right away, the framing and writing of this is from within a certain worldview. Now, the nation is gripped, according to this writer, with increasingly urgent questions about how we treat these embryos. Now, scientists are doing embryo research that she argues could help prevent miscarriages. Companies are pushing for boundaries to be extended here 'cause the kind of testing that has potential future just advances for science and human life, et cetera. But what kind of rules should govern this research is the kind of question that's being wrestled with here. She says, "As long as scientists have been working with embryos, they faced ethical questions," but where do we draw the line with embryo research? Two weeks, four weeks? Well, it seems like there's kind of an agreed-upon principle, but not a law, that says embryos can be grown up to 14 days. After that, they cannot be used for further research. But what she makes in this point is that all these people are feeling like there's this chance of this major breakthrough in science if we could potentially push that back, and I guess as early as 2013, nobody knew an embryo could grow to 13 days in a lab, and that's been pushed further as well. And they describe this period, maybe you're familiar with this, Scott, as kind of the black box of embryo development, called the black box of pregnancy, that they're expecting in that window after the 14 days, what they describe as, like, countless medical breakthroughs that could be just significant, and at this stage, it seems like it's just a promise. What's interest-- there's a lot of things interesting in this, but she describes how a lot of scientists, kind of in their consciences, have reservations and concerns about this. I mean, she starts the article with these frozen embryos from IVF, and it kind of is-
Scott Rae: Yeah, grown
Sean McDowell: ... Pulling. [chuckles] Yeah, grown. Oh, yeah, and in some wrongly-
Scott Rae: Grown
Sean McDowell: [chuckles] ... And some still frozen.
Scott Rae: [chuckles]
Sean McDowell: And she's, like, torn on what to do with this. And she asks a question here, Scott. She says: "The 14-day rule has always been slightly arbitrary. Why not 21? Why not 28?" This is the right question. Now, now they're talking about not just embryos the way they've been created through IVF, but these embryo models now built from stem cells. Now, she says, "Are they just engineered tissue? Are they closer to a genuine embryo? Do they have special consideration?" So it's just another example of how technological advancement is asking these age-old questions in new ways. She asks a question here. She says: "Why was I troubled by some of the experiments here when, you know, the alternative arrangements of these clumps of human cells, they are really no different in what way from the multitude of skin cells I shed each day?" I was like, "Wow!" So last quick point here again is they're asking the question, do we extend beyond 14 days? And there's different state rules about this, from California is 12, others are different, and how is this going to play out? And the ethical reservation people have is just what they call an ick factor. There's something inside of us that just resists playing with embryos, but we need to do it, apparently, for scientific advancement. How do you make sense of this, Scott?
Scott Rae: Well, Sean, I have to admit, you know, my head sort of exploded when I started reading this. [laughing]
Sean McDowell: [laughing]
Scott Rae: There is so, there's so much here to talk about. And you're absolutely right that how this is framed right from the start, sort of gives away, I think, where the author is headed. Now, I think to her credit, she also gives, I think, proper place to some of the am- what I would call ambivalence. I wouldn't say... Reservations is too strong, but ambivalence about what kind of a thing an embryo actually is, because she knows... You know, she's-- [chuckles] she had, she had kids through IVF herself.... And she's, you know, she had frozen embryos. So she knows that there's this significant continuity that she's experienced between those embryos in the lab and the child or children that she has in her family today. So, I think there's a, there's an, I think, an understandable intuition that tells us that, you know, maybe these are the same thing, just along a different continuum of maturity. And so this is, I- Sean, what immediately caught my attention comes under the heading of language matters. How we talk about this really makes a difference, because the embryo that became my daughter-
Sean McDowell: [chuckles] Right.
Scott Rae: ... Right off the bat in the title- ... You know, it's, it's, this, they don't, you don't- embryos don't become fetuses, they don't become newborns. They mature into what they already are. They don't become... This is not like metamorphosis, where they become something that's actually, you know, something that's fundamentally different than what they used to be. Because we have, you know, we have continuity of personal identity through time and change. That's sort of metaphysically how we understand human beings in general. And here's the other one, the embryo- she describes, quote, "The embryo, the one the embryologist had deemed the most likely to develop into a child," right? It's really the language we had to use is to mature into a child, and then the subtitle was significant, too: "What do we owe this cluster of cells?" Well, she a- you know, and she admits later that, you know, even in this, the very early embryonic stages, the cells communicate with each other. And it's not just a random clump of cells, or as some s- other people have put this, like a big bag of marbles that just sort of happen to coalesce and come together. No, [clears throat] there's a plan, there's a blueprint, there's communication that takes place between the cells that governs how they differentiate and take on specific functions. So here's another one where it matters.
Sean McDowell: Okay.
Scott Rae: She talks about embryos as potential life, which, you know, embryos are alive, period.
Sean McDowell: That's right.
Scott Rae: There's nothing po- nothing potential about that. I think what she meant by that was, the idea of a potential person. But that's a, that's a philosophical, not a scientific concept, and I would rather us talk about a person with the potential to actualize certain of their capacities. That every embryo, from the first cell forward, has all the capacities it needs to mature into a full-grown adult, and the capacities are actualized at the appropriate developmental time. So here's... You know, of course, life begins at conception. We need to be careful about that, too, and that's, that's not debatable, because embryos are alive. Nobody doubts that, or else their stem cells wouldn't be nearly as valuable as they are. Whether you have a person or not, that's the point, and that's a s- that's a philosophical question. Science can't help us with that.
Sean McDowell: Good.
Scott Rae: Science is impotent to answer that question. I was involved several years ago in a debate on using embryonic stem cells for research. And I had- I was on a panel with a, an advocate for this, from the medical profession, and a scientist at the local university. And Sean, I nearly fell out of my chair-
Sean McDowell: [laughing]
Scott Rae: ... When the scientist admitted that I was right about that.
Sean McDowell: Oh, my goodness.
Scott Rae: That the concept of a person is a philosophical concept, not a scientific one. And she said, "You're right. That's how we ought to talk about it." And I thought, "Wow, this is- I mean, the Lord's about to return here," to have a scientist who actually admits to that. So that's, I think, just kind of the beginnings of my take on this. I'm curious to know kind of where you come down on this, too. What got your attention?
Sean McDowell: Yeah, those are, those are great insights, and I have to say, by this stage, I can at least somewhat predict where you might go, and I- [chuckles] you surprise me at times, Ray, but this one, you handled exactly where I thought and hoped that you were. This distinction between a pen- potential life and real life is vital. I think Frank Beckwith has said, "The unborn is not potential life; it is a life with potential."
Scott Rae: Correct.
Sean McDowell: Now, you and I are life, and we have potential, [chuckles] right? It's not either/or. You know, and she says in this line, "Whatever it was at that stage, there is no scientific debate. From the moment of conception, the unborn is a living human organism distinct from the mother."
Scott Rae: Correct.
Sean McDowell: There is no scientific debate about that. The debate is philosophically, like you said. So I wonder, and I can't prove this, when I read an article like this, I wonder how much there's a combination of just somebody's worldview and how they see things, but also personally what's at stake. If she was to shift her views, that would come at a lot of personal cost here, especially 'cause the article cites a Catholic defender of life, Lila Rose, who's a friend.
Scott Rae: That's right.
Sean McDowell: I just had her on my YouTube channel recently. She's doing amazing work. And she, you know, she's argued that IVF results in more deaths than abortion does. If you follow the evidence that life begins at conception, that follows reasonably. Now, a couple other things that jump out to me is, I, on one level, this article's talking about kind of this conscience and this ick factor, that we have certain natural intuitions about things that help us morally.... But the question is, how far can we take this? So I remember looking at the earliest stages of an embryo, and there's nothing inside of me, looking at the embryo itself, that has the same conscience response to it being destroyed as I do to a baby. Like, it's just not the same response. And I remember thinking, "Well, it just doesn't look human." And then it hit me. I thought, "You know what? It does look human, of the way human beings are supposed to look at that stage of development." And we actually have a lot of bad intuition and ick factor that we've applied to human beings, whether it's people of another race, people with disabilities, people that don't look like we think they should look to have value, 'cause we rely upon certain conscience. So it raises the factor, how far do we take conscience? It's Martin Luther who would say, "Conscience has to be bound by scripture." It has to be bound by scripture. I would say this ick factor that they're talking about in this article is somewhat akin to a kind of conscience, but it has to be bound by the data and the facts and the science. Just because we don't have a kind of ick factor of an embryo, doesn't mean we're not doing damage to it and harming a human being. Tell me your thought. Do you agree with that? How would you-
Scott Rae: Well, yeah
Sean McDowell: ... Respond to that point?
Scott Rae: I'd say, you know, our conscience is not infallible. You know, it's flaw- it's flawed and subject to the results of the fall like the rest of us. I mean, hence, the fact that we have sociopaths who do these horrible things and don't feel any twinge of guilt or remorse about them. I'd say those are the people who the scripture describes as their conscience has been seared, and to, basically to render it useless. And I, and I, you know, we all know people who have a, I think, grossly oversensitive consciences, who, you know, feel guilt about, you know, the least little thing, and all sorts of false guilt about, things that they have no business feeling guilty about. So I think, I would say your conscience is a generally reliable guide to your moral intuitions, but don't, please don't view it as being this infallible, you know, this infallible thermometer that just always measures the right moral temperature, 'cause that's not true. Um- So I would, I would agree with your take on that, and I think, you know, theologically, I think the scripture supports that.
Sean McDowell: Good point. I think, you know, part of the end of this article is just wrestling with the idea that there's been technology for years of people able to do new things like this, but the question itself in this is really nothing new. It, it's not new how far we're going to, you know, try to create human beings. I mean, this is a story of Frankenstein. I mean, there's nothing new here. So are we going to apply these age-old, wise, biblical, ethical principles or not? That's the question. Sadly, I don't have a lot of confidence that we actually are going to.
Scott Rae: Well, I think we'll, we'll see about that, and I think part of-
Sean McDowell: Okay
Scott Rae: ... Part of your skep- part of your skepticism, I think, comes from the fact that I think that the most important question on this is the one that's not addressed, and that is, should we be doing research on embryos at all?
Sean McDowell: That's right.
Scott Rae: Regardless of the, regardless of the guidelines, regardless of the ethical limits, you know, should we be doing this at all? And that's, I think, 'cause, because I... What our listeners need to know is that in the process of research, embryos are either destroyed in the process of it or they're destroyed at the end of it. And, hardly any embryo survives the process of having research done on it. And I appreciate, I appreciate the author's point that e- I think even she's the one who doesn't equate an embryo with a human being but is unsettled of the idea of creating them simply for research purposes. Now, just to be clear, too, for our listeners, Sean, that is technically not illegal in the US. It is in some countries around the world, but federal fu- what's prohibited is federal funding going for- ... The creation of embryos strictly for research purposes. Now, one other thing on this, too. Well, this, you know, we've been talking about this for some time, because embryonic stem cells have... Were sort of the, you know, the next big thing 20, 25 years ago, that was gonna, they were gonna be the cure-all for everything. And it turned out that the benefit of using embryonic stem cells for research and treatment has been wildly over-promised and under-delivered. I mean, it's sort of a textbook case of over-promising and under-delivering- ... Because almost every treatment that's in place today using stem cells comes from using non-embryonic stem cells. In fact, I'm considering one of those uses to, regenerate the cartilage in my knee that is torn.
Sean McDowell: Oh, wow!
Scott Rae: So considering that. But, I think that's... The, the point of the debate really has shifted because now we are, we are able to create embryos from stem cells, and that's why I think the author says why she's wondering if these little clumps of human cells, so-called, that are embryos, are that different from her skin cells. The reason she makes that claim is because the stem cells that are used to create embryos from scratch without sperm and egg are taken from a person's skin cells. And they are, they are basically de-... Programmed back into a blank slate. So, and that's the best way I know to describe it. They are, they are dedifferentiated into no specific function, where they can then be engineered specifically to become sperm or eggs or embryos. So that's, that's basically how it works, and here, I think the challenge for that is that these embryo-like entities, to be beneficial for research, they have to as- they have to resemble the real thing as closely as possible to be scientifically valid.
Sean McDowell: Makes sense.
Scott Rae: So I think this is, this is where the debate's gonna be in the future. The where do you- where is the line between an embryo that's been created in the lab from stem cells, and one that has been created through the union of sperm and egg? And that's, I think, that's one where the science can help us, and I just don't think we've been a- we just haven't been able to determine that, with, I think, with a whole lot of clarity. I think people are assuming that the closer they are to it, to the real thing, the better, the better off they're gonna be for a research subject. But the closer they are to the real thing, the closer they are also to being a full human person, who ought not be a research subject without their consent in the first place.
Sean McDowell: Good stuff, Scott. One last point I wanna, draw before we go to the next, story, is that the ethics is downstream from the ontology, meaning the basic question is, what is the unborn? If it's just like skin cells on my body, if it's a potential life, then all sorts of experimentation on it are not problematic. If it is a human being, like the science points out towards, then quite obviously, that experimentation is ruled out. So as the abortion debate was once on, what is the unborn, it's shifting to the embryo. [chuckles] Now the question is, what is the embryo, and similarly, when does life begin?
Scott Rae: [clears throat] Let me add one thing-
Sean McDowell: Yep, okay.
Scott Rae: -just really quick to that. I think if it's... I mean, you, just to, just to take off on the dichotomy you raised, if it's a person, then the guidelines are irrelevant. And I think if it's just a clump of cells, the guidelines are also almost irrelevant. Because if it's just, if it's just material matter, then why not do any kind of experiment on it? You know, I'm not, I'm not sure that any guidelines are necessary if that's the case.
Sean McDowell: Fair enough. This might be the longest we've spent on a single story, but it's fascinating. There's part two and three coming up. We will see if it's worth discussing here. But this next story, [chuckles] Scott, I don't know that I saw this one coming, and this is really interesting. It's actually in Vanity Fair. I think that's the first piece we've used from Vanity Fair. And at first, my-
Scott Rae: I'm not sure I wanna, I'm not sure I want to admit that we actually read Vanity Fair regularly. [laughs]
Sean McDowell: [laughs] I have a friend who texted this to me, but I won't throw him under the bus by mentioning his name. So the story starts about how there's more openness and curiosity about spiritual things, and in particular, Christianity in Silicon Valley. Apparently, in the 2010s, there was a hostility towards conservatism and Protestant doctrines underlying much of American life, and quote, "According to a show, Silicon Valley in the Bay Area, Christianity was almost borderline illegal." but it says there are still some Christians in hiding, but not many. Nowadays, Christianity is rarely met with direct hostility in Silicon Valley. Some of the question here is, like, if you're a Christian, can you be smart? Some of those things still linger. And they're asking the question here: could it be that what society needed is a return to an ethical framework that has survived for millennia? And they cite this individual, Peter Thiel, who's a multi-billionaire in Silicon Valley, and he says, "I believe in the resurrection of Christ," he said in a 2020 talk. "The only good role model for us is Christ." Elon Musk is cited as a kind of cultural Christianite here, some other individual figures. And I thought this paragraph was fascinating, Scott: "With this new political climate, Silicon Valley ambitions shifted." and there's new prototype that has emerged. Like, rather than the 20-something whiz kid who coded a viral game and dropped out of Stanford, what they're looking at is, you know, someone who grew up in church, joined the army, and that gives them their worth et- work ethic, and according to some venture capitalists, it's like, "Ooh, let's fund that guy," I thought was interesting. So it seems in this article, certain business people are looking for an edge, and having people with a Christian background seems to give them that edge or advantage. Now, there is some talk in here that's fascinating about certain CEOs and venture capitalists talking about how do we use technology for the glory of God. That's the right question that's kind of behind this. One founder of an AI said, "You have a duty as a founder to make really good products and get them into people's hands. You're making God real in people's lives when they experience that." Interesting. Then the article talks about how you can kinda complete certain business things you have with a Protestant perspective, like making the claim that the US is superior 'cause it's a nation founded on the Bible, or our country has a moral obligation to assert global dominance in order to spread biblical values. There's this sense of, like, if you wanna grow your business and expand it-... You can find some kind of Christian justification if you need it. That seemed to be the underlying piece there. And the article really ends with this kind of fascination now that people are plagued with this question: Can we make our own God? And I [chuckles] was fascinated this came up, especially with artificial intelligence. Can and should we make systems that would actually be our own gods? And it's almost like as people explore that, they're like, "Let's just make sure there's kind of a Christian voice around as we do this." Your take on this pretty crazy article.
Scott Rae: Well, Sean, I think there are really, I'd say three different approaches to faith in Silicon Valley that came out of this. One is, one is, I think, just simply tech co-opting faith for its own purposes.
Sean McDowell: Okay.
Scott Rae: And that's, I think, the statement that, in the article that says, "I guarantee you that there are some people who are using Christianity to get close to some of these billionaires who claim... Who have genuine," sound like genuine, like Peter Thiel, "who have genuine Christian faith." So it's just bus- it's basically business networking. [lips smack] and then a second one is, I think, genuine faith that's being lived out and is the real thing, and is, I think, is help- is actually helping them, in a wide variety of ways, you know, personally, and I think in some respects in their business. And then the third, which I think is more the focus of the piece, is faith for its utilitarian value.
Sean McDowell: Right.
Scott Rae: And s- you know, some of what I, what I've written about in the past, some of the virtues of capitalism, that it encourages like a work ethic, dependability, trustworthiness, innovation, initiative, things like that, which I would call the entrepreneurial virtues that the Scripture has in mind, and then some of the ethical limits to technology, things like that. I think they're seeing the, a place for faith in some of that. So I'd say sort of, you know, take your pick about which w- you know, which box that certain people fit into. I think the predominant box is the utilitarian one. And Sean, I think in this way, this is really a rebirth of something we saw 300 or 400 years ago in this, the German sociologist Max Weber, in his work, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, which said, basically said that, Christian faith provides sort of the... S- it bo- it both requires and nurtures a set of virtues and a worldview that is consistent with, a blossoming, capitalist, market economic system. So I don't- this, there's really not much that's new. And I think the view of work, I think one of the things that came out that I thought was really helpful, is that they have a view of work that I think is very consistent with Scripture, and you started, I think, started down this road, where it says, you, one of the tech entrepreneurs says: "You have a duty as a founder to make really good products and get them into people's hands. You're making God real in people's lives when they experience that." And, and they go on to say that, "Each person has a calling and a vocation, and using your gifts to the max is a good thing, and it's what God would want." I think that's, that's reflective, I think, of a biblical view of work and vocation, where the wo- the very work itself is a part, the Scripture indicates, is a part of our service to Christ, not just the adjunct things that you do in terms of sharing the Gospel or praying for coworkers. But the very work you do, unless it's something that's intrinsically evil, the very work you do is a fulfillment of what God is doing in your life and the outworking of your, of some of your gifts. So that I thought was very positive. And it's, it's nice to see s- people viewing the product as the end and not the profit as the end. And I think rightly seeing the profit as a by-product of being faithful to the things, to the gifts, and things that God is calling you to do.
Sean McDowell: A- that's a really helpful delineation. I mean, we know, I mean, I know some in particular who are tied to Biola and help just support Biola's mission, who have been in Silicon Valley and faithful for a long time. So there always have been faithful voices. But this cultural shift is really interesting, and it's something you and I have talked about, how we've moved out of the era of the new atheist, this angry, kind of, I think, shallow critique of the faith that said, "We're just around the corner from utopia if we can lean into science and get rid of faith," and increasingly people going, "Oh, actually, we need a certain moral ethic, and we have a spiritual component, and society is the worse for losing it." The problem is, many people who are claiming that, when they say Christianity, or they say, like Jonathan Rauch recently, a gay atheist Jew, said in The New York Times, like two months ago, "America needs Jesus." Well, what he means by that is [chuckles] very different than what you and I mean by that, and I think what the Scriptures show. So I don't know this individual, Thiel. He is a mega billionaire, openly talking about the resurrection here. But if you probe a little bit more deeply, there's some, let's just say, troubling things about what he believes. So he had a conversation with N.T. Wright and was talking about, "Yeah, how death is the problem," and N.T. Wright's like, "Sin, we need the death of Jesus." And he's like, "Well, transhumanism can help us [chuckles] overcome death." I mean, I don't know the details, but that very much could be a different kind of gospel. He leans into transhumanism. He's also openly gay and promotes that.... That raises a ton of ethical questions. So this Christianity that's rushed back in, there's a lot of questions about how much it really is tethered to the message of Jesus, or whether it's just for some utilitarian gain. And if it's for some utilitarian gain, and it's popular now, it's gonna be out in five years or 10 years when some other kind of means people are discussing and have power and have influence. So let's not tether ourselves to a false Christianity. The other thing that jumped out to me, Scott, is I thought a lot about this story of how, [clears throat] yes, you're right, there's a biblical way to talk about business, and you've done this so well in your writings. But this article, when it turns it utilitarian, reminds me of the story of Simon the Magician in Acts chapter 8. And it says, "There was a man..." This is 8, verse 8. "There was a man named Simon, who had previously practiced magic in the city and amazed the people of Ameri-" America, I almost said. [chuckles] "People of Samaria, saying that he himself was somebody great." That in itself is problematic. Now, the verses say, "When Simon saw the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles' hands, he offers them money for it." So he sees the power of God, offers them money for it, 'cause it's a chance for a financial gain. "Give me this power, so anyone whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit." But Peter said to him, in one of the most famous biting rebukes [chuckles] in the Bible, he says, "May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money! You have neither part nor lot in this matter, for your heart is not right before God. Repent, therefore, of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you. For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity." [chuckles] I mean, like, just such-
Scott Rae: [chuckles] Don't sugarcoat it there.
Sean McDowell: [chuckles] Like, this powerful rebuke. And when I'm reading this article, I'm going, "Oh, man," there are people, not all of them, there's some examples in this story of the opposite, but if the winds are shifting, it's really no different than the prosperity gospel that's kind of preaching a message for personal gain. That concerns me massively. And so you had a comment about this other piece in The Atlantic that appeared commenting on this Vanity Fair story. What was your take on that?
Scott Rae: Well, I think this is, this was really insightful commentary on this, where I think the author points out that Christian faith, which is the real thing, is actually very disruptive to a person's life, and can be very disruptive to a person's [chuckles] life, previous life goals and to the social status quo. And it is, it is not a way of sort of baptizing the pursuit of wealth. And Jesus has a lot to say about the pursuit of wealth, and that it's tempered by a lot of different things. It's tempered by ethical means, it's tempered by the temptation of idolatry, all of those things. And God does not necessarily reward... God rewards our faithfulness, but not necessarily financially. In fact, I'd say in ma- in most cases, probably not financially. So I'd wanna be, I'd wanna be careful that when we talk about somebody having genuine Christian faith, that we represent it correctly for the potentially disruptive force that it can be in a person's life once they come to faith. And I'm not sure that that... I'm not sure that that disruptive force is what Silicon Valley is looking for. And I love how she put it, "Christianity has a way of breaking things, but also restoring things."
Sean McDowell: That's right. You know, so much the great sins are power, sex, and money, we hear about. Christianity is being used in some way for power, for people to get close to Peter Thiel, obviously for money, so there's such a danger of manipulation that's here. She says this article, I thought it was so interesting: "In the minds of many people who are looking f- to Christianity, religious faith is a tool for keeping people productive, a private code of ethics that enforces the kind of activity that lends itself to producing wealth. In other words, Silicon Valley Christians perhaps see Christianity as a kind of technology." [chuckles] That's the exact thing that should concern us. And she draws a point out, there's a Christian way of thinking about technology. There's a Christian way of thinking about business and money. But first and foremost, Christianity is about knowing God, having him transform our lives, and then making him known to the world. So we don't bring Christianity under our business. We bring our business under Christianity and under the Bible, and that piece is missing. So last thing I'll say, I think of Paul in Acts chapter 17, when they're like... You know, it says that they spent their time in nothing but looking for something new, and Paul's like, "I'll preach the gospel," and he does. I see this, I'm like, "Oh, if Silicon Valley is open to it, go for it." May God strengthen and equip the Jesus followers in Silicon Valley to seize this moment, but also the boldness and clarity and conviction to not play into opportunities here to say, "Oh, I'm a Christian, and I know about Jesus," for personal gain. May God just strip that away from any of our genuine brothers and sisters in Silicon Valley, so they can be bold ambassadors for Christ and just seize this moment, so to speak, like Paul did.
Scott Rae: Amen.
Sean McDowell: All right, this last story, we'll probably talk about this one a little bit more quickly, and some people might be wondering why we're discussing it. But this is about how there was a deep dive in The New York Times-... About these online pedophile hunters who are growing more violent now and going viral. So what does this mean, and why is it relevant? Well, [clears throat] a vigilante phenomena has been playing out on the open web for almost a decade, it says. There's content creators in the US who pose as minors on dating apps and websites, then target people who message them. Many of these vigilantes, commonly known as pedophile hunters, were inspired by a popular TV show in the early 2000s called To Catch a Predator. They've copied the show's formats, exposing their targets on social media. But a growing number have become more violent, and they tell some stories about people beaten with a hammer and just really abuse these people that are pedophiles or alleged pedophiles. They have footage of people chasing their targets through retail stores, beating them really mercilessly, and there's apparently other vigilante movements in the US, which is kind of an interesting phenomenon. Some of these folks have hundreds of thousands of followers. One in particular, 1.5 billion views, makes his living from this. One called Dads Against Predators became a prolific group, but then apparently, according to this article again, started getting more and more violent, and even the police had to step in and kind of talk them down from it. It did-- there's an article in here... This is one reason I want to do this story, is this line in here, Scott, where it says, "Life is not a comic book." People don't get to be Batman, interestingly enough, and it gives some examples of people who were trying to do this, and then later it backfired, not just hurting these individuals, but they had bad information on how they acted and are arguably undermining the police in their efforts to do so. And it seems like they're, it getting more and more extravagant, like some people catching predators and making them bark like a dog. And some of these, it's like people are watching this, kind of getting joy out of seeing these people just humiliated because they're so afraid of the consequences that may be coming their way as they're caught. There's a lot of angles to this one, Scott. For example, there's angles of free speech, there's angles of, "Is it ever okay to operate outside of the law, and is this an exception to do so?" I would love your takeaway on this article.
Scott Rae: Well, Sean, I'm reading from Romans 12 and 13- ... On this, 'cause I don't think vigilante justice is ever justified-
Sean McDowell: Ever, okay
Scott Rae: ... In a pl- in a place where the rule of law is established. Now, there may be some, there may be some parts of the world where w- you can't tr- you can't rely on government, because there is no government at all. Some of, you know, some of these lawless places around the world, that might be the exception to it. But, Paul's really clear in Ro- in Romans 12. He said, "Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone, and if possible, live at peace. Do not take revenge. Leave room for God's wrath, for it's written: 'It is mine to avenge; I will repay,' says the Lord." So it rules out, I think, something like vigilante justice, and similar- ... To the way it rules out something like retaliation. Now, the reason it, the reason this is important is because right following, right on the heels of that passage at the end of Romans 12 comes Romans 13, which says, "Let everyone be subject to governing authorities. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong." basically, and it describes that, the one in authority is God's servant for your good. And so the idea is that the government, law enforcement is the God-ordained method for promoting justice and restraining evil in the world today, not the actions of individuals going off on their own. That's wh- that's, I would say that's the biblical basis for that. The other thing that I just wondered about is surely these, you know, these groups are not infallible in the data that they put together or the case that they put together, and I wonder what happens when they actually target people who are innocent-
Sean McDowell: Yeah
Scott Rae: ... To this. 'Cause surely they have made mistakes in the past.
Sean McDowell: Yeah.
Scott Rae: They're probably loath to admit those, but I can't imagine that they always get it right, and that really troubles me. If, if innocent people are having their, you know, may, maybe having their reputations destroyed at the least, and maybe having their lives threatened as well, for something that they're entirely innocent of.
Sean McDowell: That's a really interesting question. You get falsely charged with that, and then somebody just Googles your name. That's gonna get more views than anything else. I mean, there's massive character defamation that is there. I have a few thoughts on this. One is, you know, it describes at the end of the article, it says, [clears throat] "This fellow in particular put his targets through a humiliating game show, let them leave and not call police if they made it through painful tests, hooked people up to electric nerve simulators, told them to walk barefoot through mousetraps, and appeared the word, you know, tattooed the word predator on a man's arm. And viewers are cheering this on as he suggests new methods of torture." I'm watching this thinking, "Man, there's something wrong when we're just enjoying the sadistic treatment of a human being." Now, obviously, I mean, it says in this article, and I agree, one of the worst things we can think of is not only sexually abuse to somebody, but in particular a child who's innocent, and it scars them for life. So I get this anger, I get this vitriola, I get this deep sense of justice.... But even a sexual predator is made in the image of God and deserves a trial. That's in part what our system is built upon, and I can think of two people I've known in my life [chuckles] in particular who've been convicted of this, and I was angry, and I was shocked, and I was hurt when I discovered this. I didn't want them just humiliated publicly through some kind of game show. I want them to face a court of law and face justice, and both of them got the justice that they deserved and will be dealing with it for the rest of their lives. So, I guess in some ways, this story is kind of a, it's a result of our influencer moment, where we're competing for views, we're competing for fame, we're competing for money, and the way to do it is you have to be more and more outlandish. So if you just catch a predator in the act and turn him in, that was shocking 20 years ago. Now, that's no longer shocking. Now, I gotta up the game, hence it's turning to violence. That's where things turn bad. Now, I love superheroes [chuckles] it's no surprise, and I think the draw of superheroes is we wanna believe that even though the law won't always get justice, that somebody is going to get that justice. The bad guys will get their due. And I think of this movie, it was really interesting, called A Time to Kill, from the late '90s. I think it was a John Grisham novel, and it's about a 10-year-old Black girl who's raped, and there is a all-white jury, and you're watching this, and you just know that justice is not going to be done, and it's harrowing. And the father, I believe he's the father in there, of the Black girl who's raped, goes into a courthouse and shoots up and kills a couple of these rapists. And y- at the end of the movie, if I remember it correctly, Scott, it's like we're kind of cheering this on, rooting for the father to get off 'cause we think, "If I was a dad and that happened to my kid, I'd walk into a courtroom, and I would do the same thing." But the question you've got to ask yourself is, okay, is it justified to step outside of the law and take somebody's life, even if they've done evil? Is that where humans are beginning to act like God? That's a troubling question that I think is behind this. You know, and I think biblical- last thing I'll say is I was trying to look for biblical precedent for this, and I also turned to Romans 12:19: "Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written: 'Vengeance is mine, and I will repay,' says the Lord." I think of certain individuals who resisted the law, people like Rahab, the midwives in Exodus, and Daniel. They're resisting positively being asked to take life or worship other gods. That seems to be different than going out and taking justice into your own hands. The reality is there are injustices, and they will not all be met in this life. That's where Heaven comes [chuckles] into play and the afterlife and trust in God. Any thoughts on that? Are you with me, Scott, or would you nuance that?
Scott Rae: Yeah, I would say that, yeah, vigilante justice and civil disobedience are not the same thing. Because civil disobedience comes into play when you are being asked to do something by government that is immoral and that vi- that violates your faith. And in that, in that case, you are, you are obligated to not obey government. You know, Acts 4:25 says, "At times, you know, we must obey God rather than men," at times, when you are asked to do things that are against the dictates of our faith. But you also do so with the willingness to suffer whatever consequences the law has for you in order to make more public the case that you're making against the injustice of the law. So this... What we're talking about here is completely different than the kind of civil disobedience that you're, that you are referring to. And I think you're, you're right, that ultimately, God is the one who's gonna bring justice in its, in its final form. And for all of, for all the things where we got loose ends in terms of the criminal justice system, God will tie up those loose ends when the Lord returns, and His kingdom comes in its fullness.
Sean McDowell: Amen. You know, I think it was in s- The Amazing Spider-Man 2, where Spider-Man's trying to get the bad guys, and Gwen Stacy, his love, Gwen Stacy's father is, like, the head of the police and confronts Spider-Man, not knowing that Spider-Man, Peter Parker, is dating his daughter at that point. And they have this debate over dinner, and he's like, "Spider-Man's just trying to help," and the police cop is like, "He's actually not helping. He's actually undermining what we're trying to do," and the cop was right. See, vi- that's working outside the law. We could find individual cases where it might help, but the question is, as a whole, do we want this?
Scott Rae: Right.
Sean McDowell: And it works-
Scott Rae: Is that justifiable for everyone to do that?
Sean McDowell: Is that justifiable for everybody? And it kind of works in the movies because we're given a camera-eye view of the bad guys being guilty. We know it, whereas in real life, we don't tend to have that level of certainty and clarity. It's based on, you know, what we discover in a court of law. So that's where our love for superhero justice tells us we want the bad guys to get it. We're looking for a hero, but translating that to real life is really morally and practically problematic.... All right, Scott.
Scott Rae: Here, here.
Sean McDowell: As always, [chuckles] we've got some great questions here, so let's jump in. It says, "First, I'd like to suggest you record a whole episode on Christian compassion. We talk about it here on the Cultural Update, but why not a full episode? What does it mean to think biblically about compassion, and what does a correct form of compassion look like in our culture today?" What do you think, Scott?
Scott Rae: Well, I think we are gonna do that, [chuckles] in-
Sean McDowell: [chuckles]
Scott Rae: ... The next time we record at the end of, the end of April this year. We are-- that is one of the things that we have planned, and so this notion of toxic compassion is what we're gonna tackle. And is that an oxymoron? And I think there are, there are ways to think about compassion that are generally not helpful. You know, Marvin Olasky wrote about this years ago in The Tragedy of American Compassion, and talked about some of the things that go under the, under the heading of compassion and can actually enable things that we ought not be enabling. But I think the cur- the current discussion of compassion looks to me a little bit more like throwing the baby out with the bathwater-
Sean McDowell: Okay
Scott Rae: ... And an overreaction to that.
Sean McDowell: So I'm bringing Tim Muehlhoff back on, Biola comm professor. We had a friendly debate about pronouns, and we're gonna talk about this discussion in the Christian world about empathy. So some are calling empathy toxic. Some are saying it's good, but it's a tool being utilized by more progressive parties to manipulate conservatives. Is it a sin to do empathy? There's been a lot of conversation about this, and, Tim and I are gonna have a little back and forth. So that one is coming up. Here's a question that says, "I have a question after listening to the conversation between Sean and Preston on can Christians..." It says, "Can Christians be sinners?" I don't... I think they got the title wrong. Of course, Christians can be sinners. I think they meant, "Can Christians be gay?" "Should Christians identify as gay?" was the topic of it. "It seems one big difference between Christians and practicing gays is that Christians would say that gay sexual behavior is sinful, while many gays would disagree. However, we are all sinners, and just because we disagree on whether a particular action is sin doesn't necessarily mean the gay Christian, gays can't be Christian. Are we Christians singling out gay behavior as a non-starter for someone to become a Christian?" And this person specifies, he goes, "I'm not trying to justify this. I'm more just curious." Well, I would say a couple things here. When it's all said and done, I can't judge anybody's heart. God is the one who judges the heart. This is in 1 Samuel 16:7. "Man judges the appearance," Samuel said, "but God judges the heart." So how many people identify as gay? How many people engage in same-sex sexual behavior? Is it possible they're saved, and at some point in their journey, God is redeeming them? I can't judge the heart, but what I know is the Bible is very clear about God's design for marriage and what is sexually immoral behavior. Marriage is one man, one woman, one flesh, one lifetime, and any sexual behavior outside of that is considered wrong. The Bible's really clear about this. In 1 Corinthians chapter 6 names those who practice same-sex sexual behavior as those outside the Kingdom of God. Now, I don't think we're singling this out at all. I think the reason more Christians talk about that is 'cause we live in a cultural moment where people are saying, "It's fine to practice same-sex sexual behavior and be okay." Now, if you go to 1 Corinthians 6, there's other sins that are mentioned there, and I know anytime you compare homosexuality with other sins, people are gonna say it's gonna break down in a certain fashion. Fine, but if you go to 1 Corinthians 6, it talks about those who are drunkards. So what if I took this man's reasoning and applied it to someone who said, "Well, I'm, I'm a drunk Christian, and this is a part of my identity." Are we singling out this sin? And, you know, maybe these can be reconciled. And I'd say the Bible's clear. We shouldn't do it for same-sex sexual behavior, and we shouldn't do it for becoming a drunkard. The Bible clearly rules out both. Any thoughts on this one, Scott?
Scott Rae: Well, I... Yeah, I think, I wish we got as exercised about things like greed and sloth- ... And, you know, some of the other deadly sins, and, I mean, not to mention adultery, as we did about same-sex sexuality and incest and things like that. It strikes me, Sean, Acts 16:31 seems pretty clear to me that, when asked, when the Philippian jailer asked, "What must, what must I do to be saved?" Paul said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved." Now, that belief involves shaking up your status quo, and I, and I would tell people, you can expect that once the Spirit takes residence within you can expect all sorts of things to come to light that need to change in your life. And I, Sean, I think the question here, you're at-- you're right about not being able to know the heart of someone, and we shouldn't... I wouldn't even-- I don't think that's even healthy speculation, on the condition of someone's heart, 'cause that's between them and the Lord. The question is not whether they can be Christian, but whether they can be-- whether they can walk faithfully with Jesus and be same-sex sexually involved at the same time. And, and the Bible is really clear about that, and I f- I think that's the sh- if we sharpen the question a little differently, I think, I think we get a, we'll get a little bit more traction if we do it that way.
Sean McDowell: That's really helpful. You know, a couple things. When it says, "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, you will be saved," we gotta be careful to understand what's meant by believe. Sometimes today, believe just means-... You know, I say this in words, and I, and I go to church-
Scott Rae: And tr- and trust, and trust your life to Him.
Sean McDowell: Exactly. This is like, "I am committing my life to this, and I've turned from my sin." That's built into what it means to actually believe. You said you wish more Christians would speak about adultery, sloth, greed. I totally agree. There's just not a movement to normalize those things-
Scott Rae: [chuckles] That's true
Sean McDowell: ... In the church and in our culture the way there is with homosexuality. So that's the reason why I keep talking about this. If people stop making books, stop saying the Bible is final, I'd be happy to stop talking about this, Scott. I really would. But it's become such a pressing issue of our day. If it switches and it's on greed, I will be the first to speak up when that becomes the reigning kind of idol of our day. All right, so with that said, we got one more question here. Again, [chuckles] a great question, man. This says, "When discussing whether Christians can identify as gay..." I got a lot of questions on this one related to Preston Sprinkle's conversation, by the way. We had a two-part conversation, for those of you who missed it, on preferred pronouns and identifying as gay as a Christian. This says, "We, we discussed the thorn in the flesh, whether it's applicable to Christians struggling with same-sex attraction. Sean pointed out that Paul didn't want the thorn, asked for it to be removed, and resisted it, thus, if same-sex attraction is akin to Paul's thorn, then Christians shouldn't look for the good in their same-sex attraction. This seems to overlook the fact that Paul prayed for the thorn to be removed, and God answered no to that prayer. Paul received the thorn as a weakness in which he could boast because it allowed him to... Allowed God to perfect his power in Paul. How does Paul moving from resisting to receiving factor into the estimation?" Here's what I'd say: Paul asked for it to be removed. It was a thorn. A thorn is the kind of thing that you don't want. In this case, if somebody has same-sex attraction, pray for God to take it away. Take steps in their life moving, I would argue, towards even changing our hearts and our affections to align with God. We're not promised in this life and in this body that all of those things will be taken away in this life. So can I boast in the fact that God is sufficient in my weakness? Can I boast in the fact that the Lord is the one who saved me and made me a new creation? Yes, of course I can, but that doesn't mean that issue itself, whether it's same-sex attraction or whatever the other issue is, in itself becomes good. No. The only positive thing is I'm aware of my sinfulness, aware of my brokenness, but my boast and my identity is not in that sin. My boast and my identity is in Christ. Do you agree with that? Any thoughts on that one, Scott?
Scott Rae: Well, I just... Yeah, we actually don't know what Paul's thorn in the flesh actually was.
Sean McDowell: That's right.
Scott Rae: And he d- he does... 'Cause he doesn't tell us, and I think well, one of our colleagues, Ken Berding, has written a terrific book on, entitled Paul's Thorn in the Flesh, where he tries... He has his own idea of what that involves, and he has, v- in his view, it's, has more a physical limitation, you know, a almost like a physical disability- ... That Paul was afflicted with. But we just, we just don't know, and so to a... I think to... I think that renders the premise, I think, of this question a bit questionable. 'Cause if the premise is that some, that same-sex attraction is somehow included under the umbrella of Paul's thorn in the flesh, I think that we just don't know the answer to.
Sean McDowell: That's fair. There's multiple steps. What is the thorn in the flesh? Does same-sex attraction qualify as the thorn in the flesh? We're moving down beyond what we can even answer with confidence. But I think the key is here is that our boast is in the Lord, whether it's moral struggles we have, whether it's physical struggles that we have, these are reminders in some sense that we're in a body that is frailing, and our e- and our identity is not in our own human efforts but in Christ himself. And our weaknesses, whatever they may be, hopefully is an opportunity for us to lean in and trust God even more.
Scott Rae: Hear, hear.
Sean McDowell: All right, Scott, good stuff, my friend.
Scott Rae: Enjoyed it.
Sean McDowell: As always, enjoyed it, and looking forward to the next conversation. This has been an episode of the podcast Think Biblically: Conversations on Faith and Culture, brought to you by Talbot School of Theology, Biola University. We have programs online and in person, theology, Old Testament, New Testament, Bible, apologetics, spiritual formation, marriage and family, many more. To submit comments or ask questions, please email us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu, and please consider giving us a rating on your podcast app and sharing this with a friend. We really appreciate you listening. We'll see you Tuesday when we air a fascinating discussion with our very own biologist from Biola, Doug Axe, on the state of intelligent design and evolution. [upbeat music] In the meantime, remember to think biblically about everything.
