Episode Transcript

Sean McDowell: [upbeat music] Humanoid robots get real jobs that include stacking, sorting, and lifting. The push to allow people to choose medically assisted suicide years in advance continues to advance. According to a new study, the narrative of Christianity's inevitable decline in America might have been premature. And a deep dive on Planned Parenthood in New York Times reveals botched care, lawsuits, and extensive complaints about chaotic and toxic working environments. These are the stories we will discuss, and we will also address some of your questions. I'm your host, Sean McDowell.

Scott Rae: 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, this first one jumped out to me in the Wall Street Journal 'cause it feels like 2025 might be a pivotal year where actually robots shaped like human beings become more, let's just say, integrated into the working environment around us because they're more accessible, there's higher technology, there's artificial intelligence, and the cost has gone down. So this article describes that many of the jobs these robots perform are menial. They're called digit robots, but they are a direct replacement for the humans who would otherwise be doing this work. Of course, you and I have seen, and of course, our listeners have, science fiction for years has had these kind of robots taking on human-type, just jobs, but it sure seems that that's starting to change, and it's not just in science fiction, according to this article. Global demand for new kinds of robots has shot up. Mass manufacturing and falling costs for components are making them cheaper to produce, and the big key is AI now gives them, quote, "brains," so they can function in a way and solve problems that they apparently couldn't in the past. Now, one thing I hadn't thought about, which seems obvious, they say the advantages of body plans like ours, like why make them look human, is they say the world is built for things that look and move like we do: stairs, gangway, shelves, shoulder heights, you know, sight lines at eye level. So probably these robots are [chuckles] gonna be about five foot nine, about my average height-

Scott Rae: [chuckles]

Sean McDowell: ... Which the world is kind of built for. I guess a dozen startups worldwide are now offering these humanoid robots. According to Adrian Stoch, who's the chief automation officer at GXO Logistics, "Humanoid robots are the first category of robots that can be doing completely different tasks based on the needs of the business or the time of the shift." So soon they'll be unloading a trailer in the morning, picking up goods in the afternoon, and loading trucks in the evening, and they've never been more economical, according to this. Now, you get to the end of the article, and sometimes they reveal that things are quite not as drastic as the headline appears, and they say, "Whatever the pace of the takeover of manual labor by humanoid robots, their capabilities are, for now, quite limited, as are their numbers." So it seems to me 2025 might be kind of a turn year that we look back on and say the dam broke that began the integration more practically of robots into the human workforce. Do you agree? Do you have any reflections or biblical thoughts on this phenomenon?

Scott Rae: Well, I think, Sean, we'll, we'll wait and see whether 2025 is... Turns out to be a pivotal year- ... For this, but I think it's pretty clear that the door is opened now to seeing AI-powered robots more integrated into the workplace. Now, you know, companies like Amazon have had robots in their warehouses for some time, but these seem to be a bit more, I don't know, maybe, quote, "independent." and they've got-- they just have a, they have a software powering them that I think previous generations did not. Now, I'd wanna say, you know, I think you're right to put air quotes around the brain. They don't really have a brain. They have something that... They have a set of software specifications that have been programmed. So I, you know, I don't... You know, I'm not losing a lot of sleep over this myself-

Sean McDowell: Okay

Scott Rae: ... Except for the question that I think this presses on us theologically and philosophically. I was-- Sean, I was with our dean of our business school, Mike Arena, yesterday, and he had just returned from a meeting with tech executives up in San Francisco, talking about sort of the next generation of artificial intelligence, what the applications will be. And he said he was so surprised by the number of people who asked this question. He said, he said, "I got repeatedly the question, given that, you know, AI is starting to look and feel a little bit more like human beings, where does AI stop and a human person begin?" He said it raised the question of: What is a human person? And he said what he discovered is that the traditional naturalist assumptions about what a person is, that we are reducible essentially to chemistry and physics, or in digital terms, in AI terms, reducible to ones and zeros. He said, he said you could see in the audience that that was, that is an unsatisfying worldview for a lot of people when it comes to what constitutes a human person. That I think the people in the audience, I think some of- a lot of them intuitively knew that there's something fundamentally, intrinsically different about a human person than an AI robot that mimics a lot of things about human beings. And so I think it's incumbent on us-... In the theological and philosophical side of the house to be really clear in delineating what constitutes a human person, and it has to do not with the material stuff. It has nothing to do with the physical stuff. That's not fundamentally who we are. It has to do with the immaterial part that naturalism can't account for. So things like souls and a mind, and even if, even if we concede that an AI robot has a m- has a brain, that's different than saying that it has a mind. You know, philosophically, those, you know, some of, some of our listeners are aware, those aren't the same thing. Those are not interchangeable terms. So I think we've got- we've got a real opportunity here, I think, to press a theistic worldview for what a human person is, as opposed to the naturalist worldview that says we're nothing more than a collection of parts and properties.

Sean McDowell: I think that's a great philosophical distinction. I looked at this a little bit more practically and thought, "How is it going to affect us and our relationships if in the next two, five, 10, 20 years, we're surrounded not by robots on an Amazon, you know, kind of delivery system or however they use the robots, or we see robots going down the street delivering a pizza, but robots that increasingly look like human beings and respond and somewhat act like human beings? How will that affect us in terms of our perception of what makes us unique?" You know, The New York Times, just this week, had a show of a woman who started a relationship with kind of an AI chatbot, and she ended up spending 20 to 30 hours per week, $200 a month, and having these incredibly human-like conversations, but it purely was with a chat. And in this New York Times article, they said, you know, a lot of teachers now, I don't know if they meant high school or college students, would describe that their students, you know, 3 to 5% now have these AI chatbots. Well, now you can move from just digital chat to seeing them around us regularly, seemingly integrated into normal life. How does that change us practically? I don't know the answer to that, but that's one thing we can't lose, and we must process because these changes don't occur overnight. It's not like we go to work, and all of a sudden, there's robots everywhere, and humans are gone. It's always a step-by-step process, and the time to think about it and reflect upon it is now, rather than in five or 10 years if we look back and this has been more integrated.

Scott Rae: Yeah, Sean, movie makers have already, anticipated the romantic relationships with robots, with the movie Her. Uh-

Sean McDowell: Yeah, interesting. Yeah.

Scott Rae: You know, several... Yeah, that was probably, what? A decade ago at least. And, you know, I admit, one of the places I went to when I thought about this is what's the next application after warehouses and menial jobs? And I wonder, you know, where might be the application, if at all, to the military? And, you know, one- I was just wondering if that might be in the next area of application. To do, to do things that might be too risky for human soldiers to do, you know, or may, you know, or maybe even, you know, replace human soldiers in the places where, you're basically sending soldiers on suicide missions, for ex- for example. Um- So that... And that's a ways down the line, but I wonder, I wonder if that's maybe one of the areas that we might foresee, another application.

Sean McDowell: It's interesting to ask where we will see these applications. We don't have to go there now, but we'll be paying attention to that and track as it comes. I think Her, the movie with Joaquin Phoenix, was not so much a robot as it was a chatbot who was going to become incarnated, in a sense, through an actress that showed up at his door, but it's the idea of that integration with the technology that now is in robots, where they're not just stacking boxes. They could increasingly have personalities, and they're present around us. That's the shift that I think we might see coming.

Scott Rae: Yeah.

Sean McDowell: Now, this is-

Scott Rae: We'll, we'll see if that comes before the end of the calendar year.

Sean McDowell: [chuckles] I'm not making any predictions on that, just for the record. This next one is a little bit more, you might say, a lot more sobering, and I think in your lane, in the sense of really tracking bioethics, and this is one I was not aware of. This, this was also... It was in the global profile of The New York Times, and the title's about how facing early-onset Alzheimer's, this woman named Sandra fought for the right to plan her death years in advance. And the article points out a few things. It says, "Canada's French-speaking province of Quebec last fall became one of the few places in the world to allow a person with a serious and incurable illness to choose medically-assisted death in advance, perhaps years before the act, when the person still has the mental capacity to make such a momentous decision." Now, I didn't see this coming, and they talk about a kind of a woman who's become the face for this movement, and she's a 45-year-old mother of three. I mean, that is young. Diagnosed in the prime of her life with a rare early-onset Alzheimer's. She says she wants to die with dignity. Now, under the new law, an advance request for assisted suicide must meet a criteria and be approved by two physicians or specialized nurses. Some of the other countries that allow this, according to this report, are the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain, and Colombia, although in some cases, not for people suffering from Alzheimer's or other forms of dementia.... This lady, Miss, I don't know how to say her last name, it might be Demontigny, learned that she had Alzheimer's. She slipped into depression, but was not surprised. She had older relatives who began experiencing symptoms of Alzheimer's at a younger age, although she kept it hidden, for years out of shame. Her parents had drifted away from the Roman Catholic Church. This is a fascinating piece of it, and Miss Demontigny considered herself an atheist, and yet when her father died after years of anguish, she said she felt his soul depart and had not seen a peace like that in him-

Scott Rae: That's very interesting

Sean McDowell: ... For 10 years. This is just, like, in the middle of the article, they kind of drop- ... This worldview significance. [lips smack] the story goes on and describes how this lady kind of puts a face to this movement, and it's not abstract, but somebody who's 45 with three kids. You feel so much compassion. That's three years younger than I am. [lips smack] the last thing in the article that I really want to know you think it said, it's, "She's likely to become incapable of consenting as her illness progresses," so the manifestation she describes will, quote, "constitute the expression of her consent in the future, even if she changes her mind," is what she says. Now, she had wrote a book on this, and that she wanted assisted death to be carried out when certain conditions were met, such as being unable to recognize even one of her children, behaving aggressively towards her loved ones, but she knew exactly what she was going to say. As she sat over the documents on that recent evening, she still could not sign it and write it down, even though she's been promoting for this. Last thing, quote, she says, "I'm not gonna change my mind, because for me, in my situation, that's the best possible end. But I don't wanna die. I'm not ready. That's not what I want." What do you make of this harrowing story, Scott?

Scott Rae: Well, Sean, I admit this is a hard one for me this week, because on Monday, I lost my mom- ... To severe Alzheimer's dementia. And she had been, she had been in this consistent decline for probably the last four or five years. And in the last year, it, accelerated pretty significantly. And, I, you know, I had a chance-- I had the opportunity that I wasn't able to take to go see her a couple weeks ago. And what happened, the really nasty flu bug swept through the assisted living facility that she was in-

Sean McDowell: Oh, no.

Scott Rae: ... And she never recovered from that. And I was-- I actually happened to be in the area at the time, was planning to see her, and my sister, who's been caring for her, for a long time, strongly advised that I not come to visit because this bug was so contagious and so serious. So I sort of regret not having the opportunity to see her sort of one last time. And, there's clearly, I think, a genetic connection to this because my grandmother, my maternal grandmother, had the same condition, and she died not recognizing anybody, severe dementia, and one of my mom's biggest fears was that she had inherited this genetic connection and was gonna end up just like her own mother did, which turned out to be precisely the case. And so I-- it made me start to wonder, you know, who else in our family, you know, maybe me, has that genetic connection that might make- ... That might make one or more of us more susceptible to the onset of this kind of dementia. Now, the interesting thing, Sean, is that as to my-- to the best of my knowledge, she never whispered a word about taking her life. No, I never heard that. Now, she's been a follower of Christ for a long time, and I think other than wanting to be united with my dad, who passed about 15 years ago, she has never once whispered any desire to take her life, and I think part of the reason for that is because she's been well cared for. And I would... You know, I'm, pretty soon here, if I, if I have the opportunity, I'm gonna nominate my sister for sainthood, uh- ... And her, you know, her longtime friend, who had been taking care of my mom for a long time. And I w- but I wondered, Sean, you know, what might have happened had she not been well cared for? You know, had she been alone or in a facility that, you know, was not quite up to what, she had been, you know, she had been receiving. I don't know. I wonder if that desire would have emerged. I just don't know. But sh- I think it's, it's clear that what the article points out is that the, what the law states in Canada is that once a person meets the conditions for signing a declaration for assisted suicide, then they clearly don't have the competence to do that. And my mom lost com- lost the ability to make that decision several years ago, and I think would have had no idea what she was signing and would... The, the idea of consent at that point, I think, you know, the author of this piece, or the author of this book, I think is clearly right about that it puts patients who are, you know, sort of this long-term decline, in a really tricky position, because once the, once they meet the standards of the law, they clearly don't meet the standard for giving consent. And so the d- the tricky part that I think this woman points out is that should she change her mind, which is not uncommon with people who have advanced directives, to feel one way about what they want at the end of life when they sign it, when they're healthy, but to change their mind when they get to this compromised state and find that there's still value in continuing to live.... And this doesn't, this doesn't give anybody the opportunity to do that, and that's what's tragic when she points out, "Even if I change my mind," we're still bound by what she signed years ago. That- I mean, I would not wanna be in that position. So that, I think that's the tricky part of this. Now, here, I think the question, Sean, that this raises for me is the woman in this article describes her desire to do this as wanting to die with dignity. But that begs the definition of what ex- what exactly does that mean, to die with dignity? And I would argue that from a Christian worldview, to die with dignity means to face the losses that come with the dying process, to face them courageously, to face them head-on, and with thorough trust in the Lord, to provide all that you need to manage through to the end of your life. And to die with dignity, in my view, does not... There's nothing about doing an end run around all of that constitutes dying with dignity, in my judgment. But to watch my mom deal with the losses that she faced, just sort of progressively, as she lost, she lost most of her mental capacity, and she was... I mean, she was basically unconscious for a week or so before she died. But to watch her deal with that courageously, sorta head-on, she was prepared to die, prepared to go home to be with the Lord, and that strikes me as much more consistent with the idea of dying with dignity.

Sean McDowell: I'd be curious what you might say, Scott, to someone who said, "Yeah, from a Christian worldview, it makes sense that we would die that way, and not play God," so to speak, "not end our own lives." But we live in a pluralistic society in which people maybe have Muslim worldviews, or New Age, or atheist worldviews that may or may not line up with ours. How do we legislate that and not allow somebody to die according to the way they understand dignity to be?

Scott Rae: Yeah, that's a good- and that, by the way, that has th- become the primary argument in favor of medically-assisted dying, not the notion that it's relieving suffering. It's the autonomy argument that carries the day. You, you hardly ever hear the argument for mercy today, because medicine is so good at palliative care today, and relieving suffering, relieving pain, and the hospice movement is what it is because of that. So this, it's very interesting to watch how the argument for that has shifted over the years. I would- what I would suggest, the legalization issue is different, because you've got more than just individuals who are at the end of life to look at. It's not just about them. It's about, what does this open the door to, given where we are culturally and where we are demographically? We've talked about this, Sean, before, that, you know, we're at a place demographically where we now have the largest contingent of folks over the age of 65 that we've ever had-

Sean McDowell: Yeah

Scott Rae: ... In our history.

Sean McDowell: Yeah.

Scott Rae: And the average person will spend roughly half of their healthcare expenses in the last year of their life, and so the expenses, they just skyrocket in the last 12 months of life, and we just don't, we don't have the medical resources to give everybody every form of treatment that they want at the end of life, and the pressure is already coming. We're seeing this in Europe already. The pressure is coming to morph from a right to die to a duty to die. And so, and you know, as the governor of Colorado regrettably stated this, you know, probably 30 years ago, he said, "The elderly have a duty to die and get out of the way." Well, today, the National Health Service in Britain is saying that if you, if you are over 65 and in, and in severe dementia, you are wasting the resources of the National Health Service.

Sean McDowell: Wow.

Scott Rae: So that pressure is already coming, and I think in the next decade or so, that's gonna be proved to be almost irresistible- ... Where people are going to choose this, not because they're tired of living, but because the society or their family around them is tired of them living and having to care for them. And we just don't, we just don't have the resources to do everything that everybody wants medically. So the other thing I would, I would point out on this sort of the- again, back theologically, is there is a difference between allowing someone to die of natural causes and causing their death through either self-administered or physician-administered, medications. And theologically, I think because death is a conquered enemy, we need not always resist it, right? And because if we do... If we hold that we have to resist it at all times, at all costs, no matter what we're saying theologically is that earthly life's the highest good, which theologically, clearly, it's not. And so under the right conditions, it's okay to say stop to medicine, and some folks, some well-publicized folks, for example, the humorous columnist, Art Buchwald, before he was about to go down the road of dealing with congestive heart failure, refused any treatments while he still had time to live, and this, I think, is the assisted suicide version of that same thing. So I th- I mean, I think Buchwald was wrong to do that. That, that's his choice, but I think he still had productive years to live, and for a Christian, I think, who under the sovereignty of God, you know, you know, God is the one who orders the timing and manner of our death, and so we have a responsibility to live out our final days courageously and responsibly, leaning into those losses under our trust in God.

Sean McDowell: You know, if the option to die by assisted suicide shifts into a duty to die, and people can consent ahead of time, then inevitably, some will shift their views-... And then people will be forcibly put to death, and that'll be on the conscience of the family. Now, I've heard some cases like this. I don't have it documented in front of me, but regardless, that is an inevitable collision that's going to happen, and I can't imagine. I mean, that strikes me as not just assisted suicide, but murder-

Scott Rae: Right

Sean McDowell: ... Taking somebody's life directly against their permission, and yet it's written into the law so they'd be justified in doing so.

Scott Rae: Well, Sean, we have documentation from Belgium and the Netherlands for a couple of decades that, you know, roughly, you know, 15 to 20% of all of the deaths by euthanasia are done without the explicit consent of the patient. I mean, they may not be able to give consent, but-- or the family makes that decision for them, but, man, that's a bad sign from, you know, from... That's probably 20 years ago. And so the pressure to do more and more of that, I think, is only gonna increase in the years to come.

Sean McDowell: Since I made a prediction about the start of, robots in 2025, [chuckles] do you think this is the kind of thing that could come to the US, or is it just impossible to really tell at this point?

Scott Rae: I think it, I think it will be-- it will co- it will come to the US eventually. And there have been-- you know, in the academic world on this, you know, we've, we've had pieces by really good academics writing on the e- on the ethics of terminating treatment for people in severe dementia, you know, not to mention, you know, assisted suicide, for people with severe dementia. Now, the consent element is really important in the US, and I think will continue to be, but I think you'll see more of this, authorizing assisted suicide in advance while the person still has consent in anticipation of them losing it in the future.

Sean McDowell: You know, it just reminds me, before I move to the next story, that when Christianity was birthed in the Greco-Roman world, those who had disabilities or infants they didn't want, they just disposed of them 'cause they didn't have instrumental value. And in many ways, somebody's older, dying in a nursing home, we could look at them and say, "Well, they don't have instrumental value," but Christians said they have intrinsic value, made in the image of God, and we need to love and care for them as human beings and treat them with the dignity that they have. That is a part of our unique Christian heritage and our unique biblical worldview.

Scott Rae: It's, it's especially applicable to the most vulnerable among us.

Sean McDowell: Amen. Amen. Well said. This, this next story I thought was fascinating. It's getting a whole lot of conversation today, and, it was all over the place, but this one, again, was The New York Times, and the title is "Christianity's Decline in US Appears to Have Halted, Major Study Shows." Now, for decades, you and I have talked about this, Scott. There's been a narrative that Christianity's in decline in the West, in America, and the data backs it up. And the question is, are we headed towards the same place that Europe has been headed towards? According to this article, it says, "Now that narrative may be changing. After years of decline, the Christian population in the US has been stable for several years, a shift fueled in part by young adults, according to a major new Pew Research study." In other words, those who are religiously unaffiliated seems to have leveled off. Now, this goes back to 2019, so there's been about five years of seeing this flatline, so to speak, and a lot of the data comes from Ryan Burge, who we have interviewed a number of times on the podcast. And, of course, the nones, those who tell researchers they have no religious affiliation, was growing for decades, but it's either slowed significantly or stopped completely. Now, pretty crazy, as early as the early 1990s, nine in 10 adults in the country identified as Christian. This survey finds that 62% of adults describe themselves as Christians, about two-thirds Protestant, and, you know, about maybe 20%, Catholic, so to speak. But that's a radical shift, and so it's not that this younger generation is more religious than, say, older generations. If you go to Busters and Boomers and Xers and Millennials, each generation is less religious. We've seen that shift, and then in the past five years, it seems to have leveled out. Now, a super interesting part of this, [chuckles] Scott, was that they said the gap- women are traditionally far more religious than men. That's been shown across different studies and different ethnicities and backgrounds, socioeconomic, demographics, and yet in this one, it seems to that that distinction is even smaller and smaller than it was. Now, this article speculates that the cause might in part be at least political. Politics plays a piece of this. A political move back to conservative might be driving this. My take, I do-- before I give my take on that, it is interesting how they describe the share of self-described liberals who identify as Christian has dropped 25 points since 2007. So liberals and the left, and this is true of the Democratic Party as a whole, not all individuals- ... Far less likely to identify as Christian or religious, whereas the drop among conservatives was from 89% to only 82% since 2007. Now, my take is that this is not driven by politics. I think there's an underlying common worldview we're seeing expressed maybe in politics-... And we're seeing it in the religious sphere that's driving this. It's not the political sphere so much that's driving it. Your take on this shift?

Scott Rae: First thing was the gender gap is narrowing- ... Which I found very encouraging, and then the notion that y- that young men are, you know, are no longer... Or that's flatlined among young men. I mean, women, I think, have traditionally been more religious than men. And I think in the past, with younger generations, that's, that's been, considerably true. But that's a shift that seems to have either stopped or is in the process of being reversed, and I'm in- I'm very encouraged with that, 'cause I think that's a, that's a good sign culturally.

Sean McDowell: Agreed.

Scott Rae: Now, what accounts for that? I think, you know, the, you know, you commented on the speculation that it may have something politically involved. My observation has been that in the Christian nationalist movement, it's more nationalistic than it is Christian. And so I'm not, I'm not persuaded that politics has something s- really significant to do with this. But just to be clear, for our listeners, we have cautioned repeatedly against the over-entanglement of faith with a po- specific partisan agenda, or having faith seen as an add-on to an already existing partisan agenda. And again, to remind our listeners that every political platform from the perspective of a Christian worldview is a mixed bag, because no specific political platform was written with biblical faithfulness as its goal. So everything is gonna be mixed. The other thing that I found really interesting is the article points out a, the backlash against progressivism- ... In the Silicon Valley. Maybe this is my cynical side coming out, but I don't think that has anything more to do than money. You know, the Silicon Valley folks, I think, have their finger in the wind and are following the political winds at the moment and positioning themselves in order to profit as best they can from it. I don't see that as a genuine shift. In fact, the article points out that more of the rank and file in Silicon Valley have not moved from their liberal progressive ideologies hardly at all. The other thing that stood out to me, Sean, was the observation from The New York Times that we are fundamentally a spiritual population.

Sean McDowell: That's right.

Scott Rae: Now, we have lots of different ways of filling that-

Sean McDowell: Yeah

Scott Rae: ... Filling that void, but I think Augustine's statement that there is, you know, "There's a hole in the human heart that only God can fill," you know, as Pascal pointed out, that God-shaped vacuum that each of us has, I think is true. And I think what this suggests, these trends suggest, is a disenchantment with secularism and materialism. And so I think the statement that Jesus made, you know, "What does it profit a person to gain the whole world and forfeit their soul in the meantime?" I think is just as true today as it was, you know, two millennia ago. That's- that is, I think, my big takeaway from this, is that what they... What the surveys recog- what the data recognizes is that we are, we are fundamentally a spiritual people, and therefore, I think we conclude not ultimately reducible to, chemical reactions and the laws of physics. There's something deeper and more material that sort of begs for the transcendent, in our lives.

Sean McDowell: Yeah, that last one especially is a really interesting takeaway. I did not expect this at the end of the article, 'cause it's about four paragraphs before the end, and they say specifically, "Regardless of how many Americans identify with specific religions or no religion at all in the future," and the point being that those who are nones, N-O-N-E-S, are not all atheists or agnostics. The same survey we're talking about defix- depicts a fundamentally spiritual population. More than 80% of survey participants, and I think it was about 35,000, believe humans have a soul or spirit in addition to the physical body and believe in God or a universal spirit. 80%, more than that. That's really significant. So a lot of the promises, I think, of secularism, a lot of the promises of the new atheists, that religion is on the way out and we'll be better for it, we're not only hearing people saying we need religion for the betterment of society, but we're actually not seeing the level of secularization that I think was anticipated. The spiritual yearning is not only not going out, but it sure seems very vibrant. I think the underlying worldview here is a deeper spiritual vacuum that people are feeling, a vacuum for meaning, for purpose, for relationship, for something transcendent, and some find that in politics [chuckles] on both sides of the aisle. It could be a movement that you're a part of. It gives you purpose. It gives you some kind of just deeper meaning and in some cases, a savior, whoever that might be, again, on both sides of the political aisle. I think it's that that's driving not only interest in Christianity and other spiritual things, but also politics, rather than politics driving it. So I've been, I've been giving a talk on why God is back, and this is really motivated by Justin Brierley's book-

Scott Rae: Mm-hmm

Sean McDowell: ... The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God. He was ahead of the curve on this, and we've seen the nones kind of taper off, and we're just seeing, you know, Bible sales is up 22%. I don't want to read too much into that in 2024, but it's enough to pause and just say we're at a moment that someone said feels like the '70s again, with psychedelics and UFOs [chuckles] and kind of a spiritual interest. How is the Church going to respond? So I find this encouraging.... But certainly don't wanna say this is revival. We're not there yet, and there's certainly not the indication that even when people say they're going to a church or identify as Christian, they would dot the I's and cross the T's that you and I think Jesus taught. So let's not celebrate, but this is a significant study that pushes back on the narrative that's been promoted, I think, for decades.

Scott Rae: I think a w- fun final point on this, Sean, it's a great opportunity for the church. And I think what this reveals is that there's a, there's a new openness to spiritual conversations among lots of folks in the culture that may have not been open to that in the past. And so now they-- of course, they've got, they've got a wide variety of ways that they're filling that void, but that by itself, I think, is an opportunity for the g- for the gospel.

Sean McDowell: Amen. Well said. Now, this last study, Scott, was, i- again, in The New York Times, and I've been critical of The New York Times many times here on this, but I think there's a lot of good in this study, their willingness to do a deep dive and offer a critique of Planned Parenthood. We had to bring this to the attention of our listeners, so-

Scott Rae: Well, it doesn't-

Sean McDowell: ... Basically-

Scott Rae: It do- it doesn't hurt that deep dive is happening in their own backyard.

Sean McDowell: That is a fact. That is very true. I think makes it hard to avoid. Now, they point out that Planned Parenthood sees around 2.1 million patients each year, and they tell a number of stories of individuals I won't go through. One woman from a homeless shelter who was supposed to get an abortion, and the baby was alive in her womb 12 weeks after the failed abortion. She delivers a baby, who then quickly dies. She's filed a malpractice suit. They walk through other accounts in here, some from California, implanting a birth control device, improperly. In Nebraska, there was a woman who was four-month pregnant when inserted an IUD. She's rushed to an emergency room. Another account in Nebraska, one in Omaha, in which sewage from a backed-up toilet seeped into the abortion recovery room for two days. I mean, two days that happened. They point out that Planned Parenthood enjoyed a fundraising boom after the 2022 overturning of Roe versus Wade of almost $500 million from donations, but the majority of it is spent on legal and political fights, rather than actually caring for patients in the way that they obviously think that they should. Some of the other things here, you're right, there's-- there were four-- a number of clinics closed in the greater New York area. They are one of the few places where abortion is still legal up to 24 weeks, but because of a budget shortfall, it forced, the closure of a number of clinics, which is interesting. Of course, Planned Parenthood is saying the complaints about the conditions of the clinic do not reflect the organization's overall record of delivering quality healthcare. That's what they say. But I think there's quite a few people who speak up here and talk about patients being prepped in the wrong room for the wrong procedures at a clinic in Minnesota. Some of the other ones here, let me see if I can find, another incident. I think people are getting the point, but several clinic employees quit, citing the work culture as chaotic and toxic. I think this was specifically in an Arizona Planned Parenthood. The very end, though, really got to me, Scott. They said, the last few lines here, "Dozens of current and former employees said their complaints were met with reminders that they were in a, quote, 'mission moment,' meaning a time of crisis for reproductive rights so urgent that it overshadowed their concerns." And so, as a result, many remain quiet. And the last line of this article, and again, I give The New York Times quote for ending this way, says, "'We're afraid of damaging the mission,' one woman says." Did this surprise you? Did this not surprise you? Give me your take.

Scott Rae: Well, this was heartbreaking to read, that, these, the patients who were in these, you know, substandard conditions and subjected like this, the ma- the woman who's the main feature of the article, you know, c- you know, carrying a pregnancy for three months after she thought she was not pregnant any longer, or having an, you know, having an IUD i- placed improperly, having to go to the emergency room to get it taken care of. It'd be interesting to know if that, if that woman had lost her fertility as a result of it. It wouldn't surprise me-

Sean McDowell: Oh

Scott Rae: ... If she had.

Sean McDowell: Wow.

Scott Rae: Here's, Sean, my big takeaway from this. I got a hand- a couple. You know, Planned Parenthood advertises that it provides more than just abortion services, which is true, but I think profoundly misleading, because roughly 90% of the pregnant women who enter a Planned Parenthood clinic come out not being pregnant. What that strikes me is that abortion is clearly the main service that Planned Parenthood offers, though not the only one. And I think the key-- here's the key takeaway for me. The, the article puts it like this: "Every day, Planned Parenthood Health Center staff go to work and navigate obstacles few providers have to face: personal threats, intimidation, and misinformation, and politically motivated barriers." This is from one of the, CEOs of one of the clinics. "They do so because they believe in reproductive freedom." Okay, now that... And they do so because they are providing healthcare for women, and but both, I think both of those terms, providing healthcare and reproductive freedom, are the new euphemisms for abortion.... And I wanna be, I wanna be clear about that, and, you know, and not allow the pro-choice movement to get away with using a euphemism that I think disguises what the real function of these Planned Parenthood clinics is. Here's the other way, [clears throat] the other way to describe this, is that you pointed out that they had a fundraising boom, since 2022. But over the last five years, the article points out, the National Office for Planned Parenthood has attributed almost $900 million to af- to, their affiliate clinics to help them deliver care, but none of it, almost a billion dollars, none of it went directly to medical services. By charter, the mission of Planned Parenthood is to provide leadership, advocacy, and education in the field of reproductive healthcare. Again, I think that's a, that's a euphemism for abortion. Its fundamental mission is not healthcare, according to their charter, but lobbying for abortion rights under the guise of healthcare for women and reproductive freedom. So I just- I think it's just really important, I think, to listen to what Planned Parenthood says about themselves in their, you know, in their publicly accessible statements of their charter and their mission. Where they describe it as mission-critical, that's not, that's not having to do with the general healthcare for women. It's having to do with a very specific procedure so that w- so that women who walk in pregnant, who don't want to be, can walk out not being pregnant.

Sean McDowell: I think you make a good point, that Planned Parenthood often makes the case that abortion is not their primary means of healthcare. I do recall, and I'm not making this for political reasons, early on, Trump had said something in his first term, that if you'll just stop performing abortions and do all the other medical stuff, [chuckles] we'll fund you as much or more, and they declined. Now, I do think they've continued to receive some of the funding, but I think that just points out, yeah, this is integral to what we do, and we're not willing to compromise on it. Now, I was thinking about this book someone gave me years ago that Ronald Reagan wrote-

Scott Rae: Mm-hmm

Sean McDowell: ... In 1984.

Scott Rae: Yeah, it's a great-

Sean McDowell: And it's called-

Scott Rae: It's a great book.

Sean McDowell: Oh, you've seen it?

Scott Rae: Oh, yeah.

Sean McDowell: So Abortion-

Scott Rae: I have it

Sean McDowell: ... And the Conscience of the Nation. And so he's president at the time, and this is written 11 years after Roe versus Wade. And there's a number of great takeaways in this, but he kind of just made the point that if we become a nation that imbibes, abortion, it will affect the way we treat all of life. We can't just end the most vulnerable amongst us, and it not seep out and affect how we treat life. So when I see this in a Planned Parenthood community, I... And I'm not gonna pile on every individual there. I'm sure some care about patients and are doing what they think is right, but deep within that is a worldview that thinks they're helping the least, [chuckles] most vulnerable amongst us, end their life. That cheapens human life. So I'm not surprised to see the very clinics that do this have so many complaints about human beings saying, "We're not treated the way we should be treated." I think there's some connection there that cannot be avoided.

Scott Rae: Yeah.

Sean McDowell: Now, with that said... Oh, go ahead.

Scott Rae: No, go ahead. You, you're on a, you're on a roll here, brother. [chuckles]

Sean McDowell: Well, the... I appreciate that. The last thing I would say is, one thing that jumped out to me is they're pushing the mission and saying, "Don't you know that the damage of the mission? This is a mission moment. Don't speak up," and are discouraging whistleblowers, and I think that's horrific, and it's abysmal. But I also have to pause and say, we've seen this in churches many times-

Scott Rae: We have

Sean McDowell: ... Too, and in church organizations, where there's abuse, where the same card is played, where Christians will say things like, "Hey, but look how many poor are getting served. Look at all, how many people are hearing the gospel. If you speak up, you'll derail the goodness of what God is doing, and you'll disparage the pastor." That's worse for a Christian to say, because we are called to a higher standard. So I do think Planned Parenthood should get piled on some here, but I don't on- wanna also turn the microscope around and say, we as Christians need to do a lot better, and we have no excuse for it.

Scott Rae: Fair enough, and I think that's, that's a really good observation to make, 'cause I would not wanna be seen as piling on without also being willing to look in the mirror ourselves. One, one last point on this, Sean. I think what Reagan pointed out in his book was comments from people who were critical of the Roe v. Wade decision originally, suggesting that the impact of that would affect infanticide and would affect- ... How we view the end of life as well. And it set, it set the legacy for that, and sure enough, you know, about, you know, 15 years or so ago, we had sort of the first ac- real strong academic defense of infanticide, calling it the after-birth abortion. And, when the Supreme Court ma- ruled on assisted suicide in the late '90s, they specifically had to distance themselves from the Roe decision, saying that Roe did not open the door to cheapening life at the end. But the people had already been moving in that direction, and I think one of the impetuses for legalizing assisted suicide in the US was the freedom for people to make life's most important decisions about their life and their body that Roe affirmed. And we see that, I think, as one of the logical extensions. That was predicted in 1973 after Roe was passed.

Sean McDowell: Well said. I think you made that point more clearly [chuckles] and articulately than I did. Good, excellent point, Scott. Let's, let's move to some questions here.... We've got, some good ones, and this first one, this person says, "We've adopted special needs children from China." Praise the Lord. "Throughout the process, we were asked what kind of child we would accept. Options include gender, age, as well as 100-plus possible special needs. Making those selections was just heart-wretch- wrenching. Simply put, it feels like you're saying no to every child where you check a no box. So this happened multiple times in the process. Here's the question: If we believe life begins at conception, can we make a distinction between an embryo waiting to be implanted through an IVF process and a child waiting for an adoptive family? If selecting these attributes as embryo starts to feel like eugenics, can we not say the same about selecting these traits during an adoption process? In other words, how can we approach adoption in a more biblical manner?"

Scott Rae: Well, I-- this is a really insightful question, Sean, and I think she's absolutely right about the premise she makes and the analogy she draws. Selecting traits in embryos is not any different, I think, than selecting traits in adoptable children. The only difference, and I'm, I'm not... I haven't decided yet if this is a morally relevant one or not, is that in selecting those traits in embryos, you are, you are, in a sense, engineering those, because we can do gene editing in embryos and select out those traits in a way that we can't with adoptable children who have already been born. So but I think to think biblically about this means applying the biblical teaching in Psalm 127 to both of these, instances, consistently, and that is that children are a gift to be received open-handedly without specifications. And, you know, I don't, I don't think this means that we're, we are obligated to take in as many special needs children as we can or to take in any special needs child at all, but I think to recognize that putting specifications on adoption, which for most couples, they see adoption as this clearly God's good gift to them in most cases.

Sean McDowell: Sure.

Scott Rae: But to do so, I think, I think we just-- we approach, we approach the children that God gives us, open-handedly, we hold them loosely, we trust them to Him. And I think, I think it's okay to have a preference for one sex over another. But I think if... I think if you ask most couples who are interested in adopting children, what they want is a healthy child. They... And they don't care. These other things, they just don't care that much about. And I think the couple, I think, was feeling that frustration that a lot of, couples adopting children feel, that they, you know, these specifications don't matter that as much to them as they do to the adoption agency. What matters to parents seeking adoptable children is that, is that they get a child. And, you know, and it's a heroic rescue that they're performing. And, you know, you're not-- we don't, we don't tend to be picky about the people that we heroically rescue. And so but I... But on the other hand, I don't think that creates a corresponding obligation to necessarily adopt special needs children. Now, my hat's off to this couple who did so, and, you know, we've got faculty colleagues who have done this as well, and I think they are, they are extra heroic, but I think they would look at this as something virtuous to do, not necessarily a moral requirement.

Sean McDowell: That's a great answer. I don't know that I can add anything to that. I think you drew out some excellent distinctions and gave them some good advice about how to process that. Good stuff, Scott. Let's move to the second one. [lips smack] "While clergy, while clergy abuse is widely discussed, and rightly so, I'm concerned about the emerging victim culture in some churches, where leaders are accused of wrongdoing without due process. Many pastors face various forms of abuse from their congregations, leading to what I would describe as pastoral PTSD. Some retire and find that they need healing from wounds inflicted by their congregation, that they've sacrificially served for years. What are your thoughts on pastoral PTSD, how churches can avoid inflicting it on their pastors, and how pastors can face it in healthy ways?"

Scott Rae: Well, Sean, you and I both know pastors for whom this description fits really well.

Sean McDowell: That's right.

Scott Rae: I've got, you know, one of our Talbot grads who I've been spending time with recently, was just forced out of his church because of different political views from the majority of the congregation. Very painful, and he's, you know, he's now looking to start again. And I think, you know, more... I would say, [lips smack] if due pro- when, and when accusations of misconduct come, due process is critical, and I think that-- I think the, this listener is right, that that's really important, and we can- and it's unethical to, you know, accuse and pass a sentence before we, ask questions, and get, and get the full story. In fact, I remember my seminary mentor saying, "If the pastorate is too demanding, then go do something else less demanding, like neurosurgery." [laughing] And I think, and the, you know, how can churches help inflicting this on their pastors, I think, is to have realistic expectations of their pastors, 'cause most pastors, I think, have impossible job descriptions. You know, 'cause they're called to be scholars, preachers, CEOs, financial officers, counselors, fundraisers, you know, on and on, things that, you know, in a, in a university setting like Biola, we've got, we got different people functioning in all of those different roles. And I think pro- you add to that for ma- for many pastors, their families are judged... Pastors get judged based on the behavior of their families.... Which can, which can be, you know, especially challenging to navigate. So- I think that's the one thing that churches can do, is be realistic about what you are expecting out of your pastor. And don't ex- don't expect them to be all things to all people at all times.

Sean McDowell: I think that's great. I think, my encouragement to pastors, then this is definitely not rocket science, it's just like this pastor you describe who has you to talk with and process things, either a peer or somebody outside just helps deal with that stress, rather than somebody in the congregation. For the congregation, I was just talking to a pastor last week, and he goes, "Yeah, I just got, like, a five-page complaint from somebody."

Scott Rae: Oh, my gosh.

Sean McDowell: And I thought, you know what? If this individual would just put themselves in the position of the pastor, and maybe you have a legitimate concern, but frame it in the right way, at the right time, that's helpful, not one that's just a burden that ends up sucking up so much time and energy of this pastor. So I think it's real. I can't diagnose it, but especially since COVID, I mean, more and more pastors I talk with, they're just exhausted, and they're tired. Their churches have been ripped apart. They wanna do ministry and care for people, and yet so much energy and time is sidetracked. So give the pastor the benefit of the doubt. Try to approach in the right way. Don't gossip, and, you know, just treat the pastor the way you would want someone to treat you in that position. And I think if we just look at it that way and try to see the world as a pastor does, given the stresses that pastors have, economically and personally and spiritually, I think we'd just approach it very differently.

Scott Rae: Hear, hear. Good word.

Sean McDowell: All right. Last one. I actually have a quick answer for this. This is about somebody who has a close friend who is a, Christian, as far as I understand, but has been taken in by New Thought, manifestation, laws of attraction, et cetera. "Can you help me form a statement to explain why these ideas are not in alignment with Christianity, so my friend will not be away from the gospel? And what book recommendations do you have?" Well, I can't give you a simple sentence and a statement, but interestingly enough, you're asking specifically for podcasts. Not here, but on my YouTube channel, I interviewed who I consider my go-to person on New Age and New Thought, is Melissa Dougherty. That's D-O-U-G-H-E-R-T-Y. She has a new book. I endorsed it, On What's Called New Thought, which is a little different than New Age. We had an extensive conversation, I don't know, maybe six or eight weeks ago. I think it was last month, not that long ago. So if you just pull up my YouTube channel, pull up Miss Dougherty, Melissa Dougherty... And by the way, she has her own YouTube channel that I recommend, that I think is excellent, and her new book, On New Thought. So that's where I would go. Come to think about it, if you need a short chapter, I had to write a chapter in a recent book I compiled called Apologetics for an Ever-Changing Culture, and it's, like, four to five pages. Lays out exactly how New Thought is different from Christianity and practical ways to engage those who are caught in New Thought. That might be helpful as well. All right, Scott, good stuff, my friend.

Scott Rae: Yeah. Lots, lots of fun, as usual.

Sean McDowell: 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 master's programs, distance and in-person, theology, Bible, apologetics, spiritual formation, Old Testament, marriage and family, philosophy, and many more. To submit comments or ask questions, please email us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu. And we'd appreciate if you'd take a moment to just give us a rating on your podcast app. Each one helps us reach more people to help them think biblically. Thanks for listening, and we'll see you Tuesday. In the meantime, remember to think biblically about everything. [upbeat music]