This week:

  • Therapy Culture & Childlessness – Sean and Scott discuss a New York Times article suggesting that the rise in childlessness among Millennials and Gen Z may be linked to therapeutic culture and a fear of repeating parental mistakes.
  • Charismatic Christianity's Growth – A look at why charismatic and Pentecostal Christianity is the fastest-growing Christian movement globally, and what this spiritual hunger reveals about secularism and modern culture.
  • Gene Editing Moratorium – The hosts unpack a call for a 10-year global ban on heritable human genome editing, highlighting concerns over unintended consequences and ethical boundaries in germline modifications.
  • Planned Parenthood Closures – With clinics closing across several states, they examine what this trend says about abortion access, cultural shifts, and the growing use of abortion pills over surgical procedures.



Episode Transcript

Sean McDowell: [upbeat music] Is there a link between our therapy culture and the epidemic of childlessness? What does the explosive growth of charismatic Christianity reveal about America and beyond? An international group of gene-editing leaders put out a call for a 10-year ban on heritable human genome editing. And what does the barrage of Planned Parenthood clinics closing tell us about the state of the abortion debate? These are the stories we will discuss, and we will 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 story you sent to me, I missed it. I read the New York Times regularly, but this one, the title is: There's a Link Between Therapy Culture and Childlessness. We've talked a lot about the concern about the rate of people having kids dropping to, like, 1.6 and kinda the-

Scott Rae: Yeah, less than replacement rate.

Sean McDowell: Less is exactly correct. So this author is proposing a new or additional reason why, Millennials and Gen Z-ers might be having less kids. She writes this. She says, "There are few decisions more fraught for members of my generations," again, Millennials, Gen Z-ers, "than whether or not to become a parent." And right away, just the question of having kids or not is a radical shift that's new today. "In 2023, the fertility rate fell to a record low. Some of the decline can be explained by a delay in having children or a decrease in the number of children, rather than people forgoing child-rearing entirely. But it seem... It still seems increasingly likely that Millennials will have the highest rate of childlessness of any generational cohort in American history." That's significant. Now, this article walks through the different possible contributors to this trend that you and I [chuckles] have talked about on this program. But she suggests that one reason is, quote, "We've held our own parents to unreachable standards that deep down, maybe we know ourselves, we would struggle to meet." Now, what- where does this come from? She says, "It's our therapeutic and psychoanalytic culture, where these ideas have invaded popular culture, forming the background of how we understand our own lives." Now, of course, you might say, "This stuff sounds like it comes from Freud in the 19th century," but her argument is that something has shifted with TikTok and YouTube, and how there's new emphasis on trauma that's experienced within generations being attributed to parents, and there's almost everything that you could find, like a TikTok video, on every malady or problem you have, in some way [chuckles] tracing back to your parents. And then she makes this last point. She says, "Many of today's adult children often cut off parents for what a generation ago would have been viewed as venial sins." So she's not saying there's not times we shouldn't do this, but it's grown to the level where we've just viewed pain and trauma in our lives with such a high level of blame for our parents, that maybe it's created a kind of trauma that we don't wanna [chuckles] repeat this with the next generation. That's, So in a sense, it just makes parenthood look like a bad deal. That's the argument she's making. What do you think?

Scott Rae: Well, full disclosure first, both of us work for a university that has a school of psychology that's training professional therapists.

Sean McDowell: Fair enough.

Scott Rae: But I-- Sean, my very first thought after I finished reading this was that several times throughout our marriage, my wife and I te- would joke, sorta serious but not really-

Sean McDowell: [laughs]

Scott Rae: ... That at the same time we set up college funds, we needed to set up therapy funds for our kids- ... To work through some of the mistakes that we made- ... As parents. Now, we never did that, and although we did have, you know... W- one of our kids w- did go to therapy on his own as an, as an adult. And we sorta said, "You know, I'm, I'm not sure how much I wanna know about [chuckles] what you're talking about-

Sean McDowell: Sure, sure

Scott Rae: ... With your therapist." But I think it's been a good thing for him. You know, it strikes me, Sean, that the quality of parenting exists on a really wide continuum. Some... I think there are some people who should not be parents. They're just, they're just unfit. And thankfully, we have child protective services that takes children away from parents who are clearly unfit, okay? Others, I think, are what I would call are world-class parents-

Sean McDowell: Sure

Scott Rae: ... That are just- they are doing a bang-up job. But I think most of us are somewhere in the middle. Most of us are what I would call good enough parents. And I think what we've- what my wife and I have realized is that the most important trait in parenting has been just showing up.

Sean McDowell: [laughs]

Scott Rae: I remember Woody Allen, I think, was well known for saying that about 90% of life is just showing up.

Sean McDowell: [chuckles] Right.

Scott Rae: And I think that applies to parenting as well. Showing up, what we discovered, covers other shortcomings, but not showing up magnifies them. And there's one point in the article that I thought was really a c- a crucial point, and I'll, I'll quote the author here: "Americans have redefined harm, abuse, nef- neglect, and trauma, expanding those categories to include emotional and relational struggles that were previously considered unavoidable parts of life." And I would call those, you know, what we had growing up were more our suck-it-up moments. [laughs]

Sean McDowell: [laughs]

Scott Rae: Where you just had things that they were just, you know, the life's not fair moments, where you just, you learn to sort of persevere through things-... That we just did sort of as a, as a matter of course. Now, I think these may be what some social psychologists like Jonathan Haidt, for example-

Sean McDowell: Yeah

Scott Rae: ... Have referred to as, a coddled or a fragile generation. I don't want, I don't wanna throw the- I don't wanna throw millennials and Gen Z under the bus-

Sean McDowell: Sure

Scott Rae: ... With this, but I do think some of that has changed, and I think the author, I think, correctly reflects that change. And I think sometimes, Sean, it's really clear that parents are at fault- ... When there's abuse, addiction, affairs, divorce. You know, I, it drives me nuts when people s- when people justify divorce, when they say, "Well, kids are resilient." No, they're not. Kids are not as resilient as we think they are, and I think that's often used as a cop-out. And I think there are times, I think, when kids, they've, they've, they've been sinned against by their parents in some of those ag- egregious examples. And I think what we've also realized is that genetic predispositions are more influential than what we thought- ... When it comes to mental health issues. You know, I think some of, some of the best things our parents gave us came on the night that we were conceived. But for other things, we was, the old maxim, "Genetics is the gift that keeps on giving"- ... For some of those things. We have a very close colleague who has a genetic predisposition to anxiety and depression.

Sean McDowell: Sure.

Scott Rae: And it's been debilitating for him at times. And it w- it was liberating for him to realize that there, that there is a genetic thing that is a part of that. Here's one, just one final comment on this.

Sean McDowell: Yeah.

Scott Rae: The Old Testament says several times, it uses the phrase that, "The sins of the fathers are passed on to succeeding generations." And I think what that means, for the most part, is that those things that are modeled and lived out by parents are often inadvertently passed on to succeeding generations, and until one generation says, "This trend stops with me," and they're determined, they get help, they get it fixed, and it, and it does, it stops with them. And I think the article, the article does, I think, get it right about the impact of parents. You know, f- I think, largely, I think, for better, but sometimes for worse. And I think we... You know, I think I'm sympathetic to kids who have-- they just have things to work through in their relationship to their parents as they try to separate and become their own independent person. This is why adolescence is so rocky- ... Because kids have never done this before, and parents have never done this before either. And I think both, you know, both sides make mistakes during that period.

Sean McDowell: That's right.

Scott Rae: And I think both sides, I think, need to ask for forgiveness- ... About things. And I think for parent, for parents to own their mistakes, I think is a really healthy thing that keeps, it keep, it keeps our kids from carrying that notion that, "You know, I've gotta be perfect to be a parent." You don't. You have to be good enough. And the way you do that, most of the time, is just by showing up.

Sean McDowell: That's a great place to set the bar, I think. And I think in many ways, if there is this anxiety that this writer is talking about and has set the standard at a certain level, just saying, "Showing up is success" [chuckles] 90% of the time, could help alleviate some of that. I don't know how to assess how much this idea that our therapeutic, psychoanalytic culture is contributing to not having kids. I'm open to it. It's interesting. It's probably one of a range of factors-

Scott Rae: That's, that's right

Sean McDowell: ... That contribute to it. I don't know that there were any studies here that back this up or how you would really- ... Study that, but all I... When I read this, I go, "It makes sense." But two things really jumped out to me about this. Number one, when you get to the end of the article, she writes this. She says, "I was a child of the 2000s and 2010s, the Tumblr generation, a generation that enthusiastically imbibed and disseminated the doctrine that our personal sufferings could be made, legible by looking back at our parents, our childhood, and our early relationships." But here's the key, Scott. She says, "But my life was different from that of many of my peers because I was raised in an Orthodox Jewish community and internalized a competing set of beliefs and narrative frames and norms, one of which was that my life would include children." That shows that, I think, in our culture now, with this birth dearth and concern, it really is a worldview issue at play. Do we value children? What is the good life and the role of religion and faith in this? I don't know that I would've seen this in New York Times five or 10 years ago, but now it's becoming somewhat of the norm. People are seeing, even if they don't state it explicitly, the cultural value and need that we have for religion. The other thing that hit me is there's a book that I love written by our friend at Summit Ministries, Jeff Myers, and it's a little book called Handoff, about passing on the faith. And he talked about in there, he said, "Growing up, we all have people that have influenced us deeply, but all of them, whether a parent or a coach or a teacher, in some way disappointed us or let us down because they're human. The key is to give grace to them in hopes that the next generation would give grace to us." And I remember reading that, and I actually made a list of key people in my life and thought through the positive ways that they influenced me and just said, "God, thank you for them, and I give them grace." And you know what? I hope that my kids will come along and be like, [chuckles] "Dad, you blew this. You made this mistake." And I'd be like, "You know what? You're right, but I'm gonna give you grace."... So this really highlights the value of faith and religion in our culture, but also just the need for grace to be able to forgive each other of our hurts. That's what I think Christianity uniquely has to offer in this cultural moment.

Scott Rae: Yeah, and I think that it's, it- that notion of forgiveness and grace, I think is really important, not just looking back, but in the moment- ... As well. I remember really vividly, we had an incident with our next-door, a kid of our next-door neighbors, who was, He, he was playing with our other kids, and it just got a little bit out of hand, and I overreacted and chewed him out pretty good for it. [laughing] and I don't think he knew quite what hit him.

Sean McDowell: [laughing]

Scott Rae: But, you know, about an hour later, I went o- I went back over to their home, and I just sat with him and said, "I am so sorry." "I blew it." "I way overreacted. You were not in the wrong on this." And I think it, just see- and my own kids seeing that, I think helped them recognize that, yeah, you don't have to be perfect, but you do have to be repentant sometimes. And asking kids for forgiveness when you make a mistake, I think can be really healing and prevent some of these things that the author is describing.

Sean McDowell: Amen, and that's the power of modeling this. I found our kids don't expect us to be perfect, but just to be genuine and real, and I think your story highlights that. All right, we're gonna shift to, a story you sent me from The Atlantic this week, and it's about the fastest-growing Christian group and what it reveals about America, and I think arguably much beyond America. Now, in some ways, it's not really a surprise about the growth of charismatic Christianity. We've been hearing about this for a while, but kind of our cultural moment right now is a little bit unique. So it says, "The fastest-growing group of Christians on the planet, charismatic Christians," and the way they define it is, "those who believe the Holy Spirit empowers them to speak in tongues, heal, and prophesy, just as Jesus' first apostles did roughly 2,000 years ago. They represent more than half of the s- roughly 60 million US adults who call themselves born again." Roughly half. Now, what they say, even though we're hearing about declining church attendance, quote, "Instead of killing off religion, secularism has supercharged its extraordinary elements." So in some ways, this article is arguing that we're seeing, an interest in charismatic Christianity as a backlash against the secularism that has been pushed for decades and maybe even arguably centuries. The article says, "Charismatic Christians aren't the only ones embracing a spirituality that might seem out of place in our modern rationalist age." This statistic caught me off guard. It said, "87% of Americans subscribe to at least one New Age belief, such as karma, reincarnation, or telepathy." Now, I'd have to nuance that word "subscribe," but I won't push back on New Age beliefs and practices being far more prevalent, than we oftentimes recognize. And then I love this line in the article. It says, "If this is a secular age, then perhaps we need to rethink what secularization means." Now, one more point just that's important for people to realize is they say, "Openness to the Holy Spirit does not preclude adherence to orthodox religious teaching. Most charismatic churches subscribe to a traditional interpretation of the Bible that would be very at home with a place like Biola." it says, "From a certain angle, these groups are merely taking mainstream aspirations to their supernatural conclusion," so to speak. They say, "The rising popularity of Spirit-filled worship and emphasis on personal encounter with God has paralleled secular society's exaltation of private experience over tradition or reasoned argument." So in some ways, to sum up, they see this charismatic movement as a reaction against some of the secular ideas, but also an extension... So secular ideas that are extinguishing the supernatural. Charismatic movements are saying, "No, you can experience God right now in worship and prayer, et cetera." But on the other hand, they also arg- argue in this article that this move towards charismatic parallels society's exaltation of private religious experience over tradition and reasoned argument. I found that kind of dynamic interesting. What's your take on this movement in this article?

Scott Rae: Well, one, I think it's very appropriate that we're talking about this this week, because Sunday is Pentecost Sunday- ... On the church calendar. And so there's been... I mean, my own, my own church, we've done a lot of, a lot of thinking about the Holy Spirit in anticipation of Pentecost Sunday, and we'll do so in the aftermath of that. And as, I think what the article points out is true, not only in the United States, about how Pentecostalism and charismatic movements are the fastest-growing segment of Christianity, but globally-

Sean McDowell: Yeah

Scott Rae: ... It's just, it's off the charts, and it dwarfs what's going on in the United States. And I think, Sean, you're right to say this phenomenon of the experience of the Holy Spirit is not anything new. I mean, we've had charismatic movements-

Sean McDowell: Yeah

Scott Rae: ... You know, for, that have been very popular for at least the last 50 years-

Sean McDowell: Yeah

Scott Rae: ... In the United States. And I think it's, it's, it- the caution, I think, is... The, the thing that I wanna be careful about is that our subjective experience of the Holy Spirit is subject to the Bible and not the reverse.... And I think given the cultural emphasis on, you know, living your truth and, you know, your lived experience having the authority that it does, it runs the risk of what I, what I would call subjective experience run amok. And without, I think without the biblical guardrails on this, And that's why I'm so encouraged that I mean, it is, I think, really clear that manif- these different manifestations of the Spirit can be entirely consistent with biblical fidelity. But I think they need, they need to be subject to that as well. And I think most charismatic Pentecostal movements that I've been exposed to, they take the Scripture very seriously. And they would a- they would agree with us, you know, right down the line on many of the things in our, in our theological commitments here at Talbot. One thing that I think we wanna be careful about as well is that what the Bible's really clear is that these expressions of the Spirit are fundamentally for the common good- ... For the good of the body of Christ, not primarily for our own, for our own individual experience or our own individual edification. And they're, they are for the unity and the maturity of the Church as a whole. That's, I think, another im- kind of important guardrail on this, that, you know, my spiritual experience is not, is not designed just to benefit me, but it's to benefit you and others that we come into contact with. So it's... That, the Bible really doesn't have a lot to say about the use of our spiritual gifts for our own benefit. And that's, that's stri- in my view, strikingly absent from the biblical teaching on the Holy Spirit. Now, just a final point on this: I agree that, you know, that the trends toward all sorts of spiritualism and spirituality, some of which are completely unmoored from anything that would look like the biblical teaching, I think is evidence that secularism is no longer as satisfying for people as it was when it was more of a casting off of religious constraints. When secularism, as a worldview, had to stand on its own as opposed to i- as opposed to be, and what it's in opposition to- ... It becomes exposed, I think, for more for what it is. And the reason for that is theologically, we were, we were created to connect with a transcendent.

Sean McDowell: Amen.

Scott Rae: We were not, we were not created to live in a world that's governed by the laws of chemistry and physics alone. And as we've talked about several times, there are lots of shortcomings in a worldview that says we are nothing more than the physical stuff of the universe.

Sean McDowell: Yeah, that's well said. I like that this article pushes back on the secularization thesis, but it should also give Christians some pause, because there's been this assumption that as technology and knowledge increases and societies move forward, God gets squished out, so to speak. That's not a technical term, but you understand society [chuckles] !

Scott Rae: That's exactly how the scholars put it.

Sean McDowell: That's how they frame it. The... It gets secularized in terms of its thinking, and religion becomes privatized, just to something in your home, in your feelings, in your experience, but it's not something that's considered knowledge. Well, while we've seen the new atheist movement, for example, fade from the public, we have not seen r- at least broadly religious ideas go away. If anything, they're coming back, which challenges the secularization thesis. I mean, this pointing here, that 87% of Americans subscribe to at least one New Age belief, that would be a whole lot of self-described born-again Christians, if roughly 60% of Americans describe themselves as Christians. So I think this pushes against the secularization thesis, but it's not a move back towards traditional religion and Christianity. It's an openness to the supernatural, which is good, but it's not the level of, like, revival that I've heard some people talking about. So I don't think we're moving more secular, but I also don't think we're moving backwards toward traditional religion. So this is why, as Christians, I think what you said earlier is so important, that we have biblical discernment and biblical authority. Because we're seeing this growth of charismatic Christianity, which on its face is great, that's a wonderful thing, but within the Church, we're also seeing these other supernatural beliefs seep in. Well, how do we decide which we fall and which we don't? That's the question of biblical authority that must be at the forefront.

Scott Rae: Yeah, and I think that, you know, the danger for those of us that take the Bible really seriously- ... Is that there's no, there's no place for these manifestations of the Spirit- ... In our lives. And so I don't, I don't wanna go to that extreme either.

Sean McDowell: Good.

Scott Rae: But I think those guardrails are important. I remember the late Richard John Neuhaus, the- ... The Lutheran, turned Catholic, theologian and sort of public intellectual. He, he was well known for saying that, "The secularization's thesis has everything going for it, except empirical evidence." [laughing]

Sean McDowell: [laughing]

Scott Rae: And it, and it sort of mirror, I think your point about faith becoming private, is how people have navigated that. Because the... I remember the sociologist Will Herberg said, as far back as the 1950s, he said that the United States is, at the same time, the most secular and the most religious culture in the industrialized world. And the reason, the reason that can go together is because faith had become essentially a private matter. As Os Guinness puts it, "It's privately engaging but socially irrelevant."... And that's, I think, what we wanna guard against, is that the lordship of Christ over all of life theologically prevents us from faith being simply a private sphere. And so I wa- I wanna be really careful that we don't, you know, we don't think that this sort of G- you know, God and me spirituality is the full thing that the Bible prescribes, because we ha- we have to have the community of God's people, we have to have the Church, and we have to have the Body of Christ as a part of our genuine spiritual experience.

Sean McDowell: Question for you as we wrap up this story, and you can punt if you need to think about this one more. But my sense is there were a lot more debates maybe 20, 30, 40 years ago about whether or not charismatic Christianity was within kind of the broader biblical evangelical fold. That seems to have been largely settled. Now, there's just concern about the times where there might be abuses of that, not the principle of charismatic Christianity being within the fold. Is that a fair, too simple?

Scott Rae: I think that is fair. When, you know, when I went to seminary, I went to- ... A place that w- taught a cessationist view of the spiritual gifts, that basically, with the close of the New Testament canon, those miraculous gifts ceased. And I think that view, I think, has largely been rejected by the evangelical community today, and I think correctly so. And I mean, at Talbot, we, you know, our dean was just at the International Pentecostal Conference-

Sean McDowell: Huh

Scott Rae: ... In Finland this last week. And we have... You know, Biola has Pentecostals on the faculty. Our Center for the Holy Spirit has a director who is a Pentecostal. And so I think there's, there's this much greater openness today. And I, yeah, I think to describe that as, basically, that debate, I think, has been settled- ... For the, for the most part.

Sean McDowell: Good stuff. All right, radical shift here in terms of- [chuckles] ... Topics, to editing genes. I actually came across this story independently, and then you sent it as well. So this was getting some attention this week, and it's in a, it's in a online publication called Fierce Biotech. And apparently, an international group of gene-editing leaders has put out a call for a 10-year ban on heritable human genome editing, extending a moratorium that was first proposed in the fallout of a Chinese researcher's widely decried use of CRISPR on human embryos. Now, one of the authors says, HHGE for short, "It provokes fundamental questions related to the nature of the human person and the future of humanity. Individual scientists acting alone without transparency or regulatory oversight should not decide the timing and conditions for this application." Now, one of the things that was really interesting to me is that they point out how editing the human germline, meaning reproductive cells like sperm and eggs, changing the genome of these cells means edits that can be passed down to future generations, not just individuals in their lifetime. Hence, they're raising concern about designer babies, the possibility of eugenics. This article sounds almost alarmist. Is it, or is this more a term a good idea?

Scott Rae: Well, it's not, it's not alarmist. And are... This concern about what y- what you refer to as germline therapy, where traits can be passed, not necessarily will be, but can be- ... Passed to succeeding generations, has been, that's been, pretty consistent throughout the last 20 or 30 years that we've been doing gene therapy. So just d- let's be clear for our listeners.

Sean McDowell: Okay.

Scott Rae: Two different... We're talking about two different types of genes, gene therapy here. What's called genetic, I mean, genetic engineering typically has been referred to as somatic cell therapy, which means it only affects the individual patient. Those traits won't be passed on. And then germline, which can be passed on to succeeding generations. Now, we-- two weeks ago, we talked about this customized gene editing treatment for this nine-month-old baby boy-

Sean McDowell: Yep

Scott Rae: ... That had, it targeted a specific place on the genome, replaced it with properly functioning genes. Basically, if you remember, genetic sc- genetic pair, genetic scissors with a GPS locator on it. That's somatic cell therapy, that that only is gonna affect that child. That's not what- ... These authors are talking about. Okay? What they're talking about is therapy applied to the sex cells, like you described, and early-stage embryos. They can also carry these on to succeeding generations. And the reason, the instance that gave rise to this article were experiments in China on early-stage embryos. Now, the reason for this concern is that there's so much about the genetic code that we just don't know anything about. And the, there- ... There's a huge fear, and justifiably so, of the law of unintended consequences coming around back to bite us in the rear end. And the sort of the standard example of this is the early gene therapy protocols that were done for sickle cell anaemia, which affects predominantly African Americans. It was a great therapy that knocked out the gene that triggered that, but what it also did was it knocked out the gene that gave the body its resistance to malaria. And so, y- I mean, yeah, it was on balance, I think it, we... I would take that. But if you're working with, you know, Black people in the United States-... Who aren't routinely exposed to malaria, that's one thing, but if you're working with Black people in sub-Saharan Africa-

Sean McDowell: Yeah, good point

Scott Rae: ... Whom exposure to malaria is huge- then, you've gotta ask ourselves, w- have we really, have we really done a good thing, in the broad scheme of things? So that's the point of this. I think it's entirely well taken, but it's not really something that's new. It's a new application to the CRISPR method of gene editing- ... That has become kind of the way, the way we're doing gene therapy today. So I th- I think it's right to raise the prospect of eugenics. [lips smack] but what we have to be careful about is that most of the traits that we would, we would genetically engineer to give kids an advantage, like in IQ-

Sean McDowell: Sure

Scott Rae: ... Or things like that, are not single-gene traits. They're, they're the interaction of multiple genes together. That's a, that's a lot more challenging to try and in- to, quote, "engineer that," you know, for kids in the future. So I'm, I'm not... I mean, I think we have the capability to do designer children, but I think it's- there's still some major technological hurdles-

Sean McDowell: To get there

Scott Rae: ... To clear before we actually arrive there.

Sean McDowell: So that's not quite the immediate concern. The concern here is we have these technologies, like we talked about two weeks ago, to potentially help with a medical condition, but we don't know what tweaking with the germline genes would do and have an alternate effect negatively.

Scott Rae: That's right.

Sean McDowell: We can't really know those things, and if it's tied to the germline, then we ch- [chuckles] we affect things that go-

Scott Rae: Yeah

Sean McDowell: ... Generation after generation after generation.

Scott Rae: Right. With, with somatic cell treatment, if it, if we get an unintended consequence, you-

Sean McDowell: It's limited

Scott Rae: ... You know, you know what it is-

Sean McDowell: Yeah

Scott Rae: ... And it stops there.

Sean McDowell: That makes sense. How much confidence do you have? Because I'll just speak for myself as an outsider, and my level of confidence is zero.

Scott Rae: [chuckles]

Sean McDowell: That this came out, this was... Tighter controls began in 2019 after this Chinese researcher announced that twin girls had been born from embryos he gene-edited with CRISPR. Now, he was found guilty of illegal medical practice and jailed for three years, 3 million Chinese yuan, about $430,000. So it seems like there was some action that was taken, but I just have very little confidence that people are gonna listen to this group of gene editors, and if they think it benefits them, and this isn't just China, this is beyond, people will do it. The, the cat's out of the bag, so to speak.

Scott Rae: Well, the enforcement level, in my view, is not really at the government level- ... And the level of the law. The people who are gonna enforce it are the scientists and eventually the physicians who apply this in their medical practice, and if they, if they're, you know, if they're doing this on a, on a regular basis, it's gonna be really challenging to enforce that. So far, I think the scientific consensus is pretty solid-

Sean McDowell: Okay

Scott Rae: ... That we don't wanna do germline therapy, at least until we know a whole lot more about what the, what the unintended consequences might be. Because, the merit in... I mean, it's one thing to knock out a disease for you. It's another thing to knock it out for, you know, potentially-

Sean McDowell: Yeah

Scott Rae: ... All of your descendants. And so I understand in principle why that's a good thing, but there's, there's a huge but [chuckles] in that, in that there's just so much that we still don't know about what we might be unleashing onto future generations.

Sean McDowell: Fair enough. Good point. A lot of biblical examples are coming to mind, but I think the point is well made. This, this last story surprised me. I was not aware of this. A student of ours at, in the MA Apologetics program, sent me this link showing how Planned Parenthood has recently announced the closure of several clinics across the US due to a combination of federal funding cuts, political pressure, and shifts in patient care models. So I won't read all these articles, but they talk about, for example, in Minnesota and Iowa, they're set to close eight clinics, four Minnesota, four Iowa, by July 1, within a short time here. It's attributed to $2.8 million in Title IX funds, a freeze on that, Medicaid cuts, declining reimbursements, other factors. But what's interesting is, in 2023, annual abortions, fueled largely by more women traveling to Minnesota, increased by, 16%. And yet, in 2020, Planned Parenthood performed 72% of all abortions in Minnesota. 72%. Now, they give lists here in Michigan and in Illinois and in Utah, interestingly enough. New York, this one got my attention, about, the cessation of abortions after 20 weeks. There's some closures in New York, some in Mississippi, so these are, like, more conservative and more liberal states we're seeing this trend. Does this surprise you? Did you see this coming? What do you make of this?

Scott Rae: Well, I think I did not see it coming in the aftermath of the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, because you were just gonna see more people hit the road-

Sean McDowell: Sure

Scott Rae: ... For abortions.... And, you know, w- in the aftermath of that dec- decision that sent abortion back to the states, basically, roughly half the states affirmed that Roe v. Wade was still gonna be the law of their state. You know, and even our state of California declared itself a sanctuary state for abortion, which beyond the symbolic value of that, I'm not, I'm not exactly sure the impact of that. And I think some of, some of the closures of these clinics has to do with recent, federal funding decisions, that have been made to cut off federal funding for Planned Parenthood. Now, I view this as basically pretty good news.

Sean McDowell: Okay.

Scott Rae: But at the risk of being callous, I recognize that Planned Parenthood does provide other medical services, largely for poor women, besides abortion services. But we should be clear that abortion services are by far the lion's share of their revenue- ... You know, outside of government grants that they get from the federal government and from their states. And here's the statistic, Sean, I think that really matters, that roughly 90% of pregnant women who enter a Planned Parenthood clinic come out of that clinic not being pregnant any longer.

Scott Rae: And so it's... I mean, you can, you can say whatever you want about the other services that Planned Parenthood provides, and some of those, I think, we would say are good, are good, are good just general healthcare services for women and are good things. But the lion's share of what Planned Parenthood does is something that you and I have grave problems with.

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

Scott Rae: And so I think, I think shutting down that access to abortion services, I think on balance for the unborn, is a good thing. Now, what it's done is it's also created, a sense of urgency and desperation for women with unwanted pregnancies who don't, don't have a place to go with that. And what that does is o- what we've talked about before, is it opens up opportunities for other nonprofits, and particularly for the church, to come in and put our money where our mouth is about abortion, and to be, to be much more proactive and engaged with providing tangible assistance for these women- ... Who are in increasingly desperate circumstances. I think those other services that Planned Parenthood was providing, they're gonna have to be picked up somewhere else.

Sean McDowell: Sure.

Scott Rae: And hosp- you know, hospitals and, you know, health clinics in the communities can do some of that, but I think it's gonna fall on other nonprofits and on churches to be able to provide at least the resources, if not the actual service. You know, many of the Living Well clinics that I've been involved with in the past, they have, you know, pro bono physicians who come and donate their services. They, they raise a lot of money, and they provide, you know, they provide wonderful services for women with unwanted pregnancies.

Sean McDowell: That's well said. And in some ways, i- as I've reflected on this more, we shouldn't be surprised, in part because while arguably abortions are up since Roe versus Wade, interestingly enough, the stats are up. That has surprised me. We've seen the shift from surgical abortions to the abortion pill, and a number of years ago, it was about 50%. It crossed that barrier. Now it's about two-thirds. So that's gonna cut down on the revenue and the demand for physical clinics of Planned Parenthood, so it makes sense that they would start to shut down. Now, Planned Parenthood is not going anywhere. If you read what they're doing, they are trying to adjust and keep up with the philosophy that they had before, like maybe a central hub clinic and offices that are in other places, online. I mean, they're not going anywhere, which just shows us that the life battle is a long-term one. It's never just been about closing Planned Parenthood, but trying to create a culture in which all lives are valued because they bear the imago Dei. I read some of these articles, and just one point I just have to draw out is there's talk in this Time magazine about how Title IX freezes... Title IX freeze widely threatens healthcare access. Now, that healthcare includes abortion, and an obvious question is abortion healthcare? Well, let's just ask a basic question. First off, what is healthcare? It's care for the positive benefit of the patient [chuckles] in terms of their physical health. When a woman is pregnant, ask any OBGYN, "How many patients are there?" And the answer, they know, is two. So if healthcare is to care for the benefit of the patient or patients, and the unborn is a patient, and abortion intentionally ends the life of the unborn, not for its health benefit, why do we call it healthcare? And I think the obvious answer is that it's not. So as Christians, we need to be especially discerning to how this language... 'Cause nobody, like you said earlier, we don't deny somebody healthcare to help with sexually transmitted diseases or other issues. Like, our society needs to help people, especially the poor, but when that is lumped in with abortion, and if they're not the same things, that's where we have to hit pause and pay attention to it. Anything else on that one, Scott, that jumps out?

Scott Rae: Great point on that.

Sean McDowell: ... All right, so here's some questions that we have come up, and maybe I'll start with one that was a pushback we received a few weeks ago, since it's on the issue of abortion, and I'll read it and get your take on this. It says, "There was a comment made that some patients need to come to the emergency department and have surgery to complete their abortion. This is not the case." This individual says, "I've seen over 100,000 patients in my 30 years of emergency medicine, and have never seen a complication or had to perform any surgery as a result of the use of this drug. The methods of data acquisition in the report," that we talked about, "may skew results, as they were based on self-reporting." walks through some other differences here, but is this individual correct, that that is an overstated effect of mifepristone?

Scott Rae: Well, I d- I don't think so. And we have, you know, the data set that we s- that we cited when we first aired this piece, you know, three weeks, three or four weeks ago, had to do with a patient population of almost 900,000-

Sean McDowell: That's right

Scott Rae: ... Patients, and it wasn't always self-reported. It was reported by the insurance companies, in terms of what the outcome was. And so, and it was r- you know, rough- it was roughly, I forget the figure, but, you know, roughly 10 to 15% of the ca-, maybe more than that, having adverse effects that required some sort of medical follow-up, often surgical. So I think, you know, we can, we can debate the data set, and I think part of our difference is we have a difference over what the data actually shows. So that's, I think, as far as we can go with that. What I, what I wanted to comment on was the statement that this particular listener made, and I really appreciate the question, but what I wanna-- this is where I wanna push back on the listener.

Sean McDowell: Okay.

Scott Rae: Because he said, "Also, babies are not viable until 18 to 20 weeks, and only in very, in very few circumstances. Although alive, they have no identity in the womb." And that's not a medical point. That's, that's a worldview point. That's a philosophical point that medicine can't, can't help us with, because the Bi- the Bible, I think, is really clear, and I think most embryologists would be, would be equally clear, that from the mo- from the point that conception is completed, you have a distinct, a genetic identity from the mother in the womb, and it is... I mean, in roughly half the cases, you have an entity that's a different gender than the mother is.

Sean McDowell: That's right.

Scott Rae: So there are, there are-- this is biologically distinct. Now, if, you know, he's referring to they don't have an identity as a person- ... That's a different point, but that's a philosophical point, and a medicine is completely impotent to make that decision about whether the unborn child is a person. And we've made, we've made ar- that argument on several-

Sean McDowell: Sure

Scott Rae: ... Several occasions, that we would not distinguish between a human being and a person, b- in terms of, in terms of the metaphysics of that. Now, he also, he also makes the point that if I id- if we identify a fetus as having rights, then this creates a slippery slope that could lead to the act of abortion legally equal with murder. Well, I think we need to tell the truth about what abortion actually is. Now, you might want not, might want, not wanna use the term murder for that, but there's no doubt that the maxim that abortion stops a beating heart is incontrovertibly true. Abortion ends the life of an innocent unborn child, an innocent- ... An innocent human being who has done nothing to merit, you know, the kind of treatment that he or she is getting. And in most cases, in r- in rare cases, the unborn child is a threat to the mother's life. Now, take an ectopic pregnancy, for example, where the, where the embryo implants in the fallopian tube and not in the uterus.

Sean McDowell: Yeah.

Scott Rae: That's a fatal condition.

Sean McDowell: That's right.

Scott Rae: And I, and so in those cases, in fact, I think you c- you probably can call it healthcare in those cases- ... Because it's, it's-

Sean McDowell: Yeah

Scott Rae: ... Tending to the health of the woman.

Sean McDowell: That's fair.

Scott Rae: And, and what the physicians are doing there is they are inducing a natural miscarriage, and the reason that that's morally justifiable is because if you lose the mother, you're gonna lose the baby, too, in almost all cases where the mother's life is in danger. And so in our view, it's better to save one than none, and it's not inconsistent with the sanctity of life. And I think, you know, women being charged with abuse if they neglect, they smoke, drink, do drugs, fail to seek preterm care, all of that, I'm, I'm not sure that... The, the law doesn't necessarily have to reflect every moral issue that we have with the way a woman manages a pregnancy. And so I don't- I'm not sure the law has to get, necessarily has to get involved in that, although I do re- I do remember, we had, we had a neighbor who, she was pregnant, and every week, when we put out the recycling bottles, theirs was full of full bottles of hard, like bourbon, gin, vodka- [chuckles] ... I mean, I th- and we've, I wanted to say to her, "What are you drinking?"

Sean McDowell: Wow.

Scott Rae: And we did actually inquire about that, and she sa- and she sort of dismissed it and said, "Oh, my mom smoked and drank, like crazy while I was pregnant, and I turned out fine."

Sean McDowell: Oh, wow.

Scott Rae: And I didn't, I d- I didn't have the heart to actually dispute that notion. [laughing]

Sean McDowell: [laughing] You're making my point.

Scott Rae: I say, "Yeah, actually true." but I don't think the law... The law does not have to get involved at that, at that level. So I, that's where I w- I would push back more on the idea that the-... That they have no identity that gives them rights in the womb. I think that's def- that's a, that's a flawed metaphysic, and it's asking medicine to do more than it's cape- qualified to do.

Sean McDowell: I think that's fair. V- in a sense, he's looking at saying what he thinks is absurd legally, what would follow if we grant that the unborn has a certain identity. So he's working in reverse, rather than asking the question, what is the unborn first? And from the moment of conception, it's a living human organism that is a distinct biological entity from the mother. That's a scientific fact. That's not debatable.

Scott Rae: Every embryology textbook will tell you that.

Sean McDowell: That's not debatable, and so we gotta start there rather than in some law we may or may not like. But great pushback. There's actually another one here that's on the issue of abortion [chuckles] Scott. This is a really interesting question. This person wrote in, I don't think in response, but just with a question to get our take on it. Says, "I suspect many Christians would affirm the following: Life begins at conception. Two, infants, including all who die, unborn embryos who die, go to heaven. So here's my question. Given that many babies die in the womb for reasons both natural and induced, failure to implant, ectopic pregnancy, et cetera, will there be more people in heaven who were never born than people who were born, sinned, and received salvation? If this is the case, doesn't this fundamentally change what it means to be human?" Now, lists a few more things, but what's your take on this argument?

Scott Rae: I think this is irrelevant-

Sean McDowell: Okay

Scott Rae: ... To what it means to be human. Because what it means to be human is something ontological, that, what we mean by that, it's a part of our being, it's a part of our essence of who we are. And if it's true, his, and his premises, I think, are both correct, if not only life, but full personhood begins at conception, if that's true, then whatever happens after that is irrelevant to what that reality is that we know right from conception forward. So it may sound a little bit odd, and it may be that there will be more people in heaven than who were never born and lived a full adult life. That may be true. But I don't... That's-- we wanna make sure we're not getting our ontological cart before the horse.

Sean McDowell: Well said.

Scott Rae: Like, like you, just like you said in the last, the last one. And so if... I don't think... He's right, the statistical majority doesn't define what's normative. That's true. But, you know, may- you know, and who knows? What, what, I don't know what will the experience in eternity be for someone who, you know, was aborted- ... In the womb? I, you know, I don't wanna speculate on that. I don't, neither of us know the answer to that. But it may be that there, you know, maybe that they have some experience that's different than what we would experience- ... In glory. I just, I just don't know the answer to that. But I don't, I don't think that just j- that possibility, I don't think, changes what our ontological view of a person is from conception forward.

Sean McDowell: That's a great answer. You know, Scott, I've actually wanted to make Think Biblically gear for a while, shirts, sweatshirts. I think I'm gonna make a Think Biblically shirt and have a quote that says, "Don't get your ontological cart before the horse,"-

Scott Rae: [chuckles]

Sean McDowell: ... And quote you, and see what looks people give, and stop and go, "What on earth does that mean?" It just might start some conversations.

Scott Rae: Hear, hear.

Sean McDowell: But with that said-

Scott Rae: I would wear that shirt. [chuckles]

Sean McDowell: [chuckles] You would wear... So we're gonna sell at least one or maybe give away.

Scott Rae: [chuckles]

Sean McDowell: If you want one, let us know. We'll make those shirts. Bottom line, I agree with you that this doesn't change what it means to be human. It might change what heaven is like, but then again, or our, not what heaven is like, our perception of what heaven is like.

Scott Rae: Right.

Sean McDowell: But there's so many people from the past and different cultures and different times, there's so many unknowns anyways, that in a sense, instead of seeing this negatively, it could be a positive, beautiful thing, I think, when seen correctly, but fascinating question.

Scott Rae: Yeah. Great, great question. Really appreciate it.

Sean McDowell: This is one of my favorite questions because it says, "I am 15 years old. I live in England, and I'm encouraged by your podcast." Hear, hear, you just made our day. So this individual, this young man says... Has a question about dating and healthy Christian romantic relationships. "Do you think a romantic relationship adds or has value in adolescence? I'm entering my final two years of high school, know the level of intensity of these relationships will increase," he says, "with the shifts in masculinity and the fact that in my area, only 3% of people say they are Christian."

Scott Rae: Oh.

Sean McDowell: "It goes without saying that the pool for me at this time is small. So I'm looking for some older wisdom on this subject." Given that he said older, Scott, let me throw this- [laughs]

Scott Rae: I knew that was coming. [laughs]

Sean McDowell: I'll throw this one to you. What advice would you give?

Scott Rae: Well, I think that romantic relationships do add value in adolescence if they are pursued in a healthy way. If they don't become obsessive, if they don't become disruptive to the rest of your life, and if they don't involve sexual intimacy. I think those are some of the ways that they can go off the rails. I do think there are important things that we learn by having relationships that may be more than just friends, that I think can be really helpful. I think it, I think for one, the chances of a, you know, a romantic relationship in adolescence-... Becoming something that's permanent, you know, high school sweethearts sort of notwithstanding, I think is relatively rare. I know you're smiling 'cause you're- [laughing]

Sean McDowell: [laughing] I can't help it.

Scott Rae: 'Cause you married your high- you married your high school sweetheart. So, but [clears throat] I think it can, it can, it- I think it can help people mature, it can help them grow up. I think it can help them face some of the kinds- ... Of feelings that they might, they might not have to face otherwise, that can help them mature. I think it can, it can actually help them face rejection, and do, and do that well in a healthy way. It also can... I mean, it can- they can go off the rails, too. I mean, if they're sexually involved, then I'd say no, then those are not, those would not be of value. But that, in general, I w- I wouldn't shy away from them. I would- I wouldn't think that my life is any less complete if I don't have those. Nothing wrong with you if you don't, or you know, you're not missing out on something that is essential to growth and maturity. But I do think they are, they can be beneficial.

Sean McDowell: Okay, fair enough. I would just... I think that's a great answer. I would say a lot of it depends on the maturity of the individual. Could there be a 14-year-old who can and an 18-year-old who shouldn't? Yeah, in principle. I suspect this 15-year-old, if he's listening to it [chuckles] and is encouraged by our podcast, and writes in this, is gonna be on the more mature, thoughtful side. So if you have the right boundaries... And honestly, I think one of the best things you could do to this young man is just ask those around you who know you and who know this person, and be willing to form, is it wise to be in a romantic-type relationship with this individual? Because those adults in your life will likely see things that you won't. But I'd also say, if you don't, I have no reason to think you're gonna look back and have regrets and say, "I missed out on something for not having a romantic relationship." So you're probably feeling the pressure from your culture, from around you. If you take a longer-term perspective, the goal of any kind of dating is to find a spouse. That's the goal. Not dating this way your last two years in high school and just enjoying it, in other ways is not gonna set you back at all.

Scott Rae: Now, one other thing to add on this-

Sean McDowell: Sure.

Scott Rae: It doesn't mean that those relationships have to be exclusive either. I mean, I think you can have relationships with someone that's more than just a friend without it necessarily being exclusive to that one person. So I, you know, you have... Of course, you have to be careful about that. I don't want to encourage people to do- be irresponsible, but I don't w- I wouldn't want our l- our listener to think that just because you are involved in relationships that are more than just friends, it automatically and only- ... Has to be exclusive.

Sean McDowell: Okay. Good [exhales] wisdom. All right, so last question for you. This person writes in, says, "I'm a school-based speech-language pathologist. Enjoyed our recent, podcast with Chris Ralston. He laid a great foundation for thinking biblically about disability. I'd like to hear more about applying these ideas to the neurodiversity-affirming movement. Specifically, I'd love to hear your thoughts on using identity-first language, autistic person, versus person language, person with autism." Now, there's more that's here-

Scott Rae: Yeah

Sean McDowell: ... But what's your sense of this?

Scott Rae: Well, [clears throat] I'm not thrilled about using identity-first language for anybody or anything, 'cause that's not fundamentally who we are. I mean, if we're gonna do that, if we're gonna really do that, then let's, let's do it all the way and say, you know, "I am an, I am a created in the image of God person first," or, "I am an in Christ person first, before anything else that identifies me." I want, I want those things- ... To be fundamental for who I am. So I'm not... I mean, you know, to be honest, Sean, this is probably not a hill that I would die on. But, you know, and if it, if it was, if it was seen as something that cut off a relationship with a person, I don't know that I would, you know, insist on, person-first language, but I'd be strongly inclined to do that. I'd want to explain to them why I would do that. And again, it gives me an opening to talk about the things that are most fundamental to me as a believer, and hopefully for this person as well. So I think there's, there's benefit in, you know, in, person-first language.

Scott Rae: But I, but I've, you know, I'd have to, I'd have to, I'd have to evaluate this on more of a case-by-case basis of whether that's a hill that I would die on.

Sean McDowell: That's the-

Scott Rae: Put it that way.

Sean McDowell: That's totally fair. I am not familiar with the writings and the research on the neurodiversity-affirming movement, so-

Scott Rae: You didn't know that was a thing?

Sean McDowell: I mean, [chuckles] well... So I just want to qualify, these are my initial thoughts-

Scott Rae: Yeah

Sean McDowell: ... Based on the question, so take it for what it is. It, it, for a while there was language... Let me take a step back, where it's like we describe a homeless person, and then there was pushback that said, I don't know, maybe this started in the '90s, I'm guessing, that said, "Well, we're describing the person through the adjective of homeless, as if that's the defining characteristic-

Scott Rae: Right

Sean McDowell: ... Of who they are, or a disabled person. You're describing them and their value through the lens of disability, or a poor person, as if that's who we are."... And without affirming political correctness, I think language has power. So there's something to be said, and I'm completely fine with saying, "Let's have language that still recognizes the unique challenge that somebody might have without undermining their value." Like, language should reflect that in principle. I don't have a problem with it. What's moved in kind of the social j- in certain social justice circles, as far as I can, tell, is to kind of shift from saying, like, say, "Blindness or deafness is something that I'm lacking." I'm not lacking anything by blindness or deafness. This is who I was made to be, and I think sometimes we've seen that seep into certain disability conversations within the church. And my pushback is there is a certain normative design that God has that we're meant to see, we're meant to hear. Now, when we lack those things, we don't have any less value, and as Christians, we have to make sure [chuckles] that our language reflects that we're not saying this person has less value because of some disability that they have. But I don't wanna use language that affirms, that this is somehow normative and tied to somebody's identity in an identity politics kind of fashion. That's just what would give me some pause.

Scott Rae: Yeah, and it s- it sounds to me, Sean, I, and our listener can correct us if we're wrong on this-

Sean McDowell: Yeah

Scott Rae: ... But it sounds to me like that's, that identity politics ideology is what's driving this, uh-

Sean McDowell: I think that's right

Scott Rae: ... In this particular situation. If we're wrong about that, please feel free to correct us on that.

Sean McDowell: And by the way, at the end it says, "I'd love to help think through this. I haven't heard a lot of Christian voices addressing this." If you're listening right now, and you're like, "Oh, I've heard a podcast," I have a book, I know an article that addresses this, send it to us, and we will forward it-

Scott Rae: Please

Sean McDowell: ... On to the listener to try to help in a way that, Scott, you and I maybe could not help as much [chuckles] as we'd like to on this one.

Scott Rae: [chuckles]

Sean McDowell: Hey, man, this was really fun.

Scott Rae: Yeah, good stuff.

Sean McDowell: Always, always enjoy it. Friends, 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'd love to have you join us either on campus or through distance in one of the many programs we have in theology, Bible, spiritual formation, marriage and family, apologetics, and so on. And also, let me just pause. If you've been listening to and benefiting from the podcast, would you please take a moment and give us a rating on your podcast app? Seriously, every rating helps, just in the analytics, to reach more people, to help them think biblically. Send us your comments and/or questions to thinkbiblically@biola.edu. We'll see you Tuesday when our regular episode airs, and in the meantime, remember to think biblically about everything. [upbeat music]