Biola UniversityTopics this week:
Marijuana’s Real Impact: A new study finds 40% of fatal crash victims in one Ohio county had high levels of THC, sparking discussion on how far legalization has gone and why Christians must discern between what’s legal and what’s right.
AI and the End of “Seeing is Believing”: Sean and Scott unpack the dangers of AI-generated videos like OpenAI’s Sora, the flood of deepfakes, and what it means for truth and communication in a post-trust culture.
Conversion Therapy and Free Speech: The Supreme Court will hear a case challenging Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy. Scott and Sean explore its implications for religious freedom, professional ethics, and the Christian view of sexuality and desire.
Israel–Hamas Ceasefire Hope: Discussion of the tentative ceasefire and what lasting peace would require—beyond politics or military power—to genuine heart transformation on both sides.
Listener Q&A:
- Should baptism be required before taking communion?
- Why use the term “medical aid in dying” instead of “assisted suicide”?
Sean and Scott weigh the theology, ethics, and importance of clarity in language.
Episode Transcript
Sean McDowell: [upbeat music] A potentially game-changing ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas, what the arrival of AI-fabricated videos means for us, the Supreme Court takes up a case tied to conversion therapy, and despite promises that society would be far better off with marijuana legalization, in one county, 40% of drivers who died in a car accident had elevated levels of the psychoactive ingredient THC. 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, I don't think we're gonna need to spend a ton of time on this first story, but it caught my attention because we're kinda seeing a shift in how culture is viewing marijuana, I would argue potentially in a positive direction. And this study was... It was kinda stunning to me how high these numbers are. They're, they're asking the question: how much social and public health damage will Americans suffer before doing a U-turn on marijuana promotion? That's exactly the right question. A new study found that 40% of drivers who died in car accidents, like I said, in one county, which is actually Montgomery County, Ohio, and this is between 2019 and 2024, more than four in 10 tested positive for pot's psychoactive ingredient, THC. This is-- The, the level that they give is more than six times the level most states use to define impairment. That's how high it is. The study goes on, in this one they say, "Nearly a quarter," so let this sink in, "of 18 to 25-year-olds," so this is basically high school seniors to, like, those in their mid-20s, "nearly a quarter used marijuana in the last month," and those over 26, it's about 15%. And this article argues that marijuana can damage the heart, lungs, immune system, and the brain. They also point out that Americans, we were told that legalizing marijuana would reduce the illegal market, but that hasn't happened. As I described, just in [chuckles] California alone, in the last month, officials said they destroyed more than 20,000 illegal cannabis plants at operations run by transnational criminal organizations. It sure seems to me like we've been sold a bill of goods, and we need to keep speaking up on the damages and dangers of marijuana. What's your take?
Scott Rae: Well, Sean, I think it's, it's becoming more clear today that the pot being smoked today and ingested today is not what was smoked on the roofs of college fraternity houses when I was a college student. It's... Which I did not do, by the way. [laughing] It was the-
Sean McDowell: Thanks for clarifying.
Scott Rae: It was the fraternity next door to ours. It is m- it's much more potent, and it takes far less of it to be impaired than previously. And you pointed out, I think, the long-term harms to one's health that are now becoming more and more well-documented. And I think... Now, although I think the idea, the advice to slow down on reclassifying it, that the article points out-
Sean McDowell: Yeah
Scott Rae: ... I think is warranted. But even though it's more potent, you know, I don't think it belongs in quite the same category as cocaine, meth, and heroin.
Sean McDowell: Sure.
Scott Rae: So I... 'Cause I think the addictive capacity of those three is, I think, just off the charts, more so than even with this more potent form of marijuana. So I- ... Wish there was some category in between those two. But anyway, that's, that's a discussion for the law and public policy. One other comment on this.
Sean McDowell: Yeah.
Scott Rae: Ephesians 5:18 prohibits drunkenness- ... And instead counsels being filled with the Spirit. And I've often wondered why Paul puts those two admonitions together, but what they have in common is being under the influence of either one. And the reason that we're not to be under the influence of alcohol is you can't be under the influence of the Spirit and alcohol at the same time. And the same is true, I think, of the- especially is true of these degrees of marijuana today. This is why, Sean, the argument that's based on the law, that both pot and alcohol being legal in states where it is actually beside the point for the believer. You know, I've, I've heard people say, "Well, there's nothing, there's nothing wrong with smoking marijuana because alcohol is legal. It has the same effects." that argument, I think, is quite beside the point because you can't be under the influence of anything else and be under the influence of the Spirit at the same time. And I think that applies to, applies to other things to which you can be addicted. I think you can't be under the influence of pornography and be filled- be under the influence of the Spirit at the same time. So what I think, it's just, it's wider than just some of these things that we typically take as addictions. That's my... I think that's one way to think biblically about this. And I think, again, I think the fact that it's legal is sort of beside the point- ... Because of these other harms that we're seeing that are becoming much more clear.
Sean McDowell: That's a helpful distinction between our duties as Christians is not determined by the state, right? Something can be legal and be immoral. Something can be illegal and be moral. Now, the law is a teacher, like Plato said, and laws are important in part to inform people about what is good and right and just, but it's not the highest standard for a believer. Our highest standard is God's character as expressed in Scripture. So our duties are regardless
Scott Rae: Of course
Sean McDowell: ... Whether it's legal or not. But also, as we weigh into-... Politics, which is about the common good, there is a legal aspect of marijuana, and there have been ideas pushed and promoted going back a long time ago, "It's harmless. We will be better off." And a lot of the argument was that they hint at this, that if we just bring it out into the light, it will minimize the amount of kind of the corruption and the criminal ring of people selling illegal marijuana. And it turns out that it not only didn't help there, but arguably even made things worse. So I think it's a call for Christians to speak up on this, be informed about this-
Scott Rae: Yeah
Sean McDowell: ... Be discerning in terms of the political endgame, as well as individually. All right, I'm sure we will revisit that topic, in due time, but it seems like every week there's something on AI we need to discuss [chuckles] and break down. It's just every week there's something new. And I thought this article in the New York Times was really helpful. The title is What the Arrival of AI-Fabricated Video Means for Us. Now, the reason this is timely is because it's really this month that OpenAI, who made ChatGPT, the chatbot, graced the internet with a technology that most of us were probably not ready for. It's an app called Sora, which lets users instantly generate realistic-looking videos with AI by typing a simple description. And they say, for example, such as, "Police body cam footage of a dog being arrested for stealing rib eye at Costco," meaning people just throw in the most ridiculous [chuckles] things and get funny videos out of it. And of course, when technology comes like this, people will use it creatively for good, for funny, but there's also a real downside to this. The amount of disinformation, including fake security footage of crimes, that seems to be emerging. And what they say here, something my wife and I have been talking about for a little bit, is that they say, quote, "The tech could represent the end of visual fact. The idea that video could serve as an objective record of reality as we know it. We're going to treat skepticism as much as we, have the same skepticism as we do towards words." and they talk how our brains are, like, wired to see videos. And I think they're right, that we've basically got to the point, at least in these short videos, it's really hard to tell fact from fiction. And if we're not fully there yet, it's only a matter of time. And by the way, all we need for somebody is words and a description and a photo, and then at least a 10-second video can be made out of this. So what's happening is these things are filling up Instagram and filling up TikTok, and all over the place, we're seeing them quickly on our phones, and people like you and I, that maybe need glasses to look at our phones, aren't seeing [chuckles] how clear they are. And it's like this month, literally, you could say, we've hit a tipping point where the ability to discern fact from fiction hit a new level of difficulty. And I won't go into all of it, but they're just talking about videos about defaming people, a fake dashcam footage used for insurance fraud. And Sora puts a watermark on them, so you know, but creative editors can literally take that off. What do you make of this kind of shift with AI?
Scott Rae: Well, Sean, the big takeaway from this is that seeing is no longer believing.
Sean McDowell: There you go.
Scott Rae: And indisputable video evidence may be a thing only in live sports.
Sean McDowell: [laughing]
Scott Rae: And I'd say this is further evidence of the way the late Neil Postman put it, of amusing ourselves to death. And I think he was... This is, this just show- he was even more prophetic than I think he's been given credit for. And so I would, I would so urge our listeners, if you have not- if you're not familiar with his book by that title, Amusing Ourselves to Death, it is still... It was published in 1985, and he was only [chuckles] talking about television.
Sean McDowell: Yeah, that's right.
Scott Rae: And it is still, Sean, one of the five best books I have ever read, and one of the most insightful, prophetic, it is just- I think it is required reading for people who want to understand our culture today. Now, this is, this is not entirely new. Deepfakes have sort of started this trend.
Sean McDowell: That's right.
Scott Rae: And the FBI estimates that deepfakes have caused around $50 billion in damages. And, and it's probably just in the last, you know, three or four years. And it has put the spreading of disinformation on steroids and fabricated stories masquerading as news and reality. In fact, one of the things this article points out, Sean, is you can have, you can even have an entire AI-generated newscast of made-up stories appearing as the real events. This has a fr- we've- we're further blurring the line now between news and advertising. In fact, advertising is now being presented as news, as the hook for the product or the service being sold. And I wasn't, I wasn't aware of this until I read this piece this morning, that increasingly, the headlines in our news feeds on our phones are advertised-generated AI stories.
Sean McDowell: Wow.
Scott Rae: And I would say that the doctrine of truth in advertising is being challenged like never before.... Now, one of the things I sort of wonder about, and I think, how do we think biblically about this? And I just, I wonder how the biblical mandate to put aside falsehood and speak truth to one another from Ephesians 4:25 fits into this. Now, of course, ultimately, as you mentioned, the reason that we have the moral demands that we do is because of the character of the God that we serve.
Sean McDowell: Amen.
Scott Rae: Right? And the reason, the reason truth-telling is a mandate is because ultimately that reflects the character of God being a God, a God of truth. But one of the other reasons for the truth-telling mandate is that if we lose the obligation to the truth, then meaningful communication eventually becomes impossible. If you and I are having a conversation, Sean, and I can't distinguish between what you are saying as truth and falsehood, then we can't communicate hardly at all. And meaningful communication depends on the assumption of truth-telling that reflects reality. And in my view, the notion of truth-telling being the foundation for genuine communication, I think, has taken a hit here. And that's what worries me about this. And I worry about the cynicism that's gonna... That, that is being generated for all sorts of visual media now. You know, and I think some, and some rightly so, but the, you know, the things that you can do with this and the, you know, the guardrails are... I don't even- I don't hear anybody talking about too many of the guardrails on this, although God bless them, you know, YouTube has taken down thousands and thousands of videos that have been, that have been put on just in the last few days, because this has exploded there. And s- and they've, you know, they have- they've taken down videos that have pornography in them, that have Taylor Swift in them. You know, in fact, I thought about, making a video through one of these, Soar, or one of, or one of the equivalent. Meta's got one called Vibes. Making a video called- video entitled Taylor Swift and Taylor Kels- and, Travis Kelce Break Up- [laughing]
Sean McDowell: [laughing]
Scott Rae: ... And see, and see what, see what that would do. [laughing] but there, the means we have available now to fabricate reality are things that we've never had before. And I'm not super optimistic about the guardrails on this. Now, I think if anything, the guardrails have so far have been pretty limited. The law has, I think, been pretty impotent to step into this. And the way you... How, I mean, I'm not sure how you would enforce this in any case. So I'm concerned for our cultural ability to distinguish between reality and falsehood, I think is being challenged in a way that it never has before, that threatens our ability to actually meaningful, meaningfully communicate with each other.
Sean McDowell: You know, your point about amusing ourselves to death, I think we saw that this week with AI. I mean, the issue we're not really talking about is the shutdown, which in some ways is political theater, and, honestly, this is not a political... I'm not making a political point here. But Trump, part of his response to the Democrats was to make this AI-generated video of him wearing sombreros-
Scott Rae: Mm-hmm
Sean McDowell: ... Making fun of the Democratic leader, mocking Schumer. Now, I had a couple thoughts of that. Part of it was, like, kind of funny, but the other part was, like, tragically funny. Like, this is a serious issue about government being shut down, what we fund, what we don't fund, and AI has, like, shifted the conversation to the ridiculous, to who can troll the other one the most, who can shape the narrative culturally, get views, and get clicks. That cannot be healthy for a vibrant discussion within a society about truth and issues that matter. It just can't be. So there's always been built-in tendencies for human beings to try to win for political gain, to try to gain power, to tr- just try to control things. AI gives more incentive and plays to our baser instincts to do this, and so as Christians, we just have to guard against this and be careful that we don't fall into that trap. Some of the other things in the article that jumped out to me is I thought there was good advice about pause and check your biases. I was like, "That's great." Pause every single time when there's a certain bias. And after reading this article this morning, Scott, I got on X, and I read a few posts. I thought, "You know what? How do I know if these are even true?"
Scott Rae: Yes. That's a great question.
Sean McDowell: How do I know? One showed a picture of a beautiful 19-year-old girl and said, "Just remember how evil Hamas is. She was burned to death." Well, we know for sure that Hamas did horrible things like that, but I don't know if I can verify that particular story or not. I don't know, but that image was powerful. And then there were, there were videos of once the peace agreement was signed, there were videos of bombings saying, "Look what happens afterwards." And I'm thinking, "Well, I don't know if that was before or afterwards." I can't... Like, so many things I'm more and more [chuckles] skeptical about on all sides of this, and I don't love that. It's harder to know what is true, and I find myself believing the things that fit my preconceived narrative, which, again, is something that human beings naturally do.... Now, I've got, I got a couple other sources here, or a couple other points I was gonna make, but I sense you wanna jump in here and make a point or two.
Scott Rae: Well, you know, our colleague, J. P. Moreland, ha- I think was, has been well known for saying, in commenting sort of on the, on cultural shifts, that, the makeup person has replaced the speechwriter. And what he, I think what he meant by that is that image has replaced reality, image has replaced substance as being the thing that we value the most. And I would say here, the videographer has replaced the speechwriter here. And that the image has, it now has the ability to dominate the substance in ways that it never... And it can obscure the substance in ways that it never has before. And that, as a cultural trend, that is, I think is very troubling. And I think what it requires is a degree of discernment about what's true and what's not, what's reality and what's, and what's not. And I think it's in- it's gonna be incumbent upon, [lips smack] the c- the companies that are, that are hosting these platforms, and I think it's gonna be incumbent on, you know, those of us who are in education, and in our churches, to help, to help our students and to help our folks in our churches exercise the kind of discernment that they're gonna need to going forward. And I'm not, I'm not super optimistic about the companies helping us do that.
Sean McDowell: Sure.
Scott Rae: I'm, I'm, you know, I mean, maybe at one point, the, you know, the pushback on, you know, the levels of, you know, for sort of ridiculousness with these, with these, you know, with Sora and other video-generating, applications will force companies to take steps back. But just the way that, you know, the way that they're, they're being received so far, and being sold so far... I mean, I looked, I looked at the site for a couple of these already, and they are, they are being sold as things that will revolutionize the way we do, the way we look at reality. And, you know, that by itself, I think, is really troubling. So I, you know, I don't know what this is gonna do to, you know, to our, you know, to our film school, that's, you know, is teaching people to produce videos with real actors and do it sort of the old-fashioned way. You know, I don't know what that's gonna do to, you know, the entertainment industry. I mean, all of this, th- you know, these AI, [lips smack] you know, things like Sora, they're just gonna get better and more sophisticated-
Sean McDowell: That's right
Scott Rae: ... And more real- and more realistic looking. What we're seeing here is these are, these are really, Sean, just prototypes that, you know, and I'm, I'm sure there are gonna be lots of bugs in these and things that they'll have to work out over time. They will definitely improve, you know, pro- and the product we see today will be vastly different than what we see a year from now.
Sean McDowell: [lips smack] And I think the key is not just that the technology increases, but it gets easier. In the past, a videographer required training, required [chuckles] skill.
Scott Rae: Yeah.
Sean McDowell: Now, you just type in to throw in a photo, and you get something as if you had the skill, so it democratizes it in a sense, which I think it raises a whole bunch of other questions and problems.
Scott Rae: Yeah.
Sean McDowell: I would just-
Scott Rae: Which can also put it in the hands of all sorts of bad actors, too.
Sean McDowell: That's exact- yeah, that's right. I just, I would remind us, you know... I've mentioned this verse before, I think about it a lot, Proverbs 18:17: "The first to speak in court sounds right until the cross-examination begins." I try to live by that, but now [chuckles] I'm just building into my mind more and more and more. Read another side, check another source, get the facts first. We should have always done that. It's more important than ever, that we do that, I think, as believers. All right, we've got a range of topics today. This one, you and I both saw pop up and thought was important, and it's tied to a new bill, that's, going to the Supreme Court, tied to conversion therapy from a 2019 bill that was passed in Colorado. And the bill passed in Colorado was House Bill 19-1129, [inhales] and they define conversion therapy as any practice or treatment by a licensed physician specializing in the practice of psychiatry that attempts or purports to change an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity, including efforts to change behavior or gender expressions, or to eliminate or even reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings towards individuals of the same sex. Now, this bill is specifically for those under 18, and certified addiction counselor means a person who is, you know, an addiction counselor certified pursuant to this article, it says. So they're not talking about pastors. There seems to maybe be a religious exemption that's built into this, but there's about 20 other states that have similarly banned the practice. And there was a psychologist who's pushed this to the Supreme Court, saying that she could not have the right and the freedom of speech for kids and others who came to her and said, "I have certain feelings, like attractions, and I don't want to live them out. Can you help me reduce them?"... And she's arguing that this limits her freedom of speech, and this law should be overturned. Of course, the other side is saying that they are, conversion therapy is damaging and harmful, and allowing this would hurt LGBTQ kids and society as a whole. Apparently, in Colorado, they've never enforced the measure, but it's fines up to $5,000 for each violation and possible suspension or revocation of a counselor's license. There have been some other cases like this we don't need to go into, tied to what we might call the collision between LGBTQ rights and religious liberty, and, this seems to be the latest one that we will hear about in June. What's your thoughts on this?
Scott Rae: Well, Sean, I, you know, this is significant enough that I think it's worth our talking about before the Supreme Court actually makes its decision. Because y- we can understand the reasoning that's behind the argument on both sides is important to isolate. And I think it's, it's worth noting that, the therapist here from Colorado, she lost her two previous court cases- ... In the district court and then in the, in the state court of appeals, and now she's appealing it to the US Supreme Court, and I think the fact that they agreed to hear it was significant by itself-
Sean McDowell: I agree
Scott Rae: ... Regardless of what the decision will be. Now, I recognize some of the harms that prompted laws, and there are laws in about 20 states that ban this form of therapy. And some things, you know, some things I think went way out of bounds. I mean, we've heard anecdotal reports of, you know, shock therapy and cult-like-
Sean McDowell: Sure
Scott Rae: ... Types of things. How wide, how widespread those have been, I think, is up for debate.
Sean McDowell: Yeah.
Scott Rae: But the argument here, I think, pits free speech against professional responsibilities. And, you see, the obvious contrast here, and perhaps as one justice, Supreme Court justice pointed out already, perhaps a double standard in the law, is with physicians treating patients, especially adolescents with gender dysphoria, prohibiting them from denying them treatments or talking them out of it. Or the opposite law in Tennessee recently, that prohibiting gender-affirming treatments for minors, and now that was not specifically aimed at speech, but it's not hard to see it extending to trying to talk people into those treatments would be seen as very problematic. Now, Sean, what I, what I wonder about here is the right of ph- and I'm gonna use physicians as an example of this, not therapists per se, but the... What is, what is the right of physicians to promote treatments that are not in the medical mainstream, to promote treatments that are experimental? You know, what about physicians who discourage people from getting vaccinations, regardless of how you feel about those, or people who try to talk patients out of antibiotics for a virus? Which as you know, antibiotics don't treat viruses, but, you know, I've been prescribed that. I've had doctors recommend that to me for some viruses. And see, part of medical treatment is giving your opinion about what's indicated and appropriate in terms of treatments, and I think the line between speech and treatment is not nearly as sharp as the law in Colorado affirms, and even more blurry, I think, for therapists, when talk itself actually is the treatment. Now, I've, I've been around a lot of physicians who are trying to talk patients and families into certain things at the end of life, either treatments- ... That they may not want or into stopping treatments that they may not want to do. I mean, I've been, I've been a part of these conversations at the bedside for a long time.
Sean McDowell: Sure.
Scott Rae: And physicians, I think, have the right to practice medicine according to their conscience. That's a long-recognized standard, though I admit that's being eroded today, but I think it's still largely in place, for the most part, except in some of these really controversial areas. So I wanna be careful that we're not, we're not promoting a double standard here. And I think to recognize that, you know, that how a, how a physician recommends something and the treatment that they actually perform, that line is, you know, a lot, a lot more blurry than we might think. It's just not really- it's not as clear-cut as I think the law in Colorado is suggesting. So I've got a few more things to say about, how to frame this within a Christian worldview, but give me your take on that, on this first.
Sean McDowell: I think the way you framed it, Scott, is helpful in terms of a physician or a therapist who wants to suggest a kind of treatment that goes against the mainstream. That's question... That, that's a larger question we can explore in itself. My concern here is that I think the mainstream is completely misguided, and that therapists, especially Christian therapists, should push back against what's accepted. And we've seen this happen in the UK with the Cass report, specifically tied to gender-affirming care, not tied to conversion therapy. And what's come out of it is that there's been this narrative that has been accepted by the mainstream, that we need to move from pronouns, we need to move into puberty blockers, and in many cases, into surgery itself. That's what's best for the child. And the Cass report is like, "Time out! There is not the positive results that should be [chuckles] behind this to justify such affirming care." They're pushing stop.... In the US, we're still moving forward with this and ignoring the science. Now, not as much research, again, has been done to challenge the narrative that conversion therapy is harmful, but I think the studies are biased. I think these studies are ideologically driven. I think the samples are too small from what I've seen. And there was even a study from, Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse about 20 years ago, a longitudinal study when they were at Wheaton. And it was interesting how they categorized, like, success and failure based on the goals of the person who came to them. What goals did they want? Did they want to change their sexual orientation? Did they want to reduce their sexual attraction? Did they want to just better control their behavior? And then they assessed, based on their, goals, months, and then again, they did a second part of the study, like, six or seven years later. And they basically said there's some evidence of people having changed their sexual orientation, or at least reporting it, but that's a small percentage. Much more common was just people who said the sexual attraction reduced, "I was much more able to control my behavior," and then many of them... And really, the report said there's no damage that's done from this kind of, what is called conversion therapy. So the problem is everything has been lumped into what's considered conversion therapy, whether it's shock treatment or sometimes, again, anecdotal, like you said, take a male who's not, doesn't say he's attracted to females and show him female porn. I mean, I've heard these stories, [chuckles] and they're just terrible and horrible. Again, how widespread they are, I don't know. But that's lumped in with, like, prayer. That's lumped in with Bible study. That's lumped in with, like, exploring deeper issues that might be at play. We see that with gender dysphoria. Often, there's comorbidities that are deeper, and can we at least explore that that's a possibility with sexual orientation? And I think the resistance and onslaught has been so strong against this because the reason is, sexual orientation on the narrative today, with its Freudian roots, is tied to somebody's identity. So if I'm going to challenge and say you can change, or even as the wording in this bill is, even lessen my attraction, that's an assault on the idea that my sexual attractions are a part of who I am. So I'm proud of this lady for speaking up. I hope she wins to the Supreme Court. I think a lot is at stake. That's my initial take. What do you think?
Scott Rae: Yeah, I think that's a good insight. And I don't have any doubt that the, this, that ideology is a significant part of what's driving these laws that prohibit conversion therapy. But here's... And we've, we've not talked about this before, so the point I'm about to make-
Sean McDowell: Okay
Scott Rae: ... And so you may see, you may see this differently than me.
Sean McDowell: Okay.
Scott Rae: But I'd, I don't view, if, the, if we wanna bring a Christian worldview to this issue, I don't view giving up the desire as necessarily the goal. Because I would view the s- the same-sex attraction and the trans desires similar to what I would call other disordered desires. They're not the way God intended. They're the result of the Fall, but I'm not, I'm, I'm not so sure about holding people culpable for desires that are not chosen. Now, I think you can... There's a lot you can do to nurture those desires. That's, those are choices. Acting out on those desires are choices. But I think for most people who have same-sex attraction, the, they don't... This is, this is why they say, "I was born this way," because they don't, they, I think they can't recognize the point. And I don't believe they were born this way, and there's no g- no genetic evidence that, to support that.
Sean McDowell: Sure.
Scott Rae: But I think what they mean by that is, "I've never... I did- I didn't consciously choose to feel this way about the same sex."
Sean McDowell: Sure.
Scott Rae: Now, I think the goal, I would say, is contentment without the corresponding behaviors. Not so much giving up the desires permanently, though I would, I would admit that sometimes does happen, but I think those cases are more rare than the norm. So, and I would say giving up the desire is not a condition of being faithful to Jesus, either. Being content without the behavior is a condition of being faithful to Jesus. And so, and this is why, in my view, to take this a little further, the doctrine of free will is so important for us and why we re- ultimately reject deterministic views of human behavior. Because I think it's really tough to hold people accountable for things that they are not choosing. So the, I would, I would suggest it's, it's similar to the way we treat people who have, other, addictions to other disordered desires. Like, we don't, we don't necessarily expect an alcoholic to give up the desire for alcohol. What we expect is for them to be content with where they are without the behavior that's associated with it. We say the same thing for people who have a problem with pornography, people who have drug addiction, other types of disordered desires. So though I admit, the desire is not morally neutral. It's not, it's not... It was not part of God's original design. But I do think it's, it's... I find it problematic to hold people culpable for things that they have not specifically chosen. So that's, th- I would say the goal-... Y- if conversion therapy is helpful in lessening that desire, that's totally appropriate. And if it does reverse the desire, I say so much the better. But even if it doesn't work, I don't, I don't think that necessarily changing someone's desire is always the right goal.
Sean McDowell: Here's what I would say. Maybe I'd nuance this a little bit, and maybe you'd agree with me or not. I would agree that the goal is not just to change somebody's same-sex sexual desire, but is that a part of the larger goal if that desire-
Scott Rae: It, it could be
Sean McDowell: ... Malformed or not in line with God's design? So same, you gave the example of pornography, you gave the example of alcoholism. In all of these, the big goal is to be holy as [chuckles] God is holy. That's 1 Peter 3. So somebody could get rid of the desire for alcoholism and not be holy s- because of some other area in their life. Somebody could, you know, get rid of the same-sex sexual desire, but then still be in sexual perversion in some other fashion. So the goal is holiness in all areas of our lives. I think that's the goal that we're shooting for. We've hit on a debate of what's called concupiscence, which are certain desires that we have that don't line up with how God has designed us to be and wants us to live, but we didn't choose those desires. And we don't have to settle this right now, but one side would say, "You're not morally culpable if those desires just emerged. It's what you do with them." I see the point of that. Part of me says, "Well, these desires emerge from my heart. These desires emerge from my brokenness. They emerge from my character," and not just same-sex sexual attraction, all untoward desires. We should mortify the flesh, and they're an opportunity to cry out to God for His grace in our lives. We don't have to settle this right now. We could do a whole show on this at some point. I think that's where this, these debates kind of go. But I just want people to see that this conversion therapy, the nuance, the debates is often left out of this. The idea of just prayer, Bible study, confession before the Lord, and trying to align my desires with who I think God has made me to be, if that is not allowed by a licensed therapist to somebody who comes to them and says, "I want help with this," something is profoundly wrong with our system, and we need the Supreme Court to shoot this down. So this is something maybe we can be in prayer about as well.
Scott Rae: Hear, hear.
Sean McDowell: So, all right, one more story, Scott, and then we'll get to a couple questions. This week, the big story in the news was that Israel-Hamas cease fire. Now, this was not... And the hostage deal. This is not a peace plan. It's step one in a multi-part, multi-step peace plan that Trump is putting forward. But it's hard not to see this and have a certain sense of hope, and joy, and optimism. And part of me, Scott, knowing what happened on October 7th, two years ago, and that there's still about 20 people who are hostages in Israel, and the people in Gaza still suffering, saying, "Please, [chuckles] Lord, may this go through and may we have peace," it's something to pray for. Some of the details, I'm sure people have been tracking this, but the, there's-- Trump has this, like, 20-point plan that he hasn't laid out yet. And some of the things like who's gonna rule over the Gaza Strip when this is done, exactly when the fighting ends, the ultimate fate of Hamas, some of these things have not been settled yet, but we are moving towards a final signing, where about 2,000, roughly, prisoners from before and during the war of, Palestine will be released to 20 of the remaining, hostages. And by the way, Hamas said it's probably gonna take them longer, like maybe 10 days, to even find the remains of some of the other hostages that were killed. So many more details could be said, but tell me your take on this. How do we think biblically about this?
Scott Rae: Well, I think you're right. This is only a first phase. I say it's significant progress, but a long way from a comprehensive agreement. Israel still has a significant presence in Gaza. They've, they've moved back, or will be moving back, to occupying about half of the area. And you're right that, Israel's releasing a whole, a whole lot more than, the, than the number of hostages. So the releases, I think, are heavily disproportionate, and there's s- really critical issues still to be determined about Hamas disarming, further withdrawal of Is- of Israeli's forces, who governs and secures Gaza in the future, what's to prevent this from happening again in the future? The question that raises for me is, what will a lasting peace require? And there have been several comments on this. [lips smack] and I think that what it requires ultimately, Sean, I don't think is anything militarily, anything by government, but it's a, it's a cultural and a, and I think eventually a change in people's hearts. And here's, Brett Stephens was quoted in the New York Times a couple of days ago when he saw this coming, and about sort of what have we learned from the two-year war?... And one of the p- one of the points he makes is that the only, I'm quoting him here, "The only viable path to a sustainable Palestinian state is a cultural revolution among Palestinians that ends once and for all the fantasy of Israel's destruction." This is why I think militant groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, that have Israel's destruction in their charters, I think have rightly been ruled out as being on the table for authorities in Gaza or in the West Bank. And I think what- the argument that Israel needs to make is about the right of their country to exist as a Jewish state. And I would say, Sean, that no different than the right of the Irish to an Irish state, or the right of the Greeks to a Greek state. And I think this is, you know, there's, you know, there's, there's been excesses on both sides, though I don't... I think you- we can debate about the p- the proportionality of it. But I think it's, I think for Israel, I think it's been challenging for them to try to make peace with groups who are committed to their destruction. And so it's... I think it is not unreasonable for Israel to assume, to have assumed going into this, that they don't really have a partner for peace. Now, whether that may change or not, it sounds like, you know, the, you know, the Palestinians were celebrating yesterday, that the ceasefire might actually take hold and provide relief for them. But, you know, the devil's in the details on this, and we'll see kinda what the rest of it involves and where people invariably will push back on some of the details of the proposal. So anyway, that's where- that's my take on this. I'm, I'm delighted that, we ha- we have a ce- a ceasefire. However, there was a, there was a ceasefire in place-
Sean McDowell: Yeah
Scott Rae: ... Before October 7th of 2023. So I understand the skepticism on both sides about whether ceasefires will be a lasting thing.
Sean McDowell: It is kind of remarkable. If you told me some time ago that both Palestinians and Israelis would be celebrating a deal, I would've thought, "I don't even know what that conceivably [chuckles] looks like." So that's a positive first step as far as I could tell, that both sides were positive about this. I think that just shows how people are weary from the war. There's Israelis who have lost so many. I read about one Palestinian today who said 150 people in his extended family were dead. I mean, that's just a tragedy, however you look at it. I think you're right. You know, I think it was Martin Luther King Jr. Who's like... I don't remember the wording, but it was the effect of, and you can correct me on this one, Scott, it's like, "Laws can't make my neighbor love me, but they can prevent him from lynching me." [chuckles]
Scott Rae: Close enough.
Sean McDowell: Like, the government has a role. So you're right. Like, there could be some peace plan, potentially, if there were laws in place and strong enough military. Like, that seemed to somewhat last for a while, but then it was blown up on October 7th. Lasting peace is only gonna come about with a change of heart. A change of heart. Now, I find it interesting, and I know some Christians would disagree with this, but you go back to the Abrahamic Covenant in Genesis 12 and 15 and 17. It's like, "I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse those who curse you." Now, I understand there's a difference between the nation of Israel under that promise and the nation of Israel today. I don't know that you can map every single thing on identically, and that certainly wouldn't give Israel a pass to do whatever they want. They still need to be held accountable, as actually they were in the Old Testament at times when they did things that were immoral. But I think there's commonality in land, commonality in the traditions, commonality in the language, that actually, for the Palestinian people and so much [chuckles] of the Middle East, if they would come to accept and not want to destroy Israel, it would actually lead to the flourishing of all people in the area and beyond, and that only takes place with a change of heart. That feels impossible, right? Like, you just feel like, "How is that possible?" But you know what? I've been reading Luke, and it's like, with God, all things are possible, and we can pray for that. And if this doesn't work out, it's like we've given it the best try [chuckles] that we can. I think that's all that we can do, so I'm optimistically encouraged and just hoping and praying, step by step, that we can get to the place that you're talking about.
Scott Rae: Hear, hear. I say that, you know, let's wait and, let's wait and see for phase two and three, and see where we are after that.
Sean McDowell: All right, Scott, let's take two of these questions today. Let's pick these out. We always get more than we can take. This one says: "Recently, our pastoral staff has started making baptism a requirement to participate in communion. This is a new concept for me. Biblically, I believe baptism is important in the life of a believer, but this is the first time I've heard that baptism is a prerequisite for... To communion. Our lead pastor explained baptism is a door that allows Christians to come to the table and take communion. I'd love to know your thoughts on this topic, as I try to think biblically about it. Does the Bible teach that baptism is a requirement to participate in communion?"
Scott Rae: Sean, I'm not aware of any place that makes baptism a condition for communion.... Now, faith is-
Sean McDowell: That's right.
Scott Rae: And, and I say, but Paul is very clear in 1 Corinthians 11 that self-examination is a condition. Harboring sin is a condition. But it sounds like if baptism is a door, I mean, I can, I can see that as a, as a, as an open door, but not a closed one. And so I think, you know, i- we need to emphasize that, you know, baptism is the public proclamation of faith that's expected of people when they come to faith. But, you know, in my case, it w- it was, you know, we- Young Life didn't baptize people. And, we weren't really involved in a, in a local church that much that did, that did much baptizing. And so I, you know, I, my- I didn't get baptized until I was a pastoral intern when I was a seminary student. Should I have been denied communion for- ... You know, probably six, seven or eight years, before that? I don't, I don't see, I don't see anything in the scripture that makes that, a closed door for people from taking communion.
Sean McDowell: I think that's a good answer. I mean, to be a believer is... Faith is what is required. And, you know, and there's some references in 1 Corinthians about your life and your conscience before the Lord being right, like sin against a brother, but there's nothing about communion being required. So that's a red flag for me in principle, especially when I read books like Galatians, that's like people were adding on top of salvation by faith, and it was so clear that it is by grace, not by works. Of course, that's Ephesians or in Titus, not works of righteousness that we have done, that when we start adding steps, it gives me a red flag. Now, this is not a step for salvation, so I'm glad they didn't say that. In some ways, I could maybe, and this is just a maybe, I don't know how to land this any better, if there was a church that was really clear in terms of saying, "Look, this is for us. Our leadership wants to emphasize the importance of having a public statement of baptism, and so we've decided from the top down that we're gonna hold communion for these reasons, even though it doesn't mean you're not saved," I could maybe, [chuckles] the best I could do is say maybe. It's still a red flag for me, 'cause I could think of a lot of exceptions, like you said, where we wouldn't wanna do that. So red flag, pause. I'd go in and talk with the pastor and get a lot more clarification of what's behind it, why they do it, what the biblical basis is, and start there, would be, would be my suggestion.
Scott Rae: Yeah. I would, I would expect that the reason is sort of like what you explained, that they would emphasize the importance- ... Of baptism, but I wouldn't do it by holding communion hostage to it.
Sean McDowell: Good, good stuff. I think that's wise. I think that's good stuff. All right, in a recent episode on physician-assisted suicide, Scott routinely referred to medical aid in dying. That is the term that promoters of euthanasia and assisted suicide use to obfuscate that doctors are actively involved in killing people. Wouldn't it be better to use terms that shed light on what is really going on? Seems to me we shouldn't participate with the anti-God crowd and rename evil to make it sound more palatable. I'd love to hear you address this issue.
Scott Rae: Well, for one, the podcast with Dr. Gallagher was really clear what our view of medical aid in dying was. We were not, we were not trying to obfuscate anything, and I don't think that we're being a- we're not being accused of that. But I would say that the language that you use might depend on the setting.
Sean McDowell: Okay.
Scott Rae: Because for s- for some settings, using that language will get you marginalized and precludes you from entering the conversation, and I don't wanna, I don't wanna do that. I think for... In other settings, I think it's totally appropriate. Nobody- I mean, everybody knows that, you know, doctors are actually causing the death of patients in medical aid in dying. Though the category, I think, is a little bit broader to also include the termination of life support, in addition to euthanasia and assisted suicide. So it's, it's, it's, it's a broader umbrella term that doesn't just refer to those two things- ... But it refers to, you know, and the termination of life support may be totally appropriate. Now, it may not be, but I'd say not necessarily, that's not necessarily inappropriate, as we've talked about several times before, that if death is a conquered enemy in sc- in the Scriptures, it need not always be resisted by medical means. That doesn't mean that doctors can actively be the cause of death for a patient. So if I wanna, if I wanna be in the conversation with Canadian physicians, who some of whom are practicing this, I probably need to use the term that's gonna get me a seat at the table.
Sean McDowell: Fair enough. You know, part of the debate is just the power of words to define things. So even gender-affirming care is titled in a positive way, 'cause it shapes the way we think about it, right? That sounds more attractive than gender non-affirming care. So your key point is, yeah, words matter, depend on the context, but the key is that we are clear and describe what is going on apart from the term itself, and in the podcast, you were very clear about what medical aid in dying really is and what it entails and the evils behind it.
Scott Rae: Yeah, and the language we use can often be used to, express disapproval of a practice- ... As well. You know, we, instead of calling it female circumcision, we re- routinely refer to that as genital mutilation. And I think, you know, rightly so, because that's, that's, this is a true picture of what it is. So it does... You know, the, words mean something, regardless of how you feel about the pr- the particular pros and cons of a specific issue.
Sean McDowell: Well said. Good, good response. All right, my man, already looking forward to our conversation next week. 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, where Scott and I both teach, and we have master's programs in philosophy, apologetics, Old Testament, New Testament, marriage and family, spiritual formation, and so much more, in person and online. Keep your excellent questions and comments coming. You can email us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu. We would love it if you'd please take a minute and give us a rating on your podcast. Of course, we want a five-star, but we want an honest one. Every rating helps. Thanks so much for listening, and we will see you Tuesday when our regular episode airs. In the meantime, remember to think biblically about everything. [upbeat music]
