Biola UniversityAbortion access after Dobbs: Sean and Scott unpack a New York Times editorial on how telehealth and the abortion pill have reshaped the landscape, debate concerns about safety and framing, and address misleading claims around emergency care.
Rising antisemitism: The hosts analyze the resurgence of antisemitism across the political spectrum—including Tucker Carlson platforming Nick Fuentes—and distinguish conversation about Israel from violent antisemitic rhetoric.
Human–animal organ transplants: A look at emerging clinical trials using genetically modified pig organs, including ethical concerns, personal reflections from Scott, and discussion of stewardship, safety, and the future of transplant medicine.
Listener questions:
- Thinking biblically about economics.
- Healing from distorted theology.
- Rising popularity of faith-based films.
Episode Transcript
Sean McDowell: [upbeat music] Is the constitutional right to abortion and statewide access to it about to change? Is anti-Semitism growing today, and will it fracture the conservative movement? And scientists at the forefront of animal-human transplantation express considerable optimism about several clinical trials currently underway. These are the stories we will discuss, and we will also address some of your excellent 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 article from the editorial board at The New York Times, not an op-ed, is one we both tagged and independently wanted to talk about, and the title is "Abortion Has Remained Mostly Accessible. That Soon May Change." And of course, the editorial board views that possible change as being negative. Now, they say, "After the Supreme Court," "when it reversed Roe versus Wade, both supporters and opponents of the court's ruling expected number of abortions to fall." I did. But after nearly... "After all, nearly 40% of US women now live in a state with severe restrictions. But the number of women r- who received abortions has increased nationwide, even in most states with bans. This is a surprising outcome and raises a lot of questions about how the pill has transformed access to and the abortion debate." Now, it says in this article, one in four abortions in the US now take place through telehealth with pills that people order online. I was under the impression it's a lot higher than that, but this article is citing one out of four. "Basically, a doctor writes a prescription, a mail-order pharmacy fills it. When the pill arrives, women, including many living in red states, can take them at home to end a pregnancy in its first few months." Now, they're going on and on here about their concerns about this shift, and one way the debate has shifted is that they say abortion opponents are trying to restrict access by blocking the interstate mailing of abortion pills. So Louisiana and Texas, for example, have taken pretty aggressive steps, as you know. In Louisiana, prosecutors have filed criminal charges against abortion providers in New York and California, and in Florida, you can sue somebody, apparently, for distributing the abortion pill. So really, what we're seeing now are these interstate debates that are taking place. It is interesting that they say one worrisome development is that, Robert F. Kennedy, the secretary of health, he's directed the FDA to review the safety of mifepristone, the abortion pill, based on new data. So he obviously is pro-choice, but he's going to analyze this and look at it, which I think is a positive thing. Trump, of course, has stripped Medicaid funding from Planned Parenthood, so this article talks about the scrambling to get more funding for Planned Parenthood. I thought really interesting, one move, and then I want you to jump in here, Scott, is that California has begun allowing providers to remove their names, as well as the names of patients and pharmacists, from pill bottles. I mean, that's just incredible they would go to that length. A ton more could be said here, but give me your thoughts.
Scott Rae: Well, for one, I think just a quick comment on the statistics on telehealth, I think, are different than the statistics on the use of the abortion pill.
Sean McDowell: As a whole.
Scott Rae: As a whole.
Sean McDowell: That makes sense.
Scott Rae: So-
Sean McDowell: Okay, got it
Scott Rae: ... I think s- a lot of w- a lot of women who are prescribed the abortion pill-
Sean McDowell: Okay
Scott Rae: ... Do it via an in-person conversation with their physician first. So but the incidence of women who are ending pregnancies with the abortion pill, presumably in the privacy of their own homes- ... Is- that's w- that's well over, I think well over 40%. But it's the telehealth part that is, that is the 40% part.
Sean McDowell: Got it.
Scott Rae: So here's my immediate reaction to this, Sean, is that the way this article and the contemporary abortion discussion are framed- ... Is that's the whole ballgame here.
Sean McDowell: Okay.
Scott Rae: And seeing this, first of all, as reproductive freedom and healthcare for women beg- it actually begs the question of for whom? And it assumes the issue that is the real issue at stake, which is: what is the nature of the unborn child? Because if the unborn child's a person, then health- the question about healthcare has to include the fetus-
Sean McDowell: That's right
Scott Rae: ... In this, and it's not- and the woman, I think, is a... [chuckles] It's a bit narcissistic for the woman in that case to think that it's all about her. So a second way is if, is, that it's framed today is that the ethical discussion is around the safety of the abortion pill. And I'd want to say, well, safety, though, st- I think that's still debatable, and I'm pleased that-
Sean McDowell: For the woman, it's debatable.
Scott Rae: For the woman, yeah. It is. We know, we talked several weeks ago about the study that our friend Ryan Anderson and others put together using data from health insurance companies with thousands, like 8 to 9,000 women involved, and they show that there were adverse effects in roughly 10 to 12%- ... Of all the cases in which the abortion pill is used. But the p- the point of this is that the notion, the whole notion of making and keeping abortion safe and private assumes that the unborn is not a person.
Sean McDowell: That's right.
Scott Rae: Which is, of course, is the fundamental issue at stake, and without that assumption, the argument based on safety doesn't make any sense. And I think we can raise the question, not just healthcare for whom, but safety for whom? Because what may be a health risk for the woman is fatal for the unborn child. And so just the way, just the way it's being framed-... Gives it away. Now, they're, they're not shy about giving away their view on this. But it is true that the point, well, I think one of the points they make, that the abortion pill has transformed reproductive medicine. That's true, because the incidence of abortion now is done without surgical means, or at least without- ... Initial surgical means. Because it- we need to be fair, that in many cases, there is a surgical or some sort of medical follow-up that's necessary. But again, it's assumed that the abortion pill transforming reproductive medicine, it's assumed that that's a good thing. And that's the very... Sean, that's the very heart of the debate- ... That we're after. And that, as we say in academic circles, that's a classic case of begging the question.
Sean McDowell: That's right.
Scott Rae: Where you assume your conclusion and reason in a circle to get there. And again, making abortion safe and private assumes that the medication that enables women to end the lives of their offspring is a good thing. And I, you know, I admit abortion was not around when the Founding Fathers were crafting the founding documents, but I have a really hard time envisioning that the Founding Fathers gave their lives for the right of women to end the lives of their offspring.
Sean McDowell: Let me jump in. What do you mean it wasn't around when they framed it? I mean, we have the Didache in the first century talking about abortion.
Scott Rae: Yeah, not-
Sean McDowell: What do you mean?
Scott Rae: Yeah. Well, but not nearly... It wasn't nearly the issue that it, that it is today. It was-
Sean McDowell: So it's just on the radar of practice and worth addressing.
Scott Rae: It, it wasn't.
Sean McDowell: Yeah.
Scott Rae: I mean, I mean, when... There, there, I mean, there were really no medical means to end pregnancies. I mean, women had ways to do that, which, you know, were bad news for their health in most cases.
Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm.
Scott Rae: But, I think it's, it's a stretch, in my view, to think that the Founding Fathers gave their lives so that, so that women could end the lives of their offspring.
Sean McDowell: That, that makes sense. I agree with you 100% on that. I had a couple somewhat smaller points to this that jumped out to me. Of course, the editorial board of The New York Times is in favor of abortion rights, the way that it is called, so they're deeply concerned about this possible shift and limitation. But they're talking about... They said, "For abortions to remain as successful as they have been in the past three years, defenders of reproductive health," which is to your point, "and freedom will need to fight back." Then they said something interesting: "They can do so confident that public opinion is on their side." And I thought, okay, yeah, if you're gonna argue for something, it gives you confidence to know that the public is on your side, but I think it might reveal a little bit more of the worldview here behind it. Christians should not be, held back by opinion polls. Whether the polls are on the side of pro-life or pro-choice, we do that which is right. One of the big arguments for same-sex marriage was, "You gotta be on the right side of history. We need the polls in our favor." And I'm more concerned if not I'm on... God is on my side, but I'm on God's side, doing the right thing. And I've been reading Deuteronomy in the morning, and ver- chapter seven. So Deuteronomy, of course, is a message that Moses gives to the Israelites before they enter the Promised Land, and he can't go in. It says, "When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess, and he drives out the many nations before you, seven nations more numerous and powerful than you are, and when the Lord your God delivers them over to you and you defeat them..." In other words, God is the one who's on the side of those who fight for justice and do that which is right. I'm far more concerned with being on God's side than I am on the side of some poll, and oftentimes Christians and non-Christians get pulled from polls rather than principle. One other thing that jumped out to me about this, Scott, is one of the things they cite is, they say, quote, "Since Dobbs, more than 100 patients have been denied emergency care or experienced harrowing delays because doctors were afraid to treat them. At least five women in Georgia and Texas died 'cause they did not receive care that they needed, according to ProPublica." Now, I did a search on this and said, did these women die because of the laws in Georgia, which at the time, and I believe still today, was it limited abortion after six weeks when a fetal heartbeat is detected, you couldn't have an abortion. Is that why these women didn't get the care? Because that's what's implied here: if we restrict access to abortion, women are going to die. Well, I had to go through seven pages of Google, where I hit next-
Scott Rae: [chuckles]
Sean McDowell: ... Next, to find a critical article against this narrative that's in The New York Times, and it was in the Washington Examiner. And they said, rightly so, that there's no evidence that the Georgia abortion ban is what caused the death or that the doctors would have faced charges for treating her. And here's in part what happened, is, like I said, the Georgia law against abortion has a ban after six weeks. So the woman they talk about, Amber Thurman, traveled to North Carolina. She had been given the pills there, 'cause you couldn't get them in Georgia. Five days later, after she returns home, she went to an emergency room, and she was given delayed antibiotics and a D&C, like, 20 hours later, but it was too late. She was actually pregnant with twins, tragically enough, who were dead upon arrival.... So the report was that earlier care likely could have saved her life, and that's true. But why didn't she get earlier care? If you show up and you have twins already dead inside of you, there are no limitations whatsoever based on this law-
Scott Rae: Right
Sean McDowell: ... Doing the D&C procedure. So I think this point that's just thrown in here in this article is incredibly manipulative, and the fact that it's repeated over and over again until seven pages deeper- ... I think is highly problematic of what's at stake in this debate.
Scott Rae: Well, this is a rebirth of the back alley abortion argument-
Sean McDowell: That's right
Scott Rae: ... That was prevalent, you know, prior to 1973. But, but statistically, prior to Roe v. Wade being passed, the vast majority of abortions that were done were done by licensed medical professionals in licensed facilities. And so the, I think the notion of the back alley abortion, again, is, assumes that the unborn child's not a person, because just to keep it, just to keep it safe presumes that it's, it's a good thing that we're promoting. Now, of course, we don't want women to be, have their health endangered, and then-
Sean McDowell: Of course
Scott Rae: ... And some of those, some of those stories where, you know, care was delayed, I think are tragic.
Sean McDowell: They're tragic.
Scott Rae: But I think your point, I think, is a good one, that I think sometimes, some of the physicians were, I think, unduly nervous about what the law allowed them to do and what it didn't. So and I think the other part of this is the public opinion on abortion is not what is represented in this article. Because b- for a long time, what we've known is that the public is, does not support either extreme. They're, they're somewhere in the middle on this. The public does not support, in general, that abortion should be denied from conception forward, but neither do they support, that abortion should be legal throughout all nine months of pregnancy. And, and they... Most people support significant limits on abortion, you know, well past the, well past the point of viability. So I think that's a little bit misleading. The, the public opinion on this is slightly much more mixed than it's represented in the piece here. And just a comment, too, about being on the right side of history. I find that that's really ironic for a sec- a secularist to say that history has a right side. [laughing]
Sean McDowell: [laughing]
Scott Rae: There... For the secularist, there is no arc to history.
Sean McDowell: That's a great point.
Scott Rae: It's only if you believe that God is the- ... If it's His story- ... That history has even resembles having an arc to it. And so the, that argument, using that against the theist, that we're on the wrong side of history, I think is, really a self-defeating argument.
Sean McDowell: That's a great point. I love that. It's the same we often hear with morality. The morality is subjective, but you're a bigot, and you're hateful-
Scott Rae: Exactly
Sean McDowell: ... And you're immoral. Same kind of inconsistency. And again, we see that because people who may not believe in God and advance a secular worldview live in God's world and are made in God's image, as Francis Schaeffer often pointed out. Well, this next article, Scott, is about an issue that's just kind of been on my radar for a while, but the last few weeks really bothered me. And we haven't talked a lot about antisemitism today. Or not just today, but antisem- antisemitism in our cultural moment today, we haven't talked about in the years we've done this podcast as much as I think we can and should. This is a piece by Bret Stephens, again, New York Times. It's an opinion piece, and he says... So he's talking about in the past couple weeks, Nick Fuentes, who's a white nationalist, he's praised Stalin and Hitler and advanced a lot of antisemitic ideas, very boldly, developed a significant audience, was platformed by Tucker Carlson. And there's those who have kind of def- in the right, that have defended Carlson, people like Megyn Kelly, saying, "Well, he's just trying to have conversation, trying to find common ground, trying to maybe clarify differences." And then there's those in the concerned movement, like Ben Shapiro, who's Jewish, have been like, "Absolutely not. You can't have somebody on like this and platform and normalize them. He's like a Trojan horse." He would argue that Tucker Carlson was like a Trojan horse with this interview with Fuentes, bringing that kind of antisemitism into the conservative movement. That's where this debate has been. This article points out, it says, by Bret Stephens, that antisemitism was supposedly banished twice from the conservative universe in the past. In the 1950s, William Buckley decreed that nobody, on the masthead of the antisemitic American Mercury would appear in the pages of his own National Review. So he stood for that in the past. Part of the argument is this view of history that Winston Churchill, not the German Fuhrer, was the real villain in World War II. And apparently that Pat Buchanan, I don't know, I haven't looked into this, advanced some of those ideas, and these are some of the ideas that Tucker Carlson has toyed with today as well. And so it's literally, we're seeing it before us, tear apart the conservative movement. Now, why aren't we talking about the left? Because you could argue that there's been far more [chuckles] criticism of Israel on the left for a long time, going back. So how did this happen? Why is it taking place? This article suggests something interesting. It said, "A second factor is the forced merger of Christianity with conservatism." And Stephens says... Now, he's not a conservative, so this is kind of a critique from him. He says, "Mainstream American conservatives used to believe our sacred texts were the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution." and then he says, "Now it's the New Testament."... So he thinks this fusion of what he would probably call a Christian nationalism maybe has some basis behind this. Now, he does give one last point here. He says, "It bears reminding that anti-Semitism isn't merely a prejudice; it's a conspiracy theory about Jews who actually killed Christ, or brought on the bubonic plague, or got America embroiled in nus- unnecessary wars in the Middle East, or replaces American workers with cheap immigrant labor." This author and others are profoundly concerned that anti-Semitism is having a new day, also within the concerned movement in ways we arguably haven't seen in the past.
Scott Rae: Sean, my first reaction to this is that this is the oldest form of bigotry.
Sean McDowell: [chuckles]
Scott Rae: And it emerged back in ancient times when life was much more tribal than it is today. But this is, this is also one that the church has struggled with historically. This is not, this is not a pretty chapter of church history. And I think Christianity, I think, has gotten criticism for being inherently anti-Semitic. And that's a different, that's a different point. In fact, I had a philosophy student tell me one time that in her history class in a state university, the prof stated as fact, and I quote, "If it were not for Christianity, the Holocaust would never have happened."
Sean McDowell: Wow. Wow.
Scott Rae: Now, I think, you know, for another example of this, I think, Richard Hayes, the great New Testament scholar, in his otherwise really good work entitled The Moral Vision of the New Testament- ... Although he's, he's recently changed his mind on some of those things that he espoused in that original work.
Sean McDowell: Yeah, he's become- ... Affirming.
Scott Rae: Yeah.
Sean McDowell: Make it very clear. And by the way, since we brought his name up, I did a extensive critique of that work, very fair. People can find it on YouTube. But this work you're referring to is really solid and important.
Scott Rae: It, yeah, it actually is... Except for, except for this part, where he claims that the New Testament actually i- has, is the roots of anti-Semitism.
Sean McDowell: Oh, wow! Okay.
Scott Rae: And he cites ex- for example, he cites a passage like John 8:44, where he's speaking to the religious leaders, saying that, "You, you belong to your father, the devil." And he has some other... Jesus has some other really harsh things to say to the, to the religious leaders. However, it's been misapplied historically by the anti-Semitic emphases that have come out in the church periodically as referring to the entire nation of Israel, who is of their father, the devil, and the entire nation of Israel, who is accused of crucifying Christ. So anybody who is Jewish is tarred by that. And what Jesus had in mind there, he was speaking specifically to the religious leaders, not to the Jewish people as a whole. And so that, just, what he's describing there is the religious leaders who were opposed to Jesus, who were the legalists of the first century, are of their father, the devil, because they were attributing to Jesus the devil's power to do his miraculous works. And so he just... It was a very creative way of turning the tables-
Sean McDowell: Yeah
Scott Rae: ... On the religious leaders. So, any case, I don't think that's a fair criticism. To say that, you know, the Nazis were, you know, anything but nominally Christian, I think, is a gross misrepresentation of that. And when push came to shove, Christian faith had virtually nothing to do with any of the policies of Nazi Germany. So I think I'd be... I, you know, I would've been- I would've just stood up and objected immediately if- ... If my Christian faith was blamed for something like the Holocaust-
Sean McDowell: Sure
Scott Rae: ... Which is as, I think, is pure and, an example of evil as we will, we may ever see. Now, in part, I think part of the question, Sean, that we, I think we have to wrestle with is: how do you distinguish between legitimate criticism of Israel-
Sean McDowell: That's fair
Scott Rae: ... And anti-Semitism? 'Cause those are not the same thing, and people who've been on the receiving end of charges of anti-Semitism will argue that that distinction is not, is not often fairly made.
Sean McDowell: Exactly. That's right.
Scott Rae: Now, I think you can be critical of Israel without necessarily being anti-Semitic at the policy level, but some of the critiques of Israel are clearly anti-Semitic. The slogan, for example, "From the river to the sea," you know, implies that the Palestinian state should encompass all of that, which basically, the clear implication of that is that the Jews belong in the sea. And sort of, you know, the Jews are welcome to settle anywhere in the land, but as long as it's west of Tel Aviv-
Sean McDowell: [chuckles]
Scott Rae: ... You know, they're okay. Denying the right of a Jewish nation, I think, is intrinsic... That's an anti-Semitic critique. Seeing Jews as the heart of international conspiracies, obviously. Now, I think you can maintain that the Gaza war was justified, but admit at the same time that, you know, there's an awful lot of collateral damage that's come as a result. And I think you can be critical of the settlements- ... And their incursion into the West Bank- ... As being, you know, counterproductive for peace without making judgments on the Jewish people for being Jewish, and that's what anti-Semitism does. Now, I may have a little different take, on the forced merger of Christianity with conservatism. I think there is, there is unabashed anti-Semitism creeping into the right today. ... But I don't think it's fair to take the extremes, such as Nick Fuentes and Tucker Carlson, as representative of cr- what I would call political evangelicals. Now, I'm not- I'm obviously not comfortable with this uncritical melding of faith with any set of political views on the left or the right. Because when historically, Sean, when faith merges with the political j- agenda, guess what gets minimized? Almost always, the faith element takes a significant backseat to the political agenda, and oftentimes it's used only for what we call therapeutic means, to justify positions that we've taken on otherwise non-faith grounds. So I'm, you know, I don't, I don't wanna make too much of this, 'cause I think most Christian conservatives would denounce the antisemitic part, at least I'm hopeful that they would.
Sean McDowell: Yeah.
Scott Rae: The fact that they've been platformed by people who I would, I would consider, on the extreme, is troubling to me- ... And I think the, you know, The Heritage Foundation, some of their employees quit over this, uh-
Sean McDowell: That's right
Scott Rae: ... Because the president actually sort of defended this. And in my view, that, in my view, that taints The Heritage Foundation a bit.
Sean McDowell: He defended Tucker having Fuentes on and the way he carried out the interview.
Scott Rae: Yeah.
Sean McDowell: That's right.
Scott Rae: Yeah. Which I think is, I think, I think is a very fair criticism. Because I don't know how... I don't, I don't wanna be seen as going soft in just lobbing softball questions at people who voice these kind of extreme views. So now, I've, I've not seen the interview. I just saw clips of it, but, I think... I don't wanna take the- I don't wanna take those folks as representative of the whole.
Sean McDowell: That's fair. I've watched the interview, and I've watched all the dialogue afterwards. And I would probably never have Fuentes on my podcast, and if I did, I would prep hard and push back mercilessly. I don't mind in principle that Tucker has somebody like him on, but I'd invite people to watch and compare his interview with Fuentes and Ted Cruz. He knows how to push back. This is a point that Shapiro brought out, and he handled them very differently. So it's not the platform, and I wanna be careful canceling people because they've platformed somebody. I don't wanna-
Scott Rae: Yeah
Sean McDowell: ... Play that game. But there are certain people with views like Fuentes have towards women, towards Blacks, towards Jews, that are abysmal and an abomination, and you have to call him out when he's been so bold about it. Now, I agree with you, being critical of Israel is not antisemitic. By the way, the Bible is critical of Israel. [chuckles]
Scott Rae: Of course.
Sean McDowell: I've been reading Deuteronomy-
Scott Rae: Read the minor, read the minor prophets.
Sean McDowell: I mean, yeah, the minor prophets. In Deuteronomy, over and over again, it's like, "You are a stiff-necked people. You have disobeyed," but God loves them, carries them like a father, but criticizes them. So to me, I guess the, i- you have a double standard if somebody is going to criticize Israel for their behavior in a way they wouldn't criticize another nation for that behavior, and I think we've seen that with the United Nations-
Scott Rae: Very much
Sean McDowell: ... The number of sanctions against [chuckles] Israel. It's many are more than every country combined. It's like China gets a pass? You've gotta be kidding me, so that's-
Scott Rae: Well, seem- mo- it seems like everybody gets a pass except Israel.
Sean McDowell: Everybody gets a pass. That's where I say there's... It's shifted from criticism to antisemitism. Now, the last line in this article is the tsunami of progressive antisemitism that hit after October 7th. I shared last week that I recently had a friendly debate and dialogue with Shabbes Kestenbaum, an Orthodox Jew.
Scott Rae: Mm-hmm.
Sean McDowell: And he said it was not after October 7th. He was at Harvard, and I shared that he... People can look online. He sued Harvard successfully for antisemitism. He's like, "It wasn't October 8th, it was October 7th that this started." And he said he grew up in America and had not experienced antisemitism really until that day, significantly, and it's only increased ever since. So it's kinda- it's been in the back of my mind. It's haunted me a little bit. He said, "Every Jew is now asking not when will we not be welcome in America, but if we'll hit the point that we have to go elsewhere." That's never crossed my mind-
Scott Rae: No
Sean McDowell: ... And thought as a Christian. I mean, we have conversation about, is California squeezing out [chuckles] Christians? It's still the best place to live on the planet, but that's not com- that's not even close to the kind of thoughts that Jews have to have, historically speaking, about how they've been mistreated, and that they would even have that thought in America, the land of the free, should concern us profoundly.
Scott Rae: Yeah, especially 'cause you have to raise the question, where else will they go?
Sean McDowell: Exactly. I think that's right. Now, there are some stats. I won't read all of them. You know I'm a stat guy, but the point is, we are seeing antisemitism grow amongst millennials and Gen Z-ers. So as populations are replaced, the trajectory is more and more in that direction, which is why we need to speak out about it. Last thing I'll say, I have so much to say about this. In, in some ways, we should do, we should do a full episode on this. Listeners, let us know [chuckles] if you want a full episode. But ask the question, is the Bible, the New Testament, the Gospels, antisemitic? I'd invite anybody to just read the Gospel of John and ask that question. So I've been- I was reading the Gospel of John for months, and if you start off, you'll notice in John chapter 1, John the Baptist, who's the forerunner for Christ, is described as a light to Israel. That's who he's called to. Then you go over to the second part of chapter 1, Philip, who, and Nathaniel, some of the apostles, are referred to as, Nathaniel as an Israelite in whom there's no deceit. So the forerunner is Jewish. The disciples are Jewish. You go to chapter 3 in John, and you have Nicodemus, who's a, from-... From the Pharisees, who is framed positively. He's defending Jesus in John 7, and then later burying him, and of course, Joseph of Arimathea, also Jewish. And I'm making the point, if it's antisemitic, why would you have any heroes framed positively [chuckles] in the scriptures-
Scott Rae: Mm-hmm
Sean McDowell: ... If the goal is to get rid of and blame the Jews? You also have this little passage that jumped out to me in John chapter 11, which of course, is the story of Lazarus's death. It says that some of the Jews were there mourning his death, which means they were there supporting and caring. Again, they're not cast as villains. They're cast as positive characters. So now the Jewish leadership of that time, the religious leaders of that time, the scriptures make a distinction between them and those who should be blamed. And so I just invite anybody who is antisemitic, read Mark, read Luke, read John. And I did say it's the last thing, but when I- when we interviewed Os Guinness, he said that one of the worst stains in history, in church history, is how Christians have treated Jews. When I had this dialogue with Chabas, which we're gonna put up in the next few weeks, I said, "Why aren't we having more conversations like this?" And part of it is the history of how Christians have treated Jews, and a certain fear that is there. So we've got to reach out and care, as we should for all people, but especially in light of this antisemitic moment.
Scott Rae: Well, I remember, I remember Mitch Glazer telling us that the church's history of antisemitism is the biggest obstacle to Jewish people coming to faith today.
Sean McDowell: That's right. Scott, this is an interesting time to transition to this article. When it jumped out in this article to me, I immediately thought, "I wonder what Scott thinks about this," 'cause this is your lane.
Scott Rae: [chuckles]
Sean McDowell: And it's kind of exciting that there's been an international conference, and researchers at the forefront of animal-human transplantation, is the term. Obviously, personal experience here for you, and thinking about it ethically. But they're talking about... They gave an example of two patients in their 60s, a man in New England and a woman in China, survived more than six months with kidneys from genetically modified pigs. Clinical trials are underway right now, and the technology seems to be coming along. I mean, they're going in and editing the genes of these to make them adaptable. It's really... It, it is science fiction. The big hurdle they talk about is the fear of kind of viral infections that could jump from the animal world into the human world, and this is gonna bring up a lot of concern for all of us, [chuckles] given the pandemic we went through five years ago. Last point in this, I had no idea that kidney disease is now the ninth leading cause of death globally, and is projected to become the fifth leading cause by 2040. This kind of technology could transform lifespan. What's your thoughts?
Scott Rae: Well, and it's, and it's- the prevalence of kidney disease is a death sentence- ... For people in the parts of the world that don't have access to dialysis. 'Cause they have no, there's just no other option for them to deal with this. Now, I, of course, I have an interest in this, given my history. In fact, my brother, had he just been on the transplant list without my being able to designate one for him, he would've been waiting eight years.
Sean McDowell: Eight years?
Scott Rae: Yeah.
Sean McDowell: Which would've been-
Scott Rae: And he would, he-
Sean McDowell: ... Too long
Scott Rae: ... Yeah, five years too late. He had, he had projected three years to live without this. And this would, this would never have been, I mean, never have been done. And I think the article points out, too, that it's sometimes cultural traditions that discourage organ donation after death. You know, in Japan, they cite it- they cite that there are 300,000 people on the list-
Sean McDowell: Wow
Scott Rae: ... And they have 2,000 donors a year.
Sean McDowell: That's amazing.
Scott Rae: And most of them come from living donors- ... Like, you know, siblings or other family members. Now, the, it's, the interesting part of this is that, I, my interest in this is much more personal than it is professional. This is- I haven't studied this area in a lot of depth-
Sean McDowell: Okay
Scott Rae: ... Just because it's been on, it's been sort of on the outskirts of medical practice for a long time. And then every once in a while, somebody writes about it. There's a, you know... And one of these things we've been doing for a long time, and we've been using the heart valves of pigs, particularly for children, because they seem to be pretty adaptable. However, with adults, it's different, but a lot of times, children who have heart valve issues, the pig valve works really well, but the valve doesn't grow with the children. And so as their-
Sean McDowell: Oh, interesting
Scott Rae: ... As their heart expands, if after a few years, you get leakage.
Sean McDowell: Oh, wow.
Scott Rae: And so you have to, you have to go in there and do this, you know, several times-
Sean McDowell: Multiple times
Scott Rae: ... During the, during, until the-
Sean McDowell: Wow
Scott Rae: ... Until the, till the child basically stops growing. And it, and it is, it is with pigs. And I think that the what's new in this is the genetic modifications to the animals, and it's not just one or two, it's, it's, like, 15 or 20 different genetic modifications- ... To minimize the prospect of your, of the recipient's immune system rejecting the organ. Now, that's an, that's an issue for everybody. I mean, my brother's been on immune-suppressant drugs, you know, now for almost two years. And, you know, and they had... He, he was mandated to be in absolute isolation for at least the first three months after getting a kidney, just because of the risk of infection, means he goes back, he goes back to the ICU if that happens.
Sean McDowell: Yeah.
Scott Rae: And then he was advised for another three months just to be super careful-... About who you come in contact with. In fact, they were, you know, when I went to see him before I left town to come back home, you know, his doctors were n- were not all that thrilled about me coming to see him, just because I'd been with, you know, I'd been with a lot of other people and didn't know what I'd picked up, and they were just so careful. But the need to do this with animal organs just goes on steroids, and it would, it would create... I think it would create other side effects if we didn't have the genetic modifications that would minimize that. My question, Sean, is it- is there anything in, anything intrinsically wrong with this?
Sean McDowell: Oh, man, that's exactly what I wanted to ask you. [laughing]
Scott Rae: And I, and I mean, other than the issues of safety concerns for the recipients, I d- I don't... I'm not sure I see anything intrinsically obvious about this. I could see this as part of the stewardship and the dominion over creation that's been given to human beings. If it's legitimate to consume animals for food, why would it not be legitimate to- ... To utilize their organs? You know, assuming that it's, you know, it's safe and effective and doesn't bring unnecessary risks to human beings. I think I could-- I see this as initially... Now, I'm, I'm open to conversation about this and open to be shown to be wrong, but the concerns at the ethical level are all about safety.
Sean McDowell: For the human being, obviously.
Scott Rae: For the human- yeah, obviously.
Sean McDowell: Yeah.
Scott Rae: Yeah. And, you know, if there are safety things that are intrinsic to the process, safety risks that are significant- ... Then that's, that's a different story. But just the notion of taking organs from animals for human benefit, I mean, we do testing on animals for all sorts of medical things. This seems to me just to be an extension of that. Now, I know there's a big, there's a big protest movement for the vivisection stuff that takes place in hospitals and in research centers.
Sean McDowell: Sure.
Scott Rae: And some of the research on animals, I think, is unnecessary.
Sean McDowell: Yeah.
Scott Rae: And I, you know, I would not be using animals to test cosmetics, you know, things like that. If it's for, you know, genuine stuff that's necessary for human wellbeing, that's a different story. But I don't see using animals' organs as all that different from this, as long as the animals are being treated humanely. And there's no reason to think that they're, that they're not on this.
Sean McDowell: And the reason is because humans have more value than animals do. I thought, what if they said, "Researchers at the forefront of human-animal transplantation," rather than animal-human transplantation? Even the New York Times would lose their minds and say-
Scott Rae: Probably so
Sean McDowell: ... "No chance!" And they should. Now, of course, pigs are not going to be doing these kind of experiments. They're not capable of doing so, which just shows humans uniquely do this, I think, in part because we're made in the image of God, different than the animal kingdom. But everybody would look at that and go, "Whoa, wait a minute, you can't take a human being and harvest its heart to go into a pig to save its life, no matter how much you love [chuckles] that pig, and it's your family pig." We would all take issue with that. Now, of course, the question is, why? Is this just an instinct that's been built into us by evolution? Then, if so, we don't have to obey it any more than we obey any other instinct. We resist it because we know humans are unique, and we're different, and only the Christian worldview can ground that. So I th- I think I'm with you. I'd love... I'd love a deeper ethical dive on this from some people, but if we're not going out of our way... Like, I would look at the kind of tests we're doing on pigs, making sure it's minimal pain, minimal damage.
Scott Rae: Well, and it may be that some of, some of- ... There may be some side effects of some of these genetic modifications- ... That would be, you know, the infliction of cruelty on animals. I think at that point, I'd have a problem with that. Because not so much because I believe that animals and human beings are equal, but because of the virtue, can... What it says about me as a human being, if I'm inflicting that kind of, you know, that kind of harm on animals, without any significant benefit.
Sean McDowell: You know, this is not even an ethical point about this, but what is interesting to think about is, if we did get this technology in a decade, and we had a way that we could help not just the rich, but even the poor, how many millions of lives would be saved is only a positive.
Scott Rae: It would be... Yeah.
Sean McDowell: But our e- our economy is built upon people dying at a certain age-
Scott Rae: [chuckles]
Sean McDowell: ... And not paying for the healthcare after a certain stage.
Scott Rae: Yeah.
Sean McDowell: That would be an unintended consequence that we would deal with, just as we've talked about this before, as people are aging and living longer and caring for- having more healthcare puts an impact on the economy. Now, I hope nobody hears me saying, "Oh, this is therefore a bad idea." [chuckles]
Scott Rae: No.
Sean McDowell: Completely not my point, but these kind of technologies save human life-
Scott Rae: Right
Sean McDowell: ... And have implications all around in ways that we would, of course, at that point-
Scott Rae: No, I'd say, and we'll, we'll deal with that in the same way we're dealing with the demographic trend at present.
Sean McDowell: There you go. Exactly. So, well said. All right, we've got some questions, but first, I wanna remind you, we would love to have you come study with us at Talbot School of Theology. As Scott and I have said on many occasions, we have master's degrees in theology, and philosophy, and apologetics, marriage and family, spiritual formation, online and in person. If you're interested, information is below.
Scott Rae: That's right, and you can have classes from you and me.
Sean McDowell: There you go. Yep, I teach a few classes, that's for sure. All right, so this question I thought was interesting. Says, "On last week's Weekly Cultural Update, it was evident that the two of us do not agree [chuckles] on how the Bible addresses economic systems." I love it when people pairs against one another. "Scott said economic systems are man-made, and I point out biblical principles that would apply to such systems. With young people in the church embracing socialism at higher and higher rates," and that's true, "it seems like the Church needs to help in thinking biblically about economics and its relation to social apology, policy. While I encourage you to dedicate a whole episode to this topic, I think it would be really helpful for the Church to know what books you each recommend for people who want to investigate this further."
Scott Rae: ... Sean, I actually don't think we disagree on that.
Sean McDowell: I think you're right.
Scott Rae: I think you pointed out that the Bible does not, and you were really clear, that the Bible does not endorse any specific economic system- ... But has general principles that apply to a wide varain- wide range of economic concerns and issues. And, and that, I think that's consistent with what I s- what I had to say, that capitalism was not handed down from on high. And we, but we both believe that market systems are more consistent with these general biblical principles. And in my view, it's, it's also the best means by which to fulfill the biblical mandate to care for the poor. Because, because it w- it's the only thing we've seen that actually works to do that. Now, in my... I'll, I'll, you know, at the risk of shameless self-promotion-
Sean McDowell: Sure
Scott Rae: ... Some of the best books on this are the one that I did with our former student, Austin Hill, called The Virtues of Capitalism.
Sean McDowell: Love it.
Scott Rae: It's, it's... I think it's a good work. Another one that I'd recommend, it's a little bit more nuanced than that, is, my good friend, the theologian Brent Waters, with his book called Just Capitalism.
Sean McDowell: Oh.
Scott Rae: And it's really well done. [chuckles] And then our friend Jay Richards, who we've had on several times before, did a book called Money, Greed, and God, which is a good look, I think, at some theological principles for an economic system.
Sean McDowell: You know what? I have not read that book by you, Scott. Shame on me. Let's do it-
Scott Rae: I'll, I'll actually g- I'll actually give you one. [chuckles]
Sean McDowell: Let's do an episode, and I'll interview you, and let's talk about this.
Scott Rae: Okay, good.
Sean McDowell: Let's make a note to go in depth about that. I also had to recommend [chuckles] Jay's book, Money, Greed, and God. Fantastic. That was a game changer for me. Just on this week, on Tuesday, my undergrad class, Gospel, Kingdom, Culture, I was talking about this with my students, and I made the point, like you said, that the Bible doesn't give us a specific economic plan, but there's principles, and we have to apply those principles effectively. And as Thomas Sowell, who pointed out, he has a huge book on economics, he says, "People think there's, like, laws of physics. People think there's laws in biology. But when it comes to economics, they think it's all subjective." He said, "There's objective laws-
Scott Rae: Yes, there are
Sean McDowell: ... In economics for a lot of reasons." Some of the quick biblical principles would be things like private property. I asked my students this week, I said, "How do we know the Bible is in favor of private property?" And a student goes, "Well, the ninth- the Eighth Commandment is, 'Don't steal.' [chuckles] You can only steal something if you have private property. Plus, Abraham bought a lot-
Scott Rae: Mm-hmm
Sean McDowell: ... From the Hittites to bury Sarah." The idea of the soul, which gives us free will, separates us from animals, that we're not like bricks that can be moved and manipulated by the government. We have choice. Things like sinfulness, humans are broken, and we are sinful, is going to play its way out in economic systems. And that we're also motivated by self-interest, which is not necessarily bad. That's what capitalism tapped into.
Scott Rae: No, we're, we're actually, we're actually mandated to pursue-
Sean McDowell: Right
Scott Rae: ... Our self-interest sufficient to take care of our own financial needs and those of our dependents.
Sean McDowell: Which is loving others as we love ourselves. I think that's right. But in the past, before capitalism, no matter how hard somebody worked, they couldn't get ahead.
Scott Rae: That's right.
Sean McDowell: All of a sudden, you can work and get ahead and provide for yourself, and your family, and your church, and beyond. It created wealth. So I actually think you and I see this similarly, but let's do an episode on it-
Scott Rae: That'd be, that'd be a lot of fun
Sean McDowell: ... Next time we record. I think that's great. Here's another question. It says, from Anonymous, it's personal and general: "Many friends grew up, feeling like their faith was used against them in a way that took away their agency. They were told the main message of the Bible is that we are totally weak and untrustworthy, which crippled them and made them feel like they could not trust themselves in any area of life. How does someone regain confidence out of a situation like this, and how can those of us in the church preach a better gospel, one that gives confidence rather than takes it away?"
Scott Rae: Well, Sean, I think it is true that the heart is deceitful and wicked above all else, and I think it's also true that the more we grow spiritually, the more we recognize how far we have to go.
Sean McDowell: Amen.
Scott Rae: I think that, I think that's actually what Jesus meant when he said, 'Blessed are the poor in spirit.' He said, 'Blessed are those who recognize their spiritual poverty.' And I often tell people, you know, w- the guy who wrote the theology of the spiritual life called himself the chief of sinners. And remember when he wrote that? That's... It's not at the beginning, not just after his conversion. It was at the very end of his life, when he had re-written the theology that governs most of [chuckles] our spiritual lives today. He concludes about himself that, "I'm the chief of sinners." And I think the reason for that is because he was the most painfully aware of that over his years of spiritual growth, and recognizing that it's sometimes three steps forward and two steps back. And you just get... The more you grow, the more you realize, you know, w- how high the bar is. And but I think it, what also happens, the more we grow spiritually, the more we can trust some of our intuitions. Because I think our co- our conscience gets educated, and our conscience is not infallible. The Bible is clear that your conscience can be seared, and I think what that means is that your conscience is rendered useless. And we would say s- the sociopath, for example, would have a seared conscience. But I think for the most part, our conscience can be educated. As we grow, our conscience becomes more sensitive. Now, it can be oversensitive too, but I think in general, the more we, the more we mature spiritually, the more we can trust our gut and our intuitions. Though I would... Though I always wanna say that that's subject to w- the clear teaching of Scripture. And it's also subject to an awareness that, you know, none of us, none of us outgrow the Fall.
Sean McDowell: ... That's right.
Scott Rae: As, you know, until, at least until we get to glory. [chuckles]
Sean McDowell: There you go.
Scott Rae: So, I, and I think I'd also say the Spirit empowers us to live rightly, [clears throat] and Go- the Bible's clear that God has not given us a spirit of fear or timidity, and I think we're to, we're to approach life with confidence.
Sean McDowell: That's a good take, and, honestly, my approach to this one was very different. I'm so, I'm so intrigued you answered that way. I approached it like this: the individual says, "These are people who are told the main message of the Bible is that we are totally weak and untrustworthy." That's bad theology. Bad theology, like bad ideas, have consequences. So in some ways, the solution to bad theology is good theology, properly understanding what the Scriptures teach about what it means to be human, how sin affects us, and how it doesn't. And I c- you know, I think of the example of my dad, who had just such a rough background of sexual abuse in the home he was living in. His older sister committed suicide. My grandpa told my dad he was a mistake and he wasn't wanted.
Scott Rae: Yeah.
Sean McDowell: My dad's dad was the town drunk.
Scott Rae: Yeah.
Sean McDowell: And my dad has just had such a successful life. I've asked him, and he goes, "Son, I'm not used goods." He goes, "I'm not a victim." And that's been kind of a narrative that has shaped me, and he's absolutely right. But I also have maybe had a tendency in my life to lack compassion for people who say, "I don't have the strength your dad [chuckles] has."
Scott Rae: Yeah, yeah.
Sean McDowell: "How do I do this?" And so his story is absolutely right, and it's true, and it's God working through him, but we've got to balance that out by listening to other people who have different experiences and different journeys. Of course, bringing them back to a biblical view-
Scott Rae: Mm-hmm
Sean McDowell: ... That's for sure, and it could potentially get out of balance either way. So this person, when they're told, "You're so weak and untrustworthy," is, like, the opposite [chuckles] of my dad's experience. You need good theology and people in your life who model this and teach this and show you incarnationally that it's possible. And this is really about trusting themselves and others. Trust is not just an academic theological term, it's personal, right? So relationships with people who are living that out and trusting God amidst their difficulty is what I think might bring some balance here.
Scott Rae: I wonder if the idea of total depravity has been mistaught to this person. Just, just thinking about that, 'cause total depravity- ... Does not mean that we're as bad as we could possibly be. Nor does it mean that we're incapable of doing anything good- ... Before we come to faith. Total depravity means we are incapable of doing anything good which would merit or be a contribution toward meriting our salvation. And so I wonder if that's the... I don't- I'd be interested to know if this person r-
Sean McDowell: It sounds like it
Scott Rae: ... If this person r- would respond-
Sean McDowell: Does sound it
Scott Rae: ... And let us know. It's, it sounds like this may be part of it.
Sean McDowell: I think the other piece of total depravity is not that we are as sinful as we could be, but that sin affects every area-
Scott Rae: Yes
Sean McDowell: ... Of our life: our will, our emotions, our creativity, our relationships. Nothing, our intellect, is unaffected by sin.
Scott Rae: Right.
Sean McDowell: And of course, the debate is, how much is it affected?
Scott Rae: Yeah.
Sean McDowell: So I think that's fair.
Scott Rae: Plus, yeah, we have the capacity for every kind of sin.
Sean McDowell: There you go.
Scott Rae: But those- it's not a- thankfully, [chuckles] not always actualized.
Sean McDowell: This last question is basically about films today, and this person says, "In the past five, seven years, there's been so many more faith-based movies coming out in theaters," and this person saw one in a theater in which I was in this past summer. Sometimes these movies are really well done, sometimes they're really bad. These films often get off-the-charts ratings by Christians, but not so much by others. Really, the question is, how do we evaluate this wave of explicitly faith-based films seen in theaters, and are there any you'd recommend Christians check out?
Scott Rae: You know, I don't... Just full disclosure, I don't watch a lot of faith-based films.
Sean McDowell: Okay.
Scott Rae: I have... I've been, I'm a big fan of The Chosen, I'm a big fan of The House of David. Both of those, I think, are terrific series, and they're really well done. I would admit that there's, there are others that are not. You know, my son graduated from film school here-
Sean McDowell: Yeah
Scott Rae: ... And he's, he's in the industry himself, and doesn't have a lot of good things to say about the quality of most Christian films. I wouldn't say he's a connoisseur of those, but, and neither am I. But, I think it is possible that there are good, there are good films out there that represent the biblical story well. Others, I'd say not so much. Like, and it's like any other genre of film. You know, there are some that are great, s- others, not so much. You know, you look around on Netflix, there's a l- there's a lot [chuckles] of stuff that, you know, on Netflix is pretty good, but a lot, a lot of it is not so good. Just the quality is all over the map. So I'm not surprised that Christian films are like that, and I say I'm not... In the same way, I'm not surprised that any other genre of film is like that.
Sean McDowell: I just have a couple things to say. The, the movie the person was referring to is called Show Me Your Glory, and it's a number of powerfully transformative stories of people encountering the supernatural. It was in theaters. We actually did a viewing at our church, and I thought it was A+. It's more of like a documentary with stories as a part of it, so Greg Koukl was in there, Craig Keener. Wonderful. You and I did a show on the movie Bonhoeffer.
Scott Rae: Mm-hmm.
Sean McDowell: I really enjoyed that movie.
Scott Rae: It was good.
Sean McDowell: I thought it was well showed it to my son, and we brought an expert on to talk about what's historical and what's not. So those are two I've enjoyed since, you know, 2024. What I enjoy more than specifically watching faith-based films is watching non-Christian films, but thinking about them biblically.
Scott Rae: Exactly.
Sean McDowell: There's a great book, I think it's 2009, so it's dated, but the principles are transcendent, by Brian Godawa called Hollywood Worldviews. I used to use that as a text when I taught film to high school students. I teach worldview through film. That's a great one, and I guess a couple examples on YouTube, I did a kind of a breakdown with Brett McCracken, from The Gospel Coalition, he used to be here at Biola, on the movie Batman. The Batman from maybe three years ago or so is just riddled, and that is a pun-
Scott Rae: [laughing]
Sean McDowell: ... Because the Riddler is one of the villains in it. It's riddled with biblical ideas, if you'll see it. You and I, probably five or six years ago, did a podcast where we talked about Infinity War.
Scott Rae: Mm-hmm.
Sean McDowell: Somebody could go back and listen to that. So support faith-based films, go to faith-based films, but learn how to think biblically about non-faith-based films. That's transformative, and that's even more fun to me. Well, Scott, this is fun as always. I'm already looking forward to 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. We have master's programs, as I said before, Scott, in a range of different arenas. We'd love to have you join us. Please keep your comments and questions coming. [upbeat music] You can email us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu, and if you would stop and give us a rating on your podcast app, [chuckles] seriously, every single rating really helps. And we hope you consider sharing this with a friend. Thanks so much for listening, and we'll see you Tuesday, when we talk about the long-term impact of the sexual revolution. You will not want to miss this episode. In the meantime, remember to think biblically about everything. [upbeat music]
