Topics this week:

  • Controversy after Christianity Today published an article questioning whether Jesus was crucified with nails.
  • The Supreme Court is debating whether parents can opt their kids out of LGBTQ-themed books in elementary schools.
  • The New York Times and USA Today published articles discussing the return to church, particularly among young men, and the increased interest in the supernatural in today's culture.
  • Listener question on the ethical and theological implications of the rise of megachurches and ultra-rich pastors.
  • Listener question on how to test the reliability and reputability of news sources in the age of disinformation.



Episode Transcript

Sean McDowell: [upbeat music] Controversy erupts when Christianity Today publishes an article questioning the crucifixion of Jesus with nails. The Supreme Court debates the right of parents to opt out their kids from LGBTQ books being read in elementary schools. And both The New York Times and USA Today post articles on the return to church, specifically among young men, and increased interest in the supernatural in our culture today. These are the stories we'll discuss. We'll 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 story was all over the Christian world, probably not much beyond, but there's some important theological and practical issues at play. So 10 days ago, leading into Easter on April 14th, there was an article in Christianity Today by one of the editors, Daniel Silliman, and the question was, "Was Jesus crucified with nails?" And the subtitle is, "Why One Evangelical Bible Scholar Thinks the Answer Might Be No." Now, it starts off by saying, "Telling the story of Christ's death, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John simply say the Roman soldiers crucified him. They don't say how. Each of the Gospels include specific details about the soldiers' method of dividing his clothes, but none describe the way soldiers put him on the cross. There are no nails mentioned in any of the four accounts of Christ's death." Now, the article says, "Closely reading the Bible, looking at the long historical record of Rome crucifixion, and examining the archaeological record, Garcia," who's the scholar that's quoted in here, "has come to the conclusion that crucifixion might have been done with ropes." He says, "I basically find it interesting. It could be there were nails, or it could be there weren't nails." Now, the article has a lot of background information I won't go into and makes the point that nails aren't required [chuckles] to kill somebody, and crucifixion still would have been painful, of course.

Scott Rae: Mm-hmm.

Sean McDowell: The article does point out that there's a few archaeological discoveries of nails, and even Josephus mentions Romans crucifying with nails. But essentially, Garcia, the scholar, is not convinced by it. Now, he did update this article. It's kind of hard to tell where the update went on and when it didn't. He says, you know, that John 20:25, which we'll come back to, is proof that Christ was crucified with nails, but he just isn't quite convinced about it, that that's the case, depending on what's meant by nails. And he said, "Many scholars think John was written later, perhaps after crucifixion with nails had become more common." At the very end, the scholar told CT he wanted to explore the issue 'cause it's good to question tradition, and people can benefit from closer scrutiny of history. Now, I was tagged in some comments on Twitter [chuckles] before I even read this-

Scott Rae: [chuckles]

Sean McDowell: ... And had any idea what was going on, and let's just say YouTube, Twitter, and beyond erupted in people talking about this. And eventually, the author of this, of this piece posted an apology, which is obviously a part of the story, on Christianity Today, and he basically says he got it wrong reporting on this event in terms of how Jesus died. I won't read the whole thing, but he says, talks about how he was just curious, and he was driven by this interesting claim. He says, "My curiosity took me to the description of Christ's death and the details in those accounts. I didn't think about John 20:25 and the implications of the idea that Thomas was mistaken to think the resurrected Jesus would have nail marks in his hand." He says, "I missed that. I'm sorry." What, what's your take on what happened here?

Scott Rae: Well, for one, I guess my first reaction is that I don't have the stomach, Sean, to be a scholar on the intricacies of crucifixion.

Sean McDowell: Fair enough.

Scott Rae: I... You know, that's just... I'm gonna, I'm gonna spend my life [chuckles] studying something else. Second, the significance of the cross is not called into question with this, in my view. You know, Christ still died on our behalf, whether he was crucified with nails or ropes or not. And I think the emphasis, the emphasis ought to be on the death of Christ, that crucifixion produced, as a substitute paying the penalty for our sins. However, I think it does call into question the inerrancy of Scripture. Because regardless of how we view the Gospel of John, if it is inspired and inerrant scripture, and Jesus was crucified with ropes and not nails, then we have a serious problem in John 20, verses 24 to 29, when the evidence for Doubting Thomas of seeing the crucif- the nail holes in the hands of Jesus and the, and the pierced, the pierced side in his body, moved him quickly from doubt to a pure, sincere, 100% sure faith in the resurrection of Jesus. And I guess it just, it just strikes me that throughout all of this, what seems to me to be a fairly clear and plain reading of that part of the Gospel of John was minimized in the way that it was. Now, I wish that... I wish the scholar... I wish the story had reported why this particular scholar, Garcia, was unconvinced by that account in the Gospel of John. I would like to hear... I'd like to hear a little bit more about the reasons for that, because in my view, if you take, if you take an eve- you know, a conservative, evangelical view of Scripture, like I presume he does, uh-... Then that, I think that raises, I think, some pretty serious questions about the veracity of the biblical accounts.

Sean McDowell: That, that's a good take. A few things jump out to me on this. Number one, I appreciate that he apologized. That's never fun. When you have a public platform like you and I do, [chuckles] Scott, and you gotta make a retraction, it's painful, and it hurts. So we should hold to account, and kind of there sh- hopefully at Christianity Today is a look at why did this happen, what motivated us in this story, and let's make sure it doesn't happen again.

Scott Rae: Mm-hmm.

Sean McDowell: But we certainly have grace for people when they apologize. [chuckles] That's at the root of our faith. You know, why did this happen? I suspect it's like a pastor who preaches every year on the resurrection. "I gotta have a unique angle this year [chuckles] to approach this." So Christianity Today is motivated by, "Let's have a unique angle, let's get views, let's get readership." Like, I understand that, but when that starts to get in the way of careful, accurate, biblical reporting, that's where the problem becomes. That's probably some of what motivated this, so it's understandable insofar as it goes. You know, a couple things in this article that do jump out to me that are concerning. I think you're right, that it calls inerrancy into question, but I think it's even bigger than that, even just the historicity and reliability of John.

Scott Rae: Yeah.

Sean McDowell: I've been reading the Gospel of John every day in entirety, if I can, or part of it, taking notes, and over and over again, it's about a people who testify to what they have seen, and there's witnesses that this is true. It's written as if it's a, an account of real events that took place, and we know these things so that we might believe. So when the scholar said, "Many scholars think John was written later, perhaps after crucifixion of nails had become more common," it's like the scholar seemingly is calling into question the historicity of John, not just inerrancy. Well, that's problematic to me, implying that maybe he got this wrong, especially in Christianity Today. The end of the article, he explained to CT that he wanted to explore the issue 'cause it's good to question tradition. Well, yes and no. It depends why we're questioning tradition. I did my dissertation on the deaths of the apostles, and you talk about stomaching stuff, Scott.

Scott Rae: I understand.

Sean McDowell: I had to study, like, was Bartholomew skinned alive, and study the history and origin of skinning to see if that [chuckles] actually happened.

Scott Rae: Sean, you-

Sean McDowell: It was kind of morbid. [laughs]

Scott Rae: You're a better man than I am. [laughs]

Sean McDowell: Oh, that is not my point in mentioning this.

Scott Rae: [laughs]

Sean McDowell: It was, it was painful, but I examined the historical traditions of the death of the apostles, and some people have criticized me, saying, "You shouldn't question tradition." I said, "I'm not trying to ruin anybody's tradition," but Christians have said we know these things historically, and I think it's fair to ask the question: What do we know historically speaking? So I think it's good to question tradition in the right way, with the right means, and the right motivation, and oftentimes, I'm not sure scholars are necessarily motivated by that. Theologically and biblically, Scott, I think John 20:25 is clear. I mean, it says, "Unless..." This is the ESV: "Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails and place my finger into the mark of the nails and place my hand into his side, I will never believe." Now, John doesn't have to do that when Jesus shows up, because seeing him is sufficient [chuckles] to know that he's conquered the grave. Now, the Greek word used, refers specifically to iron spikes, not rope burns, not some vague form of restraint, but to iron spikes. But it's further than that. In Colossians 2:14, it says that Jesus, quote, "canceled the record of debt by nailing it to the cross." Nailing it to the cross. That seems to imply the debt that Jesus paid, not just being put on the cross, certainly not with ropes, but nailing it. I think we can go back to the Old Testament, that the wounds of Jesus are central to our salvation. Isaiah prophesied the Messiah would be pierced for our transgressions in Isaiah 53:5. So a lot more could be said about this. It concerns me biblically. It concerns me that CT would post this in the first place, although it definitely, I appreciate their retraction. I think it's a good example of people out crying and not canceling, but saying, "Whoa! Time out," holding people to account, and then CT-

Scott Rae: Yeah

Sean McDowell: ... Seemingly adjusting accordingly. Any, any thoughts, feedback, additional ones on this?

Scott Rae: No, I think that you've covered it pretty nicely there. I think we can move on.

Sean McDowell: So this story, this story, Scott, is really interesting to me, one that I've been, kind of following for a while, about the emergence of belief and interest in the supernatural. Now, before we get to this, our friend Justin Brierley wrote a book two years ago called The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in the Supernatural, before anybody I was aware of was really talking about this, so he gets huge kudos for this. But evidently, The New York Times is starting an entirely new series called Believing, in which they're exploring how Americans today experience religion and spirituality now. According to this article in The New York Times, 92% of adults have belief in God, the soul, spirits, or something beyond the natural world. They talk about how there's a moment where we're just being woken up from the failures of secularism and have increased interest in the supernatural. They say, they say many Americans are dissatisfied with alternatives to religion. They feel existential malaise, and they're looking for help, and they wanna have nuanced conversations about belief.... How incredible is that? But this article [chuckles] also says, and this is so interesting, Scott, not only is there interest in this, but there's more and more voices today, even people like Joe Rogan, saying that people who believe in God are actually healthier and happier. And so it's like the conversation is shifting to, should we just believe in this for utilitarian reasons, or is it actually true? Now, our dean, Ed Stetzer, this same week had an article in USA Today kind of about the same thing, about how Gen Z is returning to Christianity, and it's actually among men, Gen Z men, rather than women, and how this younger generation is spiritually curious, and, the nones, N-O-N-E-S, has flatlined a little bit. I mean, I have so many thoughts about this, but what's your take on this, to these articles?

Scott Rae: Well, for one, I was delighted that our dean from Talbot, got headlines in the opinion section on USA Today on Easter Sunday. Very appropriate. And his message, I think, was also very appropriate. And Sean, these are things we've talked about on our cultural update in the last few months.

Sean McDowell: Yeah.

Scott Rae: That the growth of the nones has basically stopped, that Gen Z men are more likely to attend church now than Gen Z women, although we haven't talked much about why Gen Z women might be leaving the church. Uh-

Sean McDowell: That's right

Scott Rae: ... Engagement with the Bible is increasing, and which we, which we talked about actually on Tuesday of this week, when that episode was posted. And that there are significant religious stirrings in the UK. Seem to be-- that seems to be more than just, you know, that the nones have flatlined. It seems to be that, you know, Gen Z folks are newly coming to churches and coming to faith. And I, for one, I'm very interested to see how this movement in the UK might, you know, might translate into other parts of Europe, because Europe has been, I think, the poster child for the thesis about secularization. That it's just this, it's this immovable force that once with mod- with modernization comes a lack of belief in God and moving away from religious life. So it'd be interesting to see how, you know, if that moves to France or to Belgium or to- ... Netherlands or sc- or even Scandinavia. And I, and I actually, I love the New York Times section, this On Believing, I think indicates that there's a new interest in religion, not just Christian faith, but religion in general, that is worth covering. And I think they hold, they hold rightly, I think, that secularization is on pause in the United States. And it remind- it reminds me of the statement, Sean, of the late Richard John Neuhaus, the Catholic, the Lutheran-turned-Catholic's statement, that the secularization thesis has everything going for it except clear, empirical evidence. [laughing]

Sean McDowell: [laughing]

Scott Rae: And I think what he meant by that is that the United States is unique among the countries of the world, which has had increasing secularization, but also is the most religious country of all the industrialized nations on Earth, and ha- and still is. Now, what I wanna be careful about in this is that we get, that we get, we get too excited about a renewal of something that is fundamentally a private faith. Now, I wanna... Now, I wanna, I wanna make it clear, that's better than no faith at all. But it's not the, it's not-- it's incomplete as far as a robust Christian faith is concerned. I don't want it to say, as Os Guinness put it, that faith is privately engaging but socially irrelevant, or what the Barna folks concluded back in the '80s and '90s. And I remember it just chilled my soul when they said, when they said this, that, "Never before have so many professed Christian faith, while at the same time making so little difference in how we live." it was a, I mean, it was a chilling statement. And I think now, the New York Times piece, I think, is indicating that religion's making some public inroads, though in my view, that's a bit of a mixed bag. You know, the pros- for example, the prosperity theologian who's close to the White House, I think is probably not a, not a good representation of public Christian faith, just for one example. But there are others that are good-

Sean McDowell: Agreed

Scott Rae: ... Others that are good and positive. And here, I think, th- so here's maybe the bottom line on this for me, Sean, the big takeaway is that Americans are dissatisfied with other alternatives to religious faith. Secularism, it's clear that secularism is seen as wanting and not working. And running clubs, you know, biking groups, you know, yoga classes are seen as cheap substitutes for the kind of belief and belonging and behavioural guide that religious communities can provide. Now, you know, we've, we've talked about the data. I think it's clear that it, that it's not working. However, as you mentioned, just the focus on utilitarian reasons for embracing religion, that's better than nothing, but that's also not-

Sean McDowell: [chuckles]

Scott Rae: ... That's, that's incomplete.

Sean McDowell: That's right.

Scott Rae: And I want, I want people to... I'm delighted to see the data that Christian faith and the communities it produces, actually produces better mental health, more happiness, more marital stability, you know, thing- the good outcomes it produces. That's, that's wonderful news and evidence, I think, of something akin to common grace. But I want people to embrace faith because it's true.... Not only because it meets my needs. So that, I was very encouraged, and I'm delighted our dean was published in USA Today on this. I th- I believe he does this every year for them. Uh-

Sean McDowell: Oh, interesting.

Scott Rae: And I'm, I'm thrilled that The New York Times is, you know, it has a whole section devoted weekly. So I assume it's gonna come out on Sundays. Very appropriate that it was released on Easter Sunday, that it's gonna talk about belief, particularly belief in transcendent kinds of things. So I'm, I'm very encouraged with this, but I wanna recognize it also for what it is.

Sean McDowell: I think that's such a good take. I'm encouraged as well, but like Ed writes in his piece, this is [chuckles] not quite revival. It's interest in the supernatural, but there's also interest in psychedelics. There's also interest in New Age. There's also interest in other kinds of spiritual practices. So we have an opportunity, but it's not guaranteed most, if not even many, will necessarily come to Christianity, although we're seeing somewhat of a renewed interest. The question is, how many of those renewed interest represent those who are open as a whole? That's a question we need to wrestle with. I've been giving a talk, it's actually my favorite talk at churches, and I put it up on my YouTube channel, just called Unexpected: Seven Reasons God Is Back. And I talk about, number one, the God conversation is shifting. So we've shifted from the era of the new atheists 10 and 20 years ago, and we had, like, debates at Biola with Christopher Hitchens-

Scott Rae: Yes, we did

Sean McDowell: ... And William Lane Craig. It's been watched millions of times. There was this energy, and it was like Christianity on the defensive against those who are saying, you know, in his book, "God is not great, and religion poisons everything." The conversation has shifted. There's also been high-profile conversions recently. Russell Brand, for example, Ayaan Hirsi Ali. There's an awareness of the failure of secularism. So this is from The New York Times, but another columnist at The New York Times, Ross Douthat, a Catholic, has his book called Believe. And he says, with the clientele at The New York Times, which are largely more secular, the conversation about God has shifted from being very much against and somewhat vitriolic when he started during the era of the new atheists, to kind of open and interested and curious now. And so this new column that's coming out weekly just further makes that case that something is happening spiritually. Now, I have a couple more takes [chuckles] on this that I'm curious if you agree with me on this. One caution I would give is Stetzer does point out that the nones have stopped increasing since 2019. That's interesting. It's stabilized. But Gen Zers as a whole are far more secular than older generations. So as older generations die out and Gen Zers and millennials become a larger segment of the population, we still will, demographically speaking, see a shift towards the secular. Now, I think two things can be true at the same time. I think we can have a secular shift, but also an awareness of an increased spirituality, 'cause I think both of those are happening. Now, I do think, too... You know, I have two other points, but tell me what you think about that. I'm curious.

Scott Rae: No, I think that's right, that we can have, you can have essentially a private faith and increasing secularization at the same time. I think that's what's been happening in the United States since probably, you know, the 1950s. And having, just having less of a public impact. Now, I think the public exposure that Christian faith is getting today, as a result of some things happening in the political arena is, you know, like I said, sort of a mixed bag. But I think, I think there are probably more people today who recognize that genuine Christian faith does entail a social and public dimension to it, not necessarily political nor partisan. 'cause, 'cause as we said repeatedly, Sean, you know, the gospel is not tied to any one particular political agenda, because no political platform was written with biblical fidelity as its primary goal. So every political platform is gonna be a mixed bag, biblically speaking. And there's something... I think there's something to be, to be cautioned about if the Church loses its prophetic role by becoming too aligned with one particular political platform or another. 'Cause the Church- God is calling the Church to stand above partisanship and political affiliations, to be able to speak the biblical morality into, you know, all spaces across the political spectrum. So I wanna be, I'd wanna be careful that we don't wanna lose that. But I do think, I do think it's not only possible, I think that's been the reality in the United States for decades, that we have increasing secularization and, a significant number of people who profess Christian faith at the same time. What that, what that says is that that's a challenge for our discipleship. And we're... I think s- I think, yeah, it's... I mean, I understand where some churches would be, would be quite happy if we had a, you know, a rigorous private faith. Uh-

Sean McDowell: Sure.

Scott Rae: I mean, as opposed to nothing at all. And so in some cases, I think this... I'd be interested to hear what you, if you agree with me on this, but I think our, I think some of our misunderstandings of spiritual formation-... Probably encourage a privatized faith as being sufficient, and I wanna be really careful about that. I don't think, I don't think that's what our spiritual formation folks at Talbot believe or are teaching. But I think that is, I think that's a fairly, widespread misconception about what spiritual formation involves. Because there's, you know, just because you have, you know, very vibrant time alone with God, but it doesn't translate into how you live out in the world, that there's a, there's a pretty significant disconnect there that I think we ought to be concerned about.

Sean McDowell: I actually think that's one of the biggest concerns of the church right now, is compartmentalizing our faith and living out a secular faith. And that actually brings me to one of the other points [chuckles] of this study that I think might tie in, is there's this fascination with the supernatural right now in our culture, a willingness for spiritual conversations and an openness. At the same time in history, Scott, we have never had better evidence and apologetics making the case for the Christian faith. So right now, William Lane Craig, one of the leading apologists in the world, is writing a multi-volume systematic philosophical theology, and a deep root of that is defending the character of God, the existence of God, and the knowability of God. Gary Habermas is publishing a four-volume, a life tome, thousands of pages defending the resurrection. Frank Beckwith is working on, with Cambridge Press, an update, Defending Life, that's never been done. I mean, just the best, most sophisticated case that's done. Craig Keener on Miracles. [chuckles] I mean, I could go on and on. I think the Deity of Christ, the book The Incarnate Christ and His Critics, is probably the best defense of the Deity of Christ. And these come from scholars who have been studying this for their lifetimes, making these contributions to the church. So if you just think about this cultural moment we find ourselves, and according to Acts 17, God places us where we are for a reason within his sovereignty. We have opportunity all around us. Are we going to take it? Now, one more point in this piece, then I wanna know what you think. I'm really curious if this is gonna affect who the Catholic Church picks for the next pope. Because I remember, and this might be selective memory, but a lot of the narrative that I heard, I think it was about 12 years ago or so, when he was selected as Pope, was millennials and maybe Gen Z-ers are a little bit more progressive. We need a pope that kind of fits with their sensibilities. We don't wanna lean into conservative. We wanna lean into the left, and one motivation was for the sake of the church. Well, a study just came out the week before Pope Francis, passed away, about how Catholics are bleeding from the church at a massive rate. And so I wonder now, given the renewed interest, and Stetzer says that evangelical churches are the ones within the broader fold that are growing and stay- going steady, will this affect the kind of pope that they select? I think it will, but I have no insight on that. What do you think about that point?

Scott Rae: Well, I'm a little hesitant to be prophetic about that because that, [sighs] you know, predicting who the next pope's gonna be or what direction it's gonna take is almost as perilous as predicting when the Lord's gonna return. [laughing] so... [laughing] I'm, I'm not, I'm not sure I'm not sure I wanna wade into that one. But I think it is, it is clear that not only, not only in the church, but also in terms of Christian universities, the schools that are doubling down on their original identity and on their, and their commitment to orthodox Christian faith are the ones that are growing today. And I think, I think that may, that may also be true, in the, in the Catholic Church, and that may al- that may also, resonate with some of the folks who are in the conclave, that'll be selecting the next pope. I think we'll just have to wait and see u- till when the white smoke comes out of the smokestack.

Sean McDowell: Well, I'm not claiming any prophetic voice here, but certainly, this has to be a piece in the back of their minds that they're considering. And arguably, if, just effectiveness and reaching people to the Catholic fold is important to them, they're gonna have to look at this data and take it seriously.

Scott Rae: Yeah.

Sean McDowell: Whether or not they do and how they come up with one, I have no idea, but it will be interesting to see, how this renewed interest and how a progressive faith is not drawing people to the Catholic Church or the mainline church is not as effective as people have said. Will that shape the kind of pope they choose? Yes, that remains to be [chuckles] seen. I agree. You didn't hear it first that I'm making a prophecy-

Scott Rae: [laughing]

Sean McDowell: ... But I think it's, it's, it's a piece of the puzzle, minimally speaking.

Scott Rae: I think, yeah, it, I think that it has to, I think it has to be considered. Because if I were, if I were in the conclave, I'd be very concerned about the people who were leaving the church. And, but, and I also... I'd also wanna make sure that, you know, if they, if they are leaving, that we have, we have some solution that might be able to stop the bleeding. And I think what this, what the evangelical church has shown is that, do- sort of doubling down on who you are, doubling down on your commitment to theological orthodoxy and to the, you know, to the traditions of the church, I think is a, is a, is a strategy that works. Now, again, I don't wanna embrace it because it works. I wanna emba- embrace it because I think it's true and is, and is faithful to Scripture.... But I think it also ha- it also happens to be the case that it, that it works in helping stem the tide, and I think some of that has helped, I think, flatline, the growth of the nuns as well.

Sean McDowell: Good take. Well, this next story is one that's a Supreme Court ruling that'll come out probably the end of June. And it occurred to me, Scott, we've never talked about the idea of banning books at all, at least that I can remember, in a main episode or a weekly cultural update. So on Tuesday, just earlier this week, the Supreme Court, is considering a case out of Maryland, whether or not parents have the right to opt their children out of LGBTQ-themed books being read within the classroom. So it's important to clarify, this is not a debate about whether or not there can be LGBTQ books in the library at schools. This is not a debate about whether teachers can read the kind of books. The question is: Can parents opt themselves out, or are parents, have no voice, and kids are required to stay in the classroom while these books are read? What's interesting about this, Scott, is it's not just evangelical Christians and maybe Catholics and Mormons. You've got Orthodox voices weighing in here also. You've got some other non-religious voices, [chuckles] interestingly enough, as far as I can tell, that at least have a little bit of concern. You have Muslims that have kind of spoken into this as well. Just to give a sense of one of these books, there's, there's a longer New York Times article that we could get into earlier this week. But this lady describes, she says, "Muslims, Ethiopian Orthodox Christians, Jews, and Catholics all demand the opt-out, opt-out restoration." So I'm pulling up one of these books just to give a sense here. Gosh, I'm getting lost in details. One is about a puppy that goes to an LGBTQ parade and is looking for things like leather and other kinds of, I don't know, whatever you'd call it, and, like, this is the s- this is the story behind this book. Now, really, the question is: Do parents have a right to opt out their kids from this kind of, you know, teaching in the classroom? I got a ton of thoughts, but give me your take, Scott.

Scott Rae: Well, I th- found, I found the New York Times editorial on this, that, ca- accompanies the USA Today stories that we cited. Because it's found to be really fascinating because the opinion writer, who's a regular New York Times opinion writer, has kids in the Maryland school district that brought the case.

Sean McDowell: That's right.

Scott Rae: And, you know, her point was that this, you know, had the s- had the school district shown a little more sensitivity and common sense, and had parents been a little bit more understanding, the whole, I think the whole court case would never have gone to the courts. And I think she points out that, and rightly so, that parental opt-outs for educational topics that have to do with family life, for example, sex education, and especially where they intersect with religious belief, are not unusual, that many states have this. Many school districts have this, even in some of the most blue regions of the country, like in the Pacific Northwest, in Minnesota, and other parts that, you would not, maybe you wouldn't expect. And some states, actually, Sean, require parental opting in- ... For those subjects. So they assume that parents are gonna opt out unless they explicitly say, "We want our kids in this." And the, you know, the stigmatizing works both ways on this because the kids who, you know, the kids who opt out, I think can sometimes make the LGBTQ kids in their classrooms feel like, you know, they're, they're being shamed for their views being unacceptable. But it's also true that the religiously based kids whose parents opt them out are also being labeled as bigots. Uh- And so the, you know, the shaming and the stigmatizing is a, is a two-edged sword that cuts both ways. Here, I think, what's, what's unfortunate in my view is that the district did not allow the opt-out for parents, which created the controversy, and I think that the Times editorial writer said that this would've been so simple to... For the school district to just allow parents to opt out. And f- and I think at the same time, she makes the point, and I'm gonna be interested to see what you think about this, that simply exposing kids to some of these books is not necessarily faith-destroying. Be- and the reason for that is because hopefully, the parents are actually having discussions with their kids about some of the things that they're reading and working on in the public schools. I think that's particularly true in elementary schools, where, you know, I mean, we spent and I'm sure you've done the same thing, I spent tons of time with our kids, w- you know, going through their homework with them, you know, listening to their questions, interacting with them about the stuff they were working on in their schools. And this is why I would not be in favor of banning books, which, by the way, this is not, that's not what this is about.

Sean McDowell: That's right.

Scott Rae: That's not what the p- that's not what the parents are asking for. But I'm, I'm not in favor of banning books because I would much rather-... Have my kids be exposed to some of this stuff while they were under my roof, where we had the opportunity to talk about them. And then, in my view, you know, the old adage that, you know, bad ideas are best confronted with better ideas is still the order of the day. And I want them to see that what our, what our Christian faith offers is a, is a better option. It's more reasonable, it's more plausible, and fix- fits the data better than some of the stuff they're reading in their schools.

Sean McDowell: Now, I agree with you about exposing kids to things appropriately. Taken my kids on trips to Berkeley and brought in- ... LGBTQ advocates and atheists. We were walking by a Jehovah's Witnesses booth a while ago, and one of my friends pulled his kids away, and I told my son, I'm like: "Well, grab it. Let's read it, and let's talk about it. This is interesting." My son was interested. But I also want it on my terms and in my way, not my hand forced by somebody else. That's what gives me pause here. To correct what I said earlier, clarify it, the book is called Pride Puppy. It's an alphabet book in which a pet dog gets lost at a Pride celebration. Includes a search and find list for incipient readers with words like leather, drag queen, and intersex. Now, if you just flip this around and say, "You know what? We're gonna read a book of somebody who gets lost in a church, and they look for a cross, they look for a Bible, they look for a baptismal, and we're gonna have your kids opt out of hearing this story," honestly, if I'm not a Christian on the other side, that would probably give me pause and say, number one, I shouldn't be in a position where I have to opt out in the first place, and second, you're not allowing me to opt out? This is outrageous.

Scott Rae: That's a problem.

Sean McDowell: That is a problem. So her concern in this article, and the way she says it really struck out- struck me because she says, "You know, I feel our community's failure to resolve a thoroughly predictable tension with time-tested tools of straight talk, compromising and extending one another a little grace has made for a demoralizing spectacle." Well, that's true. Grace is a Christian virtue. We need to have grace, and I don't always know how to balance that truth and grace piece. But I don't think this is two neutral sides, certainly not Christians versus the LGBTQ community, 'cause you have Muslims and Jews and other religious folks. This is not neutral. It's one side pushing an agenda more firmly, and then I think that side kind of says: Wait a minute, you're hurting kids' feelings if others opt out of hearing these stories. And I don't know how to say this any graciously anymore, but I kind of want to say, well, they're in that position because you put them there by overplaying your hand, trying to get this read in a public school in the Maryland district, according to the SCOTUS blog, denied parents the rights to even opt their kids out. I mean, the issue aside, given how controversial sexuality is, that should just give anybody who's neutral pause and say that one side is overplaying their hand. So I wanna make sure Christians are not calling names, they're not attacking people, they're trying to build common ground and listen to people in the community, but to me, this is a time to stand firm. If my son was in one of those classrooms, it's not because I think this book is gonna shatter his faith. I don't. Studies show that parents have the biggest influence on their kids. But honestly, you and I, Scott, sitting down, talking with our kids, being engaged about these things, that's probably the exception. Most parents are just busy, and they don't have time, and they just might not have the ability to do so. I would go to this, and I would try to be fair, and I would try to listen to people and be considerate, but I would make my case that this is out of bounds, and it's wrong, and the school board and those who are pushing this need to back down. And so, yes, some grace may have been lost in the middle of this, but I think this is a time to speak truth, and a lot of it is just on principle, not that a little book is gonna ruin my kid's faith-

Scott Rae: Right

Sean McDowell: ... But that the educational system would think it's okay to force this on all kids, including my own, man, that just... It angers me when I think about this. And with that said, I just wanna be as gracious [chuckles] as I can be. Do you think I'm out of bounds looking at it this way? Give me your thoughts.

Scott Rae: Well, no, I don't. I think that's- I think there are times when parental rights are being violated, that we need to stand up and defend those rights, and I think this is one of those cases. And I think the Times author, I think, is correct, that this could, this could have been solved easily by just, you know, tr- going with the traditional parental opt-out. The one part that- ... The one part that gave me a little pause, and I'm curious to know what you think about this-

Sean McDowell: Yeah

Scott Rae: ... Is they did- they cited a parallel to the teaching of evolution in science classes, and that we generally don't allow parents to opt out of teaching of evolution. And so if that's, if we don't allow that, then why would we, why would we also allow it in other areas? Because, you know, evolution as traditionally taught is, I think, I think actually much more problematic for someone's faith than some of the LGBTQ stuff- ... That's going around. So I'm just, I'm, I'm curious to s- hear your take on that.

Sean McDowell: Yeah. That, that is a fair question. I would say evolution is not a moral issue.... It's a scientific issue. Now, I think it has theological and worldview implications, but it's a little different just reading a children's book, and a children's book is meant to convey, "Here's the moral you should take from this."

Scott Rae: Mm-hmm.

Sean McDowell: That's the way these books are read. I can remember in, like, fourth grade, my teacher reading Where the Sidewalk Ends. He'd sit in the middle of the classroom, we'd open up this divider between two classes, and we'd sit there, and we were just enthralled in our teacher teaching these moral lessons. In Where the Sidewalk Ends, I can still envision one of this person [chuckles] who refused to take the trash out, fills up their entire house, and, like, it stuck with me.

Scott Rae: [chuckles]

Sean McDowell: Moral lessons that were there. So there might be a little bit of a difference. Now, I do think with evolution, I actually think the Discovery Institute got it right. They're, they're not saying you should teach intelligent design. They're saying we should allow a critique of evolution from peer-reviewed, thoughtful, scientific literature. That's where our educational system has gone wrong and just shown one side as opposed to the other. But I thought that was an interesting point that was raised. Let me throw a controversial one out here that I might get some letters from-

Scott Rae: [chuckles]

Sean McDowell: ... That might be a little bit of a side point here. But this article, she says, the later writing this, "This is where I feel cold towards the parents' complaints." So she's just frustrated with the parents who are complaining about this and making a big deal about it. She says at the bottom, she said, "I've wondered how different these revisionists are from Montgomery County parents demanding their primary school children be shielded from stories about gay couples and trans kids. Both at heart demand the school filter out objective truths. After all, gay and trans families and teachers don't just exist. They exist within the halls of the schools." In other words, they objectively exist. And I see where she's coming from because of her worldview, but I would give pause as a Christian reading this and saying, "Wait a minute, what does it mean to be human? Is this an ontological category where our sexual attractions define who we are?" And I would say no, we are male and female, but our sexual attraction orientation does not capture and define on an ontological category what it means to be human. This is a Freudian idea, not a biblical idea. Now, how you argue that in this is somewhat besides the point, because this person clearly believes there's an objective existence to it. But somebody reading this, I give pause, and this is a part of my friendly debate with Preston Sprinkle a while ago, should Christians identify as gay Christians? And I pushed back firmly against that for reasons that are in that debate if people want to listen to. So any thoughts on that? Agree? Does that concern you, or-

Scott Rae: Well, yeah, I think just because you have, LGBTQ students in the ha- in the hallways, just because they exist, it doesn't follow from that there's an obligation to accept that as a, an equally valid, moral alternative. Doesn't exempt from moral and theological critique, so I wouldn't, I wouldn't wanna draw too much out of that, because, you know, I think, I think it's, it still is the case, the folk- the folks who view the LGBTQ phenomenon from a different set of worldview assumptions, like you had mentioned ontologically and what it means to be human, there's room for critique, and there's room for questioning without necessarily rejecting the person who is LGBTQ. I think we can, we can accept the person and question some of the worldview assumptions that underlie the position at the same time, and that's, I think, w- that, I think, I hope, is con- the continued goal of the church in its outreach to that particular community. So I would be, I would be just as uncomfortable, yeah, with, you know, say, a school district that wanted to downplay the racist past of some of the communities in the South where they are, for example. I wouldn't, I wouldn't wanna see that downplayed, but I, but I don't, I don't think, I don't think it just ne- it doesn't necessarily follow that just because we have a f- a certain phenomena in our midst, that we also have to give it a moral approval.

Sean McDowell: Fair enough, and let me just say here, and then we'll, we'll move on. The question is, what does it mean to exist, and what does it mean to be human? You and I have said some of the biggest debates today are about anthropology. The Bible clearly divides us up as male and female. That's built into our bodies. It's built into the world. So of course, there's individuals today who are in same-sex relationships, and they're made in the image [chuckles] of God with as much value as anybody else. I shouldn't even have to say that. Of course, there's people who identify as LGBTQ and have same-sex attraction, or in the case of transgender, you know, gender dysphoria in many cases. But the question is that indicative of who they are? And our culture says yes, in kind of ontological... This is an objective category of human beings, and then have rights as these human beings because of that sexual attraction, in the same way that men and women seemingly have rights.... I'm just saying biblically, this should give us pause because the Bible does not divide us up or define us or recognize objective existence based on sexual attraction. That's a Freudian idea, not a biblical idea. So that's, I'm just calling us, how we deal with this publicly is a separate issue, but we've got to filter articles through this, always through a biblical worldview, and say, "What assumptions are at play here?" And that's one that would give me pause. That's it. All right, you wanna move to questions?

Scott Rae: Yes.

Sean McDowell: All right, we've got some good ones here, as always. This individual says, "What are the ethical and theological implications of the rise of megachurches and ultra-rich pastors, particularly in relation to accountability, effects on public trust, the authenticity of their message, and their commitment to serving the marginalized? How does this affect the core teaching, Christian teaching of humility and service found especially in Christian values and teachings?" Do you have any thoughts on this one?

Scott Rae: Yeah, several. For one, core Christian teaching on humility and service don't necessarily involve poverty. Poverty in the scriptures is not a virtue, you know, and nor is wealth a virtue necessarily either. But, I think I would, I would not wanna say that somebody's, you know, income or, you know, their lifestyle, you know, necessarily is contrary to Christian teaching on humility and service. Now, the other part of this is that if the example that this person is citing is, an adherent of the prosperity gospel, where God promises, wealth as a co- as a consequence of obedience to scripture and faithfulness to God, then that's a big problem theologically. Because what that, what that does is it takes, it takes an Old Testament concept that was applied to Israel as a nation and applies that to individuals today, and it doesn't apply today, nor was it intended necessarily in the Old Testament to apply to Israel. The Mosaic Covenant- ... Had a, had a part of it that promised both material prosperity, mainly agricultural prosperity, and, national security as a result of their adherence to the law and their faithfulness to God. But that was, that, m- that was, that was promised to Israel nationally, not necessarily to ind, to individ- to every individual within the nation of Israel. Now, there was, there was a trickle-down effect, of course. And, you know, the, it's, it's reasonable to think that, you know, if the nation prospered, then lots of individuals would prosper, but there's, there's, there's never been a, an automatic sort of contractual connection between individual faithfulness and individual material prosperity. God rewards pros- ... God rewards faithfulness in a variety of ways. It may be financial, but it likely will be in other ways besides that. Now, I do think that for, I think for, you know, widely known, high-profile pastors who have, I would say, financial lifestyles that, would be the envy of even wealthy people today, you know, who fly on private jets, for example, and, you know, who, you know, who just, seem to be accumulating wealth for the sake of accumulating it, those are problems theol- I think theologically. I d- I don't think... The Bible does not, does not prohibit the accumulation of wealth per se, but it does prohibit the accumulation of wealth at the expense of others- ... Or if it involves the neglect of the needs of others. And I don't think a commitment to serving the marginalized does not mean that we, that pastors who lead those congregations that are involved in that become one of the, you know, one of the marginalized themselves. So I would say, I'd say, yeah, maybe, you know, maybe this affects their, the authenticity of their message. But I think in most cases, I would say probably not. Now, if they're talking about ultra, you know, you know, all, like pastors who, you know, are what we would put in the, in the maybe the 0.00001% of the population, yeah, there may be something to that. But I'm a little, I'm a little reluctant to judge someone's spirituality based on their net worth.

Sean McDowell: That's a good take, and that's biblical. "God judges the heart, although man judges appearance," 1 Samuel 16, I believe, verse 7. I have a couple thoughts on this. I think that was really helpful, Scott, is we can err on the side of giving a pass to certain people that are abusing the pulpit, abusing finances, but we can also question certain people based on being a part of a megachurch and throwing them in the same bucket as those who do abuse their funds. I was just speaking over Easter at an amazing church in Idaho, one of my favorite churches, and it's a megachurch. It's huge! From everything I can tell, discipleship, integrity. They-- I was walking through the lobby, and they had a ton of people there that they are specifically feeding and caring for the poor and caring for the community.... So I just don't wanna lump all megachurch pastors in there and make assumptions on the outside, in part because of where I sit. I've seen a lot of people have assumptions about my dad, assumptions about me, and more often than not, they're mistaken. So we've gotta balance being critical and holding people to account with assuming to know more than we do and lumping all megachurches in together. There are some big churches today that are doing it right and being held to account.

Scott Rae: Yeah. Well, one other just quick comment-

Sean McDowell: Yeah.

Scott Rae: I need to make sure we read the scripture correctly about the accumulation of wealth as well. 'Cause I think part of the reason that goes unstated, the part of the reason the scripture is so skeptical about the accumulation of wealth is, in the ancient world, there were so few morally legitimate ways to accumulate wealth. It was, it- they had a sort of, they had a zero-sum economic arrangement, where the only way you really got wealthy was by abuse of political power, by theft, extortion, or other kinds of immoral means. The idea that you could do well financially and do good for your community was not really, not really widespread in the ancient world. And it's just, it's part of the way economic life was organized in the ancient world.

Sean McDowell: Good distinction. Let me jump to one more here, one more question for us. This one, I'll just kinda cut to the chase: Given the rise of disinformation today on the internet and AI and the influx of false news in our digital age, what safeguards do you use to test the reliability and reputability of the news sources you subscribe to? How do you have a balance of left-leaning and right-leaning sources? Your take.

Scott Rae: You just be committed to having a balance of left- and right-leaning sources. Uh-

Sean McDowell: [laughing]

Scott Rae: ... You know, that's, that's why, that's why, you know, that's why you and I both read The Atlantic and The Washington Post and The New York Times, in addition to, you know, other conser- other more conservative sources. You know, I read, I read the Associated Press, which I think may be one of the more neutral ones. But, you know, I don't, I don't expect any news source to be completely without bias. I think that's unrealistic. So I try to read a variety of sources. I try to read stuff from folks with whom I disagree, 'cause I'm, I most times I'm gonna learn something, even though I disagree with them.

Sean McDowell: Well said. I'll just read a few ones that I actually listen to here, Scott, and these aren't necessarily endorsements. I'm just telling the people what I listen to. There's a news source called Breaking Points, and they have typically left and right daily debate news stories. Typically, both sides are presented. I appreciate that one. That's helpful. I enjoy, on the more left side, I listen to The New York Times, The Daily, pretty regularly, and I enjoy listening to Megyn Kelly's news source. I think she's fiery. I think she's interesting. She's become even more conservative over time. But that's, those are some of the podcasts on news that I listen to. YouTube channel's the same. I follow some atheists. I follow some Christians. News, like you said, I read The New York Times almost every day, read it this morning, but I have a ton of blogs of Christian influencers I read as well. So I don't know what more we can do from that than read both sides, try to analyze carefully and critically, and then when we get it wrong, try to make assessments and make corrections. So it's very biblical, by the way. It says, "The first to speak in court sounds right until the cross-examination begins."

Scott Rae: [chuckles]

Sean McDowell: There's a proverb that says that.

Scott Rae: Hear, hear.

Sean McDowell: Try to follow that. Good stuff, Scott. Already looking forward to next week.

Scott Rae: Hear, hear.

Sean McDowell: This has been an episode of the podcast Think Biblically: Conversations on Faith and Culture, brought to you by Talbot School of Theology, Biola University. We've got master's programs in Old Testament, New Testament, marriage and family, apologetics, philosophy, and much more, online and in person. Please send your comments or ask questions to us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu. Please, please, I'm almost begging this time, Scott-

Scott Rae: [laughing]

Sean McDowell: ... Give us a quick review on your, on your podcast app. Obviously, we want a five-star, but we want you to give an honest reviewing. Every one really helps in the analytics to train more people and equip people to think biblically. If you take five minutes, that'd be a great thank you if you enjoy this podcast. We appreciate you listening, and we'll see you Tuesday, when Scott and I talk about a topic for which I have never heard a sermon, and yet it's huge today. We need to think biblically about it. It's the topic of cohabitation. You're gonna enjoy that conversation. In the meantime, remember to think biblically about everything. [upbeat music]