AI Date Cafe: A New York City cafe is offering "tables for one" designed for people to take their AI chatbots on public dates, prompting a discussion on isolation and the value of messy, real-life relationships.

The Toddler Skincare Trend: Major brands are now marketing multi-step skincare routines to toddlers and elementary-aged children, raising concerns about the early onset of vanity and appearance-based anxiety.

Shifting Gender Narratives: Scott and Sean examine a recent New York Times piece criticizing medical organizations for prioritizing ideology over scientific rigor regarding youth gender-affirming care.

The Iran Protests: A heartbreaking report from 40 doctors details the brutal massacre of protesters in Iran, underscoring the reality of evil and the desperate need for human rights.

Listener Question: Creeds in Modern Worship: In response to a listener question, Sean and Scott discuss the value of reciting ancient Christian creeds in modern church settings to ground congregations in a historical ancient faith.

Listener Question: Navigating Tenant Relationships: A landlord asks for guidance on selecting tenants who align with their preference for a nuclear family environment as well as help thinking Biblically about having transgender tenants.

Listener Question: Leaving a "Quiet" Church: A listener seeks advice as they wrestle with leaving a church that stays quiet on cultural issues to become a cultural apologist themselves.



Episode Transcript

Sean McDowell: [upbeat music] A new cafe opens so people can take their chatbots on a date. The skincare industry is coming for toddlers. A New York Times opinion piece harshly criticizes private and government organizations that have supported gender-affirming care. And 40 doctors risked their lives to report on the heartbreaking bloodshed that has occurred during the protests in Iran. These are the stories we'll discuss, and we'll also address some of your questions. I'm your host, Sean McDowell.

Scott Rae: And I'm your co-host, Scott Rae.

Sean McDowell: This is the Think Biblically weekly cultural update, brought to you by Talbot School of Theology, Biola University. Scott, this first story actually came out last week, and I've been hanging on to it, and it hasn't gotten the press and attention I think it deserves. It was in the New York Post, and it says, "Table for one: Now you can take your AI chatbot on an actual date at a cafe in New York City." Now, apparently, the Hell's Kitchen establishment has been redesigned for those who have AI partners, so they can bring along their phone or tablet and set up at a table for a romantic evening, as if they were both there in the flesh. Now, this 34-year-old individual, who interestingly declined to share her last name, says, "I just speak to them like, 'Hey, what's up? How are you doing?' Things like that," she explained to this journalist. And then said, "I mostly do role-play scenarios where it may be romance or just maybe some kind of fantasy scenario." And this individual has used AI companions for a couple years now, which is interesting, and says, "I can talk to them on my own terms. I can talk with them without the expectation of having to go out or have the expectation of having them wanting to talk to me all the time." Now, this lady by the name of Julia Monblat, is the head of the partnership with Eva AI, and she writes, "We wanted to give the opportunity to people to take the AI companion on a real date in real life to destigmatize AI relationships, to make them more understandable for people." Now, a couple other things is she declined to share how many users the, a- they actually have, but was optimistic that the app might expand to host more AI cafes like this in the future. And, of course, they say, "We don't perceive it as a substitute for real relationships. We're here to support people kind of on the in-between, so to speak." And one quick point here is they say, "As younger users come of age with AI totally normalized, this sort of relationship will likely become more common." That's exactly what the article says, and I think they're onto something. What do you think about this story?

Scott Rae: Well, Sean, this is the next step with chatbot relationships.

Sean McDowell: That's right.

Scott Rae: Just take... And we're taking them out in public now. Not something in the privacy of our own homes, but, taking them in public to places that are set up for arrangements like this. You know, I looked at the... The article had some pictures of the cafe. The, you know, this, we- there's no longer have internet cafes, now they're, you know, they're chatbot cafes. Every one of the tables in there was a table for one. And I wondered, is this really gonna help with our feeling of isolation, or is it going to make it worse? I think the initial look at that cafe suggests that nobody in there was talking to a real person- ... Except for maybe the server who's gonna bring them their food. But that was it. And I found it really ironic that, they describe- the article describes one particular user that capped their use of their chatbot at three hours a day, in order, they put it, "In order to safeguard against addiction." I would suggest that if you're at three hours a day, you've blown through all the addiction guardrails-

Sean McDowell: [chuckles]

Scott Rae: ... To begin with.

Sean McDowell: Sure.

Scott Rae: And you don't have a lot to talk about. Here's, here's what makes me nervous about this, Sean, is the statement that they make, "We want to give the opportunity for people to take AI companion on a real date in real life," and here's the, here's the big idea, "to destigmatize AI relationships, to make them more understandable." To... The idea was to make AI less scary, to open up the doors for people who have AI companions to share this experience. Destigmatizing AI relationships, I think, is almost code, even though they deny it, but it's code for substituting AI relationships for the real thing. I think that may not be the intent. In fact, they say that's not the intent, but I think that's gonna be the effect. And we need to be, we need to be really careful, particularly with the point that you pointed out, about as younger users come in- come into, come of age, with AI becoming the, a normal part of life, I think they acknowledge that these sorts of relationships... And I even, I even hesitate to call them relationships.

Sean McDowell: Yeah.

Scott Rae: That's where-- That troubles me in the first place. But these types of arrangements will become more common. Here's the s- the stats. I'm gonna be, the data nerd of the two of us for a minute.

Sean McDowell: Do it. Do it.

Scott Rae: At last, as of last fall, 42% of high schoolers admitted to using AI for companionship, and one in five said they or someone they know has a romantic relationship with AI. Now, I think those figures, the trajectory is only, I think, gonna head upward on that. And, you know, we've talked about already, you know, we were created for community with real people, with real relationships, and part of the reason for that, Sean, is because real relationships are not only good for us relationally, but they're good for us in terms of what they force us to face about ourselves.... They're good for us in that they, you know, that real intimate relationships force you to come to terms with who you are and who you're not. And the sycophancy phenomenon with these AI chatbots completely precludes that. And so I think we're, we're missing out, I think, on one of the, one of the best interpersonal benefits of real, live relationships. And it's, you know, and that- I'm convinced that these real, live, messy relationships are the main way that... That's the main chisel that God uses to chip away at the rough edges of our character. And I just don't, I just don't see a sycophant chatbot working in quite the same way.

Sean McDowell: Really good take, good insights. Many of the same points that jumped out to me. A, a couple things did... It was interesting that this individual who's cited here with their first name, who's been using these chatbots for two years, declined to share her last name. Now, why? In part, you could say, "Well, society just hasn't caught up with this yet and realized this is normal and good," or maybe there's something inside of us that says, "This isn't right. This is not best for culture and society." And so there's this hesitancy inside of her to admit that. Now, last thing I wanna do is shame a bunch of individuals who use these companions. I mean, I looked at the pictures of this, and people can go online and see it theirselves, but there's tables lined up like any other kind of cafe or bar or restaurant people have been in, and they're all not only staring at their phones, but they're talking in what I would call a pseudo-relationship, and it kinda made me sad for these people. And, and the point is not that there's never a time or place for a chatbot. Like, I'm sure in counseling, there's ways it could be used positively with controls. But here, when you're going on a date, the kind of thing humans are supposed to experience together, and to look across a table into somebody's eyes and be flesh-and-blood present. We are moving away from the very things we need to be healthy as a society and move away from some of the mental health issues that we've had. [chuckles] We're moving... It's like we haven't learned in COVID that we need flesh-and-blood human relationships, where you look into somebody's eyes and they just say, "Tell me more, and I wanna understand, and that's interesting, and I care about you, and I love you." So my heart actually really broke as I was looking for this. People, they're looking for the very thing God has made us to desire, which is relationship, but settling for something that's not gonna fill their hearts. One other thing about this, Scott, really jumped out to me. This individual said, "I can talk with them without the expectations of having to go out or having the expectations of having them wanting to talk to me all the time." And I thought, "Oh, part of this is a piece of control." I can control the narrative here. It makes it easy for me. Well, what makes relationships work is when I don't make it easy for me, when I decide, "Oh, my wife needs me." Last night, my son... I was in the middle of something, [chuckles] just prepping, and it was like, my son needed something. I took a deep breath. I'm like, "You know what? Helping my son is more important." Well, it's like they wanna have these chatbots to learn certain skills and get better at relating to people, but rather than teaching us to be available for others and meet their expectations, it's framed in a way that it's actually best for our expectations. So I don't remotely think this is going to have a positive influence on society. I'm really more concerned than anything else.

Scott Rae: Yeah, one-

Sean McDowell: Anything else on this story?

Scott Rae: Just one thing. I would, I would encourage our listeners to look up the article and look at the pictures of what this c- AI cafe looks like. And it, you know, it's sort of one thing if this is a, if this is a one-off and it... Nothing much happens to this. But if this becomes widespread, then I think we've got major issues. Because what the chatbot's not gonna give you is not only those things that you just said, but it's also not gonna give you, "You're, you're not meeting my expectations." You know, "You, you've got, you've got flaws that you need to work on. You've got blind spots that you don't see." There, you're not gonna get that, and that's the stuff of relationships that actually makes people grow.

Sean McDowell: Amen. Well said, good stuff. So this next story was one... The reason I picked it is there's an article in The Wall Street Journal and in The Atlantic, which made me think there's a little bit of a trend here, and the title is "The Skincare Industry Is Coming for Your Toddlers." And they talk about how millennials created the wellness economy, and now it wants their children as customers. So and this article talks about how kids, of course, love to imitate their parents, and they cite an individual here, named Shay Mitchell, and that meant her daughters wanted a, to copy her face mask routine. Mitchell, an actor best known for her role in Pretty Little Liars, would wear one while she read her three and six-year-old girls a story. Inevitably, they'd look at her sheet mask and ask, "Can I have it?" "Cutting eyeholes into cleaning wipes didn't cut it," she told Today last, late last year. "They wanted a real one." So she founded the skincare company Renee and launched an everyday facial ma- sheet mask for toddlers. So now there's a handful of companies pitching regimens for children who are elementary age and younger-... The tween, what's called the tween skincare brand, Pippa, I think it's called, c- tells customers to start young, in this case, at eight years old, and begin experimenting with products. So right away we see this is a trend driven largely by the money that can be made behind it, unmistakably. One of these partners I thought was interesting, Sincerely Yours was co-founded by a then 15-year-old YouTuber to provide skincare created with teens and for teens. When they did a rollout at an American Dream mall, she had a roughly 80,000-person crowd that included many kids who were almost certainly middle school or younger, and they're selling clease- selling cleansers and sunscreen and moisturizer, et cetera. And they're really trying to portray skincare as a normal part of childhood play. That's what they write. Now, in this Wall Street Journal article, they point out a couple things financially focused, which I thought was really interesting. The growing business of kids' beauty comes as members of Gen Alpha, or children born after 2010, become serious consumers. So we're starting to see Gen Alpha shift into the realm of having, expendable finances, and so marketers are looking at them, saying: "How do we get their money?" And this is a prime movement, towards them. So Everdeen- Everden, a company making $28 moisturizers, $30 body washes for kids, clocked 100 million in sales in 2024. And they're really kind of asking a question that gets to the heart of it. They say, "How young is too young to expose children to beauty and the potential anxieties that come with it?" Now, I have one daughter. I have three sisters. Obviously, I have a wife. You have three sons, so I was somewhat hesitant [chuckles] to pick this story, but it felt like a cultural shift that's taking place that we ought to try to help our audience think biblically about. What's your take?

Scott Rae: Well, Sean, I know enough people who do have daughters to, I think, to be able to step into their shoes- ... At least for a minute, though we did... You know, we did not- this is not something we wrestled with in our house with our kids growing up. [chuckles]

Sean McDowell: Sure.

Scott Rae: And I, Sean, I admit, I've got more questions than answers on this.

Sean McDowell: Fair.

Scott Rae: And although I think some of my questions may be a tad rhetorical. And here's my main question is: on the consumer side, what actually is driving this? And my guess is that, you know, that, as you mentioned, that desire to be like your parents, you know, to be, you know, for young girls to be like their older sister, to be cool, to be grown up, to be beautiful. If those are the things that are driving it, you know, then I have to... I'm not... I'll, I'll we- I'll have to wait and see on that. That's- the related question is, are we training kids early on in vanity and narcissism? And, you know, if it's skincare, you know, I think one of the questions I wanted to raise is: where's the harm if it starts good skincare habits? You know, if it's just moisturizers and cleansers, you know, and although, you know, the ex- the experts tell us that basically so- you know, soap and water and s- and sunscreen is basically all you need, at that age. But if it's makeup that we're talking about, I think that's in a little different category. And, the question I would have there is, does this create an unhealthy obsession with appearance at way too young an age, with the accompanying- ... Insecurities and comparisons that are typical of later adolescence? So the i, my sense is that it's, it's easy- it's gonna be easy to see if this goes off the rails. And I don't think it takes a lot of imagination to see that happening. Some of it, you know, if it's just cleansers and moisturizers, may be a case of no harm, no foul. And I'd, I'd be willing to live with that. But the rest of it, that is, you know, if it fuels the beauty myth among young girls, I don't want to fuel- I'm not sure I want to fuel that at any age, but particularly not at really impressionable, younger, you know, sort of late elementary, middle school age girls.

Sean McDowell: I think that's a really fair question, Scott. I think that's gets to the heart of it. You know, a couple things jumped out to me here, but a question that I had is if this was motivated by, "How do we help young girls be healthier?" I think we might approach it a little bit differently. We'd say, "Let's make sure they eat healthy, brush their teeth, get enough sleep." These are the kinds of things we would lean into, and of course, there could be some... You make an important distinction between, like, skincare to protect your skin and sunscreen, and beauty products, and I sense this is at least being presented as if it's just skincare, but I don't know how much girls are going to be able to make that distinction. And when you open up the door for it-

Scott Rae: Probably not

Sean McDowell: ... It probably not. Becomes a much-

Scott Rae: Probably not

Sean McDowell: ... Simpler step to say, "Well, just get me this now. Just get me this now." [chuckles] It's like, are we opening up the door for something that becomes so harder to resist? You know, a couple things about this jumped out to me interesting. It said, "The brands like to portray skincare as a normal part of childhood play." I mean, that's interesting. Is that really play? Well, if we can normalize something in kids' minds, then we can shift how they think, and they're far more likely to buy a product.So that's, that's a part of it that just gave me some pause and gave me concern. But as I was watching this, I thought, you know what? At one sense, we're slowing down growing up for kids, and we're letting kids be adolescents longer than ever. Buying a home, getting married, graduating from college, these adult things are taking le- they're taking place later than ever. But now we're shifting on the other spectrum and saying grow up quicker than ever. There's certain things to say, "Hey, that's wonderful. You wanna be like your mom. That's great you wanna be like your aunt or your grandma or your older sister." But you know what? There's just certain things that when we become adults, we get privileges with those adults. And that's how it... As adults, that's how we viewed makeup with our daughter. Like, I understand you wanna look beautiful, and this is something that comes with responsibility, comes with age. It's a privilege. And pushing that younger, I'm just not sure is wise, and I do think it exacerbates, even subtly, this culture that is just obsessed with how we look, obsessed with appearance, and we've seen the mental health, especially with girls, that results from this. And that's why this article in The Atlantic asks exactly the right question: How young is too young to expose children to beauty and the potential anxieties that come with it? Yeah, studies show that anxieties do come with it. Even if we didn't know the answer to that, should we err on the side of going, "Well, let's start earlier," or should we start later? And frankly, when it comes to smartphones, all the data is like we started too earlier, we should push back later. That's my suspicion as it comes to this. You know, of course, biblically speaking, it's just so important to ingrain in our kids that our value doesn't come from how we look. It doesn't come from our appearance. Beauty is something built into us because God is beautiful, and each human being made in the image of God expresses that beauty in a unique way. That's the message I wanna put into our kids. And I would say as a whole, this trend, it does concern me a little bit.

Scott Rae: You know, it's such a good point you made about how we've, we've e- we've extended adolescence both on the, on the older end and the younger end. And, you know, my concern is the way we've extended it on the younger end, because one way, one way I think we've seen this is with the growing sexualization of children. I think we've, we've basically... We, we've... I think w- that pre-adolescent period is shrinking, if not altogether disappearing, where the line between childhood and adolescence is getting erased. And that I think that's a bad trend because, as you point out, the insecurities of ado- of adolescence bring mental health issues. They bring body image issues. They bring eating disorders. And my, in my judgment, the big question here is will we see these same kinds of mental health issues now s- beginning at younger ages because of this? I hope not. But Sean, God help us if we do. 'Cause that's a, that's a v- in my view, a very bad state of affairs. And I think this may be one of those places where the genie's gonna be awfully tough to stuff back into the bottle. Because once it's out there, and younger and younger girls, particularly if they're, you know, if they're emboldened by their parents, and who- parents who see this as, you know, no harm or unable to resist the peer pressure on this, I, this is, this is... I think this has danger signs written all over it.

Sean McDowell: I totally agree. And again, the article, you know, it has this girl who's, I don't know how old she is, four or five years old, and she just looks like she'd be a model at five years old. And it's one thing to do play at home and dress up and, like, that's totally fine at home. I have no issue with that. When that becomes a norm coming out in public-

Scott Rae: Yeah

Sean McDowell: ... That's where this becomes really different and concerning. And I think it's hard-

Scott Rae: Well, part of it, too, is... Yeah. And what flaws does a five-year-old have to cover up with makeup?

Sean McDowell: [laughs] That's fair. [laughs] Good point. All right. We'll let that one-

Scott Rae: Hey

Sean McDowell: ... Sink in and move on to this story, which-

Scott Rae: Go ahead

Sean McDowell: ... By the way, this story really surprised me, Scott. I did not see this one coming. Now, you and I have talked a few times about how there's been a shift as a whole, in the sports issue related to transgender, the bathroom issue discussions have shifted. We had a detransitioner sue a while ago and be awarded $2 million. And so we've seen this narrative shift a little bit, but The New York Times just featured an opinion piece that was way harsher and way stronger than I expected, and it says, "Medical associations trusted belief over science on youth gender." And they write, "American advocates for youth gender medicine have insisted for years that overwhelming evidence favors providing gender dysphoric youth with puberty blockers, hormones, and in the case of biological females, surgery to remove their breasts. It didn't matter that the number of kids showing up at gender clinics had soared and that they were more likely to have complex mental health conditions than those who'd come to clinics in years earlier," and you've made that point many times, Scott, which complicates the diagnosis. "Advocates and healthcare organizations just dug in." And they call out three organizations that surprised me to have this guest essay. They call out GLAAD, an LGBTQ advocacy group, who said in 2023 the science is settled.They call out the Human Rights Campaign, which says on its website that safety and efficacy of gender-affirming care for transgender and non-binary youth and adults is clear, and the ACLU they called out. The three of those are probably some of the most three influential left-leaning organizations who've been pushing for this. But they don't stop there. They said the reason these advocates were able to make such strong statements is that for years, the most important professional medical and mental health organizations in the country had been singing a similar tune, that the science is settled. Well, they say cracks have appeared in the supposed wall of consensus, and this was... I mean, this was heartbreaking. They, they point the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, this is in 2024, so about two years ago February, became the first major American medical group to publicly question youth gender medicine. The American Medical Association, which has long approved of such procedures, announced that in the absence of clear evidence, the AMA agrees with the ASPS, American Society of Plastic Surgeons, that surgical intervention in minors should be generally deferred to adulthood. Now, what do they point towards here? They kind of say in this article at the time, more and more Americans have turned away from expert authority in favor of YouTube quacks and their ilk. It's vital that organizations that represent mainstream science be open, honest, and transparent about politically charged issues. They cite the Cass Review, which you and I talked about from two years ago, how in England there was a major, study done, and they really basically showed that there's no positive evidence that even social transition, let alone adding hormone blockers and surgery, positively helps, s- kids with gender dysphoria, and so they pulled back on it. I mean, before this, the American Academy of Pediatrics was instructing clinicians to take four and five-year-old claims about their gender identities as certainly true. That's insane. That's insane. So this article points out that in 2020, Republican-led states began pushing in earnest to tightly restrict or ban youth gender medicine. Professional organizations, the AMA, AAP, American Psychological Association, wrote a flurry of letters to legislators, briefs, and science-y sounding documents opposing these bans and re- exaggerating the evidence for the treatment that's in question. Last line here, and it's-- to see this in New York Times is something you and I have been saying for a decade. They said, "I've been covering this controversy for a decade from a left-of-center perspective, and I found that anyone who questions these treatments, even mildly, is invariably accused of bigotry." Yeah. We've been saying that for a while. So for The New York Times to have this article, I honestly felt like it's about time, and I'm glad they did. Now, I have a lot to say on this, but I want to hear your thoughts.

Scott Rae: Well, Sean, my first reaction was finally. Some cracks in the American ideology-based consensus on gender-related treatments. And I say that in-- carefully and intentionally. 'Cause I think what we're seeing is that this has been driven much more by ideology than by data. And it's, it's also a move toward what I think are very common sense approaches in Europe, that is expanding throughout Europe that we saw from the Cass Review in 2024. We've talked about that at length, rather than the... What has been the pattern in the US, which is to double down on the gender ideology in contradiction to the data that's co- that has come to light. Now I'm, I'm encouraged that the AMA, the Association of Plastic Surgeons, have come out like they have. I think the article also calls out the American Academy of Pediatrics. It also calls out the American Psychological Association for changing their views on this. And that, I find that's encouraging. The APA seems to be reversing course. The AMA's reversed course. The plastic surgeons, they're, they're, they're out there on-- they were out there on record in 2024, which makes-- sort of makes me wonder why didn't this get publicized at the time?

Sean McDowell: Good question.

Scott Rae: I'm happy to see it now, but that should've been breaking news in 2024 because the Plastic Surgeons Association, they're the ones who are doing most of the gender-re-- gender-related surgeries, that you describe. So, you know, we c- we can talk about what some of the, some of the details on how they reversed themselves, but just suffice it to say that the American Psychological Association just two years ago came out with a very strong statement, that criticized those who charac- mischaracterized gender dysphoria as, a, like we t-- like we talk about it, as a, as a symptom, not a root cause. And they've changed their views, on that. And, it-- they now say that gender dysphoria could be the result of trauma or other conditions such as depression, anxiety, autism, things like that. The, the mental health issues that we've suggested and the Cass Review is very clear about are the underlying causes that at least have to be addressed, if not treated, before considering any kind of gender-affirming surgery. And thankfully, the-- both of these association, the AMA and the Association of Plastic Surgeons have recommended stopping... These kinds of treatments for minors. They don't point- the article doesn't point out the reason, but the reason for that is because, you know, doing these kinds of treatments before puberty is finished is way contrary to the data that's come out of Europe now. So I, you know, I- how much of this is politically driven, I don't know about that. But I think what the article does show is that science can be driven by ideology. And I'm, I'm reluctant to say that because I d- I don't share the general sort of cultural skepticism about science, but in this area, I think that the key conclusion from the article is to suggest that there are other forces besides scientific rigor that were guiding these medical associations.

Sean McDowell: And that one, I agree with you wholeheartedly on that point, although I might be a little bit more skeptical than you are [chuckles] about science. And, it really hit me in a couple realms. I read a book called The Trouble With Physics years ago, and this agnostic writer talked about how, y- certain views in physics, like string theory, became so politically motivated that research and positions were awarded to people who took certain positions on string theory, even though the research had not been done and documented. It's a whole book about kind of the philosophy and ideology behind driving this and politics in the world of physics. Just yesterday, I interviewed one of our colleagues, Doug Axe, and we're gonna have it as an episode here coming up, and he's a microbiologist, and he went to Caltech. He went to... Did work at Berkeley, did postdoctoral research at Cambridge, and basically ended up losing his job because he questioned some of the Darwinian narrative in biology, and so I think this is pretty widespread. Now, it doesn't mean we can't trust science at all, but we've heard so often that, you know, certain people are science deniers and follow the science, and it's just manipulative. It's manipulative. This is a clear case where ideology [chuckles] comes first. It's the, you know, it's the engine, and the caboose is the science to fit what that perspective is. Now, when I say this, I always pause because biblically, we're supposed to look in the mirror and realize that we're all sinful, and we're all capable of doing this. We are all capable of having some view or belief and then finding the evidence that fits our preconceived notions. So whenever I call somebody out like this, I wanna pause and say: Am I being inconsistent in my own life? Where do I need to pivot? And I think that's a biblical response. Now, on- in this article, one thing that jumped out to me... Well, two things. They said, quote, "It's vital that organizations that represent mainstream science be open, honest, and transparent about politically charged issues." I say, well, yeah, so does the media. [chuckles] I mean, my goodness, this is in the media talking about this. Where was The New York Times 10 years ago challenging some of these ideas? And so it's not just scientific organizations, it's not just these kind of nonprofit ACLU, GLAD organizations that clearly have an agenda. The media has played a massive role here, so I'm glad The New York Times has covered it, but I'd love for them to go back, and I'm calling them to do this, go back and pull up some of the old articles and just say, "Here's where we got it wrong, here's what we learned from it, and here's why we're gonna do better moving forward." I would love that. Last point here, it says that... The writer says, "I've been covering this controversy for about a decade from a left-of-center perspective, and I found that anyone who questions these treatments, even mildly, is invariably accused of bigotry." That's kind of the- that's a threatening ad hominem attack to silence people when they don't have the science on their side. And so I think this should've been a sign early on for people, that when somebody goes, "Hey, you know, the science doesn't really match up here," when somebody doesn't say, "Wait a minute, explain that to me. We need to get it right," and they call you names, that tells you something more is going on here than getting the science right. So I'm glad to have somebody here who describes himself left-of-center perspective admit this, but this is something many conservatives have been saying for a long time. Any other thoughts on this one?

Scott Rae: Nope. Move- we can move along to the most depressing story we will have covered in a long time.

Sean McDowell: Yes, it is. You know, K- one more quick thing, Scott, before we jump to that.

Scott Rae: Yeah.

Sean McDowell: I did see this... It was kind of a small story about there were religious parents in the LGBTQ title-- this is the title of the article, "Storybook Case to be Paid $1.5 Million in Damages." So this is another one on this kind of transgender narrative, where parents were not able to opt out their kids in Maryland from a LGBTQ-type storybook and education. The Supreme Court flipped this, and now they're actually paying out $1.5 million in damages to a group of religious parents who sued the county over a policy that denied them the ability to opt their children out of lessons addressing gender and sexuality. So that's another smaller story that caught my attention, that we're in the middle of a real shift on this issue as a whole, that I'd say is positive. Now, with that said, this next story, I went back and forth on covering it. It's just... It, it's heartbreaking, but I think we need to draw attention to this because the Iranian government-... Has done their best to silence this, and 40 doctors-- This is a story, and kudos to The New York Times for covering this. They said, "As street protests spread across Iran in early January, the authorities turned off the internet. Most of the world didn't see the bloody crackdown that followed, but Iran's doctors and nurses did." So they surveyed medical workers in 14 cities and 11 provident- provinces, and they were at great personal risk to share their stories. This is an opinion piece, and it's just how-- it's literally how these dis- doctors are describing a massacre. And so these are 40 doctors, and in almost every case, about 37 of the 40 just described unbearable amounts of death, brutal kind of carnage that reflects torture of the people who are protesting. Oh, man, in some ways, they describe how many were struck with multiple pellets or bullets targeting their heads, necks, chest, femurs, abdomen. There's a handful of stories of people who were brought in who were shot, a man and a woman, in the genitals. They describe, Let me see some of the quotes that are here. They're try- it's difficult to independently verify how many people really were either tortured or killed. They said, you know, the human rights activist news said 6,800 protest-related deaths, with an additional 11,000 cases under investigation, but other estimates put the death much higher. I mean, I've seen some estimate up to 30,000 that took place. According to Mr. Akhavan from the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center, this is not just the worst mass killing in contemporary history of Iran; it is one of the worst mass killings in contemporary world history. That's a pretty bold thing to say. And some of the... People can read this if they want to, but these doctors report hallways covered in blood. They describe people who they saw exposure to brain and abdominal, knife, machete blows, just bullet wounds that are brutal, heads that were split open, elderly men, kids that died in their arms, like, doctors describing seven-year-olds and grandparents and 11-year-olds, people intentionally wounded in the eyes. I mean, reading this, Scott, it just made me so angry, and it just broke my heart for these people, so many of which just want to get out from under this repressive, authoritarian, brutal regime.

Scott Rae: Well, Sean, I found this story absolutely chilling, because it shows the reality of evil.

Scott Rae: And that's part, I think, of what we have to talk about. But first of all, I say bless the healthcare workers for basically calling this what it was.

Sean McDowell: That's right.

Scott Rae: This was, this was not quelling a protest, but it was a massacre intended to kill and maim and blind the participants, not to break- not just to break up a protest. They said there was no doubt that the vast majority of government forces were shooting to kill or to maim. And the, you know, the extent of the numbers killed or wounded is, you know, is... We can debate that. The extent of their injuries, though, is something that these doctors testify to. And, you know, they, you know, they talk about these are injuries that were- that they've only seen in battlefield conditions.

Scott Rae: And the idea that, you know, that this happened to their own countrymen and countrywomen and children, I think is what was, what was so heartbreaking for these physicians. And, you know, Sean, it's not, it's not hard to look away from this. This is, this is gonna be old news after a while, because I think we just don't wanna face the reality of evil for being what it is, the reality that people can actually do these things, not just to a select individual, but to masses of innocent people. I think it also, I think, shows the extent to which people in power will go to maintain their power, particularly if they believe that they're above the law and above accountability for it. You know, I hear- one of the most interesting and influential articles that I read on this general phenomena was entitled "Conditions for a Guilt-Free Massacre." And one of the main conditions was that the people perpetrating this dehumanize the people who they are inflicting this evil upon. They see them as less than fully human. And that's, I think, where the solution to this actually begins, 'cause if we see, if we see people as made in the image of God, as being intrinsically valuable, then I think that's a s- really significant moral guardrail that, prevents these kinds of things from happening. And almost all the massacres in history have begun by dehumanizing the victims- ... Because it gives a, it gives some sort of justification for people to do the things that they're doing.

Sean McDowell: You know, Scott, really interesting that you draw this up because that's kind of a theme in each one of the stories, what it means to be human and what we're made for. We're made for relationships with real flesh and blood-... People, first story. We're made-- yeah, and there's nothing wrong with wanting to look beautiful, but when we emphasize that beauty comes from appearance, especially with kids, could it be argued that at some point we might be dehumanizing ourselves? When it comes to sexuality and identity, we are made by God as male and female, and in this case, what we see, even beyond that, is a kind of dehumanization, which of course, we saw in the Holocaust, referring to Jews as vermins, so you could exterminate them. You're right, mentally and emotionally, it's written on our hearts that we shouldn't take human life. We have to take that step in our minds to dehumanize people and then treat them accordingly. And, you know, some of these stories, I hate to belabor it, but I really-- I think my sense here is that many of the people in Iran want others to know what's really happening, hence, these doctors were willing to risk their lives. They describe a breastfeeding mother was holding her baby when security forces opened fire on their car. I mean, just let that sink in. [chuckles] I mean, my word! If there's anybody we should protect, it's a breastfeeding mother. And what happened is they arrived to the hospital in the same vehicle, riddled with bullets. The bullet passed through the baby's hand and into the mother's chest. How do you get to the point where you treat any mother and their child this way? If that's not an act of evil like you described, and dehumanization, I don't know what is. Now, on the flip side to this, Scott, I had a really interesting interview last week. I didn't post it here on the podcast. It was on, it was on, it was on YouTube with, Dr. Hormoz Shariat, who actually fled Iran in 1979 and witnessed the revolution then, as a Muslim. Went to USC to study artificial intelligence in the '80s, interestingly enough, to get his doctorate- ... Became a Christian, and he's called the Billy Graham of Iran. He's been dubbed that. And his ministry, which is remarkable, is, They have seen hundreds of thousands of people contact them and say they've come to Christ, and reached out to his ministry. They have television, they have other ways of reaching across Iran. And he said a few things. He said, "The bloodshed there is worse than you realize if you follow some of the news stories that are in Farsi that have not reached American audiences." So they'll, like, some of the government will track their phones, and they'll know if you go to a protest, and then show up at your house and take you and your family. I mean, this is an evil, draconian authority doing everything to hold onto power. But he said what's interesting is, he said God gave him a vision years ago to see a million Muslims in Iran come to faith. He said, "When there's these kind of crackdowns, as heartbreaking and terrible as it is, many of the people there look at the regime and don't say, 'This is an aberration of Islam.'" He said they used to. They say, "There is something fundamentally wrong with Iran, and there's an openness that follows to Christianity." That was his take, and he said, during these protests, as horrible and terrible as they are, so many people will respond and turn to Christ in light of this. So as we pray for this, we can pray for their boldness, we can pray for their safety, and just pray that God would move hearts and minds and use this tragedy for His good. That's something all of us can pray for our Iranian friends and brothers and sisters, and especially right now. I mean, by the time this releases, it's possible there could be a war because there's ongoing talks between the US and Iran right now. It's at such a fragile place. It's such an important country in world history and in the present, that we pay attention, we pray for them, we be aware of what happened, and above all else, just pray that God moves, 'cause the Iranian people are remarkable and beautiful and just being oppressed in such brutal ways right now.

Scott Rae: Yeah. One, just one final thing, Sean.

Sean McDowell: Please.

Scott Rae: I would encourage all of our listeners to read the New York Times piece on this, and just read the accounts that these doctors and nurses are giving. That I think you've rightly described, they've risked their lives to do that. And, and don't, don't, don't be part of the crowd that just walks away from evil- ... Walks away from viewing it because it's too hard. It is hard, and it's, it's tough to read. But I think we don't do ourselves a favor if we just turn aside from accounts like this.

Sean McDowell: Amen. I think that's well said. There's a whole section here just about teens and pre-teens that were targeted by snipers. I mean, it's just... It's evil. It's really evil. And I'll, I'll tell you something. I heard a quote some time ago where this atheist made a statement. He said, "There's so much evil in the world, I'm starting to think that maybe Satan is real." And it was Charlie Kirk, interestingly, who responded, and he said, "If Satan, then God."

Scott Rae: Yeah.

Sean McDowell: And that is-

Scott Rae: That's right

Sean McDowell: ... A remarkable response. And man, if this really is evil, and we cry out that this is wrong, that's because there's a standard of justice.

Scott Rae: Right.

Sean McDowell: That's because there's human value, and that only makes sense if there is a God who is just and has made us with human value. That's the only solution when it's all said and done to evil.... All right, we'll move on from that story. We got a number of questions here, Scott. Just so our listeners know, every week we get more questions than we can possibly take, which we deeply appreciate. Let me start with this first one that, is mentioned to you, but I'll weigh in here as well. It said: "Recently, Scott mentioned not wanting to discriminate against individuals that identify as transgender in housing or employment. My wife and I have several properties, and our ideal tenants are nuclear families. I don't think there's anything controversial about that. You both mentioned, and I agree, that transgenderism is indicative of deeper underlying issues, which I believe would be reasonable to want to avoid as an employer or a landlord. We implement legal screening criteria that discriminates against individuals that do not meet certain income requirements, credit scores, past evictions, et cetera. Is it wrong for me to not want a transgender tenant? Is it wrong for me to discriminate at all? Can you help me think through this in a way that aligns with our faith?"

Scott Rae: Well, Sean, I would suggest that, trans folks are still made in the image of God and deserve our dignity-

Sean McDowell: Amen

Scott Rae: ... Regardless of their choices. In fact, I would suggest that they are made in God's image prior to the choices that they make in their lives, and that weighs heavily on, treating them with the dignity and respect that they deserve. And that doesn't mean accepting their choices, and it doesn't, it doesn't mean, approving of, you know, different things that you happen to disagree with. But I do, I do think... I would, I would have an- I would have trouble discriminating against somebody just because they are trans in housing and employment. For one, I think, I think correctly, that's illegal. And so I think you'd have to, you'd have to deal with that. And, you know, I get it that the, you know, this couple has several- they own several properties. They like i- they like, two-parent families as the ideal. But that's a, that's now, that's now a minority of households in the United States. And so I think if you're gonna rent, if you're gonna rent property, it is... I think it's okay to have income requirements, credit scores, eviction history, things like that. That, I mean, so to say that we don't discriminate is not true. We discriminate. There's legitimate and illegitimate discrimination. And but I think discriminating against someone because they are trans, I don't think that shows the love of Jesus, and, that's something I probably wouldn't do.

Sean McDowell: That's fair.

Scott Rae: I,

Sean McDowell: I think-

Scott Rae: ... I'm open-

Sean McDowell: Keep going

Scott Rae: , I'm open to being persuaded differently on that, but that's my initial response.

Sean McDowell: I think that's fair. You know, the person mentions that transgenderism is indicative of deeper underlying issues. You and I have talked about that, but I think if you're gonna have a public housing for individuals, and you're concerned about the underlying issues, then create criteria based on whatever those underlying issues are for tenants, and, of course, it's gonna have to be legal and be consistent, rather than single out individuals who are transgender, who may or may not have those particular underlying issues. So I think it's totally reasonable to say, "I want landlord..." You know, "I'm a landlord. I want tenants who will be respectful and want nuclear family." I mean, I totally get that for running a business. I would just wanna say, you know, this person says, "Is it wrong to not want a transgender tenant?" I just wanna ask why. Why don't you want a transgender tenant, and why is it just a transgender tenant? Because there's a whole lot of different people that you might think would not be good tenants in a building. So we have to be sure that, I think it's important that we're consistent on these issues and don't just pull out one issue, transgender, and have concern there and not others. Then we potentially fall into the criticism that says, "You are being bigoted. You are being transphobic." It's just key that we are consistent in how we approach this. You know, I don't own any buildings. I don't know what this is like, but to me, in some ways, it's an opportunity to have a relationship with somebody. I mean, I know individuals who are transgender who would be great tenants and super respectful. In some ways, I consider it an opportunity to love somebody, to care for somebody, and to show love from Christians to somebody who's transgender, who may or may not, you know, in some cases, probably doesn't feel that love from Christians. I would view it as a ministry opportunity to reach out to these people and to love for them. That's how I view it, but, like you, I'm open to being persuaded on this one as well. Okay, this says: "What is your perspective on reciting the ancient Christian creeds as part of Sunday morning worship service? This is common and comes naturally in liturgical churches, of course, but seems quite out of place in certain megachurch contexts. If a church leadership that doesn't currently use or recite the creeds sees values and begin to do so, what advice would you give them for framing this new practice for their congregations?"

Scott Rae: Well, full disclosure here, I attend an Anglican church- ... Which is, I'd say my, I'd say, I wouldn't say it's highly liturgical, but it's mi- I'd say it's moderately liturgical. I mean, we have, we have a guitar and a bass player and a, you know, f- that lead worship for us, but we follow a liturgy that has, that cites the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed every Sunday. I think it's an important part for me to affirm the basics of what I believe publicly on a regular basis.... Now, I get it. I mean, we spent a lot of years in different megachurches, before we sort of, we sort of, we downsized our church to something considerably smaller. So I understand why this could be a tough transition. I would suggest, you know, m- just make sure you explain to people why you do it, and that the tradition of regularly affirming the foundations of your faith is something that goes back, probably seven- well, the Nicene Creed was 1,700 years old this year. So I think it's a fairly, it's a fairly long tradition. And I think you can, you know, just, I say try and, try and see. I think you'll find that people will resonate with it.

Sean McDowell: I love it. The only thing I would say is if you try something new, it's gonna take a little while for people to get used to it and adjust. But in some ways, especially in a megachurch, it might be important, because everything can seem so modern and current, reminding people they are part of an ancient faith long before we came along, and people will be living out the faith long after we're gone. One more for you, Scott. This one's... This individual says, "After months of careful deliberation, I believe God has called me to leave my church. Been a member for eight years. I've been feeling an inconsolable restlessness due to the fact that my church has stayed silent about every major cultural, political issue and event of the past half-decade." This person mentions COVID, ICE raids. "God's given me a strong conviction to address cultural issues and societal problems. My church doesn't help anyone process or respond to such things in a God-honoring manner. I'd like to become an urban or cultural missionary, so to speak, but I simply do not know where to start other than to leave my church. I need your help. What advice would you give or resource recommendations for me and my situation?"

Scott Rae: Sean, my advice is actually pretty simple, is to ask the question: what training do you have to do the kinds of things that you wanna do? I would encourage somebody not to just start, you know, just start expressing opinions, without doing your homework. So I'd, you know, pick an issue, do your homework on it, be balanced, be biblical, start a blog, start writing down some thoughts, put it out there for people. Respond, have conversations with folks. And take it sort of one per- one, you know, one person and one reader at a time. But, don't, you know, don't think you're gonna be able to step into a, you know, this dramatic role of being a, you know, a cultural apologist without, you know, without doing quite a bit of homework and having quite a bit of training- ... To get there.

Sean McDowell: I think that's fair. My, my take, you know, Scott, on this, is that we only have one side of this story. [chuckles]

Scott Rae: Yeah.

Sean McDowell: I don't know this individual, so part of me says, if you've been at this church for eight years, ask the pastor or a couple on the pastoral staff, say, "Can we have a conversation?" Don't complain. Don't write a blog about your issues with the church. [chuckles] Just go to them and say, "Here's my concerns. Where do you think I'm wrong? Help me understand." 'Cause, A, you wanna leave on good terms, but, B, it's possible that they have good reasons why they haven't addressed these issues in the way that you want to address them. I don't know, but give them the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they have blind spots. Maybe you have some blind spots. I don't know the answer to that. But the... You know, as far as, two things practically. Number one is the book Urban Apologetics by Chris Brooks, who's spoken here and partnered with us. We love him. He's amazing. Urban Apologetics by Chris Brooks is a great resource. And then second, just find some other people who you think are doing what you wanna do in the way you wanna do it. Follow them, try to connect with them, learn from them, and don't reinvent the wheel. [chuckles] Start by doing what others are doing, and then adapt it uniquely to your own, your own mission. That's my suggestions moving forward. Thanks so much for the question. Anything else, Scott?

Scott Rae: Nope.

Sean McDowell: All right.

Scott Rae: Good, good stuff today.

Sean McDowell: That was! Good, fascinating stories, that's for sure. [upbeat music] This has been an episode of the podcast Think Biblically: Conversations on Faith and Culture, brought to you by Talbot School of Theology, Biola University, where both Scott and I teach. We'd love to have you join us in person or online at Talbot School of Theology, studying apologetics, spiritual formation, philosophy, marriage, and family. Our enrollment is at an all-time high. It's certainly up right now, which is exciting. Please keep your comments and questions coming. You can email us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu, and we'd be honored if you'd take a minute and just give a rating on your podcast app. I say this every time, but every single rating helps. Even just an honest, quick rating makes a huge difference, to help other people think biblically. We appreciate you listening, and we'll see you Tuesday when Scott and I talk about a book that he has on the case for capitalism. In the meantime, remember to think biblically about everything. [upbeat music]