Cultural Update: Fertility Rates Drop in the US; Canada's "Online Harms" Bill; Finland Pushes Back on Gender Affirming Care; The Ethics of Parents Using Their Kids for Clicks

Episode Transcript

Sean McDowell: [upbeat music] Canada's Bill C-9, called Combating Hate Act, may undermine religious liberty. US fertility rate hits a new low. A peer-reviewed study in Finland finds that young people who undergo gender reassignment surgery need greater psychiatric treatment and care two years later. And kids raised in, quote, "Sharenting families" come of age, and they are not all happy with their childhood being projected to the world. These are the stories we'll discuss, and we will also address some of your questions. I'm your host, Sean McDowell.

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

Sean McDowell: This is the Think Biblically weekly cultural update brought to you by Talbot School of Theology, Biola University. Scott, this first story, just as soon as I think we hit a low with fertility, it keeps going down and concerns me more and more. This is in The New York Times and in The Wall Street Journal. Now, the fertility rate in the US has been dropping since 2007. But apparently, this article in The New York Times says it dropped from one year over to 2025 from per thou- births per 1,000 women from 53.8 to 53.1. Now, they say it's a mystery in this article, and we'll come back to whether that's not the case or not, but they point a few things out. They say there are some clues in the age breakdown. The fertility rate for teens dropped by 7%, so that is down. Sm- some demographers say the precipitous drop of births among teens and women in their early 20s show that women have more control over their fertility. So number one, teens are having less, and then second, they suggest that women have more control. And what's really interesting about this study, the reason why I wanted to cover it, they said the numbers released on Thursday this week were consistent with the idea, showing a rise in the fertility rate among women in their 30s and 40s, and that percentage, the fertility rate for women went from 30 to 34%. So as a whole, it's dropping because traditionally women in their 20s are far more fertile than women in their 30s and in their 40s, so it's dropped as a whole, but slightly rised amongst those in the 30s. One economist at the University of California said, "While the decline in the rate may look significant, it could reverse course. In the 1970s, the fertility rate had also dipped sharply below replacement levels." But what this article [chuckles] also points out is that almost half the country's 30-year-old women now are childless. For the first time, almost half of the country's 30-year-old women are childless. In 1976, the year I was born, it was only 18%. 18%. Now, here's the key number, Scott, that really jumps out, and then I really wanna know what you think about this, is they said the rate i- America's total fertility rate fell to 1.57 births per woman. 1.57 births. And traditionally, for a replacement rate, it's about 2.1 to 2.2, and we are now half a point below that, and these articles don't really point any indication that it's gonna stop dropping even further. Your take on this news that came out.

Scott Rae: Well, two things, Sean, on this. First, I think the good news, and then there's, there's the bad news.

Sean McDowell: [chuckles] Okay.

Scott Rae: The, the good news is that the fertility rate has dropped among teenagers-

Sean McDowell: That's right

Scott Rae: ... Which is ex- in my view, excellent news, because maybe there's some hope that we might get this fertility in the right order, you know, following sort of courtship, marriage, and then procreation, as opposed to having children outside of marriage, which is one of the primary indicators for, poverty. There are only a hand... You only need to do a handful of things, Sean, to avoid poverty, but having children chi- having children out of wedlock is one of those things that has to be avoided.

Sean McDowell: That's right.

Scott Rae: The, the bad news... Well, I'm not sure it's bad news, but, maybe the news for the infertility industry is that the fertility rate is rising among women in their, in their for- in their late 30s and 40s. And the predominant way that women are getting pregnant, although not entirely, in, at that age group, is through IVF or some other technologically assisted method of procreation. Here's, here's... I think the other thing I think contributes to this, and this was a piece that came out in The Atlantic this week that speaks to this, is that women are increasingly, they're not only not having children, they're not dating- ... As much. And part of the reason for that is that women increasingly today are financially secure. They don't need a man for that. They are satisfied with their lives. They are stable. And they, and they often look at relationships as complicating a st- a basically otherwise stable life. And so they've become much more selective, and I think understandably so. Rather than settling for someone who might not be exactly what they want, they're, they're, they're sort of holding out and not in a hurry to jump into a relationship because they have some, you know, some deep need to be in one. And I think, I think there's, there's some signs, I think, that that's, that that's a good thing.Because as we've said a number of times here, the best candidates for marriage and for parenting are the ones who are, who are basically whole people prior to getting married, not some- not people who are looking for a spouse to fill this huge void in their lives. And I think in general, I think that's right, and I think the Bible affirms singleness as an intrinsically good thing. It also affirm- it also affirms marriage as a, as a, as an intrinsically good thing as well. But I think s-some of, some of that is sort of mixed. You know, I, you know, I'm not, I'm not thrilled about what the f- what's happened to the fertility rate, especially on a societal level, because that bodes, that bodes very poorly for your generation, because the, you know, your generation, as you age and retire, will be dependent on an increasingly shrinking workforce to support you. And I would... You know, if I were in your place, I would have, I would have more grave concerns than I do about the future of things like Medicare and Social Security- ... Because the working base to support the needs of a, of a, of an aging population will be significantly diminished, you know, 20 to 25 years from now, given what the fertility rate is today.

Sean McDowell: That's a great take. I share your first positive, so to speak, that teen sexual behavior and fertility is down. Now, some of the articles just suggest that this might be due to increased available contraception. It could be related to sex ed teaching. You know, maybe that plays a role in it. I also think that pornography and maybe chatbots and AI are contributing. I can't prove that. I have no data on that. But I would s- I'm strongly, I'm very suspicious that there is some kind of link that is there and would like to see more data on it. Nonetheless, it's good that that's dropped 7%. But I find it so interesting that these articles, especially the New York Times one, just says, "It's such a mystery. We don't know." And they suggest a few factors, like maybe economics. And I think you're right. The economics can play a role. It's hard for people now to even survive on one income as opposed to two in the past, especially where you and I live in Southern California. So that pushes childbearing back. There could be other technological means that do so. But there's a quote in here that I think, I think we're all missing what is the heart of it, and I wanna know. I suspect you agree with me, but if not, I want you to hit... I want you to tell me what you think. So this article says, "In 2025, birth rates for the women in their late 30s exceeded those for women in their late-- early 20s for the first time." Now, women giving birth in their late 30s is more common than early 20s. And you're right that a lot of this is due to technology, maybe IVF and other kinds of forms that we have. But why? Why else? I don't think technology and economics explain all of it. This demographer from the university's National Center for Marriage-- Family and Marriage Research says, quote, "People are waiting longer to enter parenthood and probably want to make sure that things are set in their lives before they do so." That's probably right, but that's what we call a value, that I value getting certain things set in my life, whether it's my job, marriage, experiencing my 20s. I value that. Well, the question is, where do values come from? So behavior, not having kids, driven by a value which says to make sure things are set in the lives before you have kids, comes from a worldview. Worldviews shape our values, and our values shape our behavior. That is far more of a secular worldview than it is a biblical one. Of course, the Bible [chuckles] talks about wisdom and wouldn't say rush into something that you're not prepared for, but there's such a value today about getting through your 20s, finding yourself, getting settled, getting all these things set in your life, and then having kids in your 30s, mid, late 30s. That's where kids belong. That is not rooted in a biblical worldview. And you and I have talked about the research, especially for Bradley Wilcox on "Get Married." There's a direct link, interestingly enough, between happiness and having kids and the number of kids you have, even in your 20s. People who have kids in their 20s before they, quote, "find themselves" and have everything set are actually happier. So I think at the root of this fertility drop, yes, it's economics, yes, there's technology. I think when it's all said and done, it is a worldview about what's going to bring happiness and meaning more than anything else. Agree or disagree?

Scott Rae: I think in general, of course, our worldview determines our values, which determines our behavior. That's, that's a thoroughly biblical idea. And s-some of this, I think, is that for folks in their, you know, in their early to mid-20s, they're, they're s- I think they're still working out what their worldview and their values are-

Sean McDowell: Yeah

Scott Rae: ... In many cases. And so I don't, I don't particularly fault them for not f- not forging ahead when those values have not been solidified. One author referred to this generation as the postponed generation, where they're, they're postponing... The launch, just the launch ramp to independence and stability is a little bit longer than it's been in the past. But I do think there is, there-There, there's something about, that need for to have all my-- to have all your ducks in a row before you take on kids. And some of that, I think, is well-intentioned. And we've... There are other studies have shown that, you know, for every year a person waits past 26 to get married, the likelihood of them becoming a better parent, goes up. So I'm not super disturbed by the fact that people in their early 20s are not having kids. You know, when you get to the later 20s and 30s, that... Then I think that's, that's a cause, I think, for a little bit more things to be concerned about. But for the most part, I'm, I'm willing to cut people in their 20s a little bit of slack if they haven't totally worked out what their worldview and their values are.

Sean McDowell: My point in bringing this up was not to pile on 20-year-olds-

Scott Rae: Of course not

Sean McDowell: ... And blame them. In fact, if anything, I would put the blame on older generations like Boomers and Xers who have told or communicated to this generation ideas about family and about having kids and getting married not being at the root of what it means to be human and what brings us happiness, and that's far more gonna come from the left and the secular worldview than it's going to come from Christian religious worldviews. So if I'm gonna put the blame anywhere, it's not on 20-year-olds. In fact, now when I speak to teenagers and 20-year-olds, I say, "Get married. Get a-- have a lot of kids." And despite what this culture says, even though that's good, and I would argue that's biblical, that's gonna bring real meaning and happiness to your life. So I bring this up not for blame-

Scott Rae: Yeah

Sean McDowell: ... On 20-year-olds. If anything, blame it on our secular culture and remind that, especially Christians, God's command and what I think is gonna bring real meaning.

Scott Rae: Yeah, and I'm not accusing you of piling on 20-year-olds.

Sean McDowell: It's too late. It's too late, Scott. [laughs]

Scott Rae: [laughs] Maybe we should just better move on.

Sean McDowell: Fair enough. Well, this next one is actually more concerning. It caught my attention. I heard it on the briefing by Al Mohler, is that Canada's Bill C-9, which is now being considered by Canada's parliament, it hasn't passed yet, but it's working its way through the Canadian system, according to many, threatens freedom of religion. Now, there are some positive things in this, so people may be imprisoned for blocking those trying to get a place of worship or other religious sites. Maybe this came out of what we saw in Minneapolis, recently. But there's an increased penalty for, quote, "hate crimes," and it shifts what the definition of hate is. So the public display of hate symbols such as the banner of the Islamic State or Hamas or Nazis would be forbidden. Now, one of the motivations behind this, and a lot of the chatter online was tied to this, is that there's been an increase, a radical upsurge of anti-Semitic attacks in Canada, and we've also talked about that in the US as well. But what are called, quote, "hate laws" frequently violate freedom of speech, of the press, and of religion. This is the critique. They tend to be vague, and hence their scope expands the government use to punish views they simply do not like. So the concern is, in an attempt to stop, and limit genuine hate speak like speech like raising Hamas flags or anti-Semitism, they might be shifting the definition of hate in a way that will actually restrict religious liberty. Now, there are sections, interestingly enough, Section 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code already ban advocating genocide and the willful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group. So some people concerned are saying that the... We already have within, you know, the Canadian system sufficient critique of hate crimes. And so is hate shifting from just an emotion of dislike targeting a certain group to certain views that somebody holds and expressing those views, namely Christian views? That's where the concern comes in. So a recently proposed amendment, and again, this has not all been passed yet, definitively, it would remove the religious exemption that exists in current hate crime laws. The exemption in 319.3 of the Criminal Code provides that people cannot be convicted on charges for willful promotion of hate if the speech is based in good faith on the interpretation of a religious text. So if there's a religious text and its interpretation of it, that person cannot... And it's held in good conscience or good faith, that person, cannot... They get a religious exemption, so to speak. Now, the concern comes in 'cause during a House Justice Committee hearing last October, Liberal Party, MP Mark Miller, Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, suggested certain passages from the Bible were inherently hateful toward homosexuals and questioned the Criminal Code's initial carve-out for religious statements, quote, "made in good faith." It's a quote from Miller. In Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Romans, there are passages with clear hatred towards, for example, homosexuals. So that's the concern, Scott, is that in attempt to conser- curb anti-Semitism, it's widening, hate speech that would include Christians in good conscience expressing reservations to things like homosexuality. And given what happened in Finland over the past couple weeks, a lot of people are going, "Wait a minute. This move towards seculars, and this is a huge red flag, and is literally threatening free speech and a particular religious speech." What's your thoughts on this?

Scott Rae: Well, Sean, I commend the basic motivation for this bill, which is combating the growing incidence of antisemitism, not only in Canada, but in lots of other places. And the main issue for me is this, what you mentioned, the repeal of that exemption for religious speech, which could make it a whole lot easier to prosecute people of faith for expressing views that offend others. And as Paul describes in First, in 1 Corinthians, the Gospel is intrinsically offensive-

Sean McDowell: That's right

Scott Rae: ... To a secular culture. Not, not because it's difficult to understand, but because it just says you are not lord over your own life. Now, the bill, I give 'em a modicum of credit here. The bill does distinguish between views which involve what they call detestation and vilification, although I admit, whatever those mean.

Sean McDowell: Right.

Scott Rae: And between dislike and disdain, so the former being problematic, the latter not so much. But as you point out, some p- some officials indicated that even quoting the Bible or... I imagine, you know, saying something like, you know, "People who reject Christ are going to hell-" ... Could be very problematic. And some officials have even said that biblical pa- some biblical texts on sexuality, for example, are intrinsically hateful, regardless of how they're expressed. That's... And that's the really important point. That the... And that those who quote them or allude to them could have charges brought against them for those things. Now, those are officials in one province in Quebec. Whether that reflects what the whole country holds on that, and whether that will actually make it into the final form of the bill, I think is all still up for grabs. But there... This, I think, is a v- overall a very troubling piece of legislation that I think threatens religious freedom in ways maybe like we haven't seen much in the West before.

Sean McDowell: I think that's right. We've seen it bubbling up for some time, and these two cases right here that are pointed out that what... Some, some of the people concerned with this bill are drawing comparisons here and saying this might happen. It points towards, it opens up the door for this if it passes with certain qualifications, is that... I can't even pronounce this individual's name, but a grandmother and Finland's former minister of the interior has been charged under the war crimes and crimes against humanity section of the Finnish Criminal Code after quoting the New Testament and criticizing the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland's official participation in LGBT Pride celebration events. Now, that is being, challenged at the highest court in Finland, and I think it was passed by a narrow margin. So let's hope that this individual, gets the exemption from Finland that we would expect in the US. There's another case, it says, "Or Spain, where Madrid's provincial prosecutor's office has launched an investigation into José Ignacio Munilla, bishop of," I can't even say, "Orihuela-Alicante, following remarks he made criticizing a proposed ban on so-called conversion therapy." So if this Canadian bill were the only one of its kind, and there was no precedent in Canada for secular ideas taking root like MAID, the Medical Assistance in Dying Act, then I wouldn't be so concerned. But this is enough to give me serious pause and concern for believers in Canada if this, in fact, goes through. And I think it really does point out just a fundamental worldview difference that's taking place here. And we've seen this come to fruition for a while, that a biblical worldview, of course, grounds our identity in being made in the image of God from the top down. But when you look at so much of what's driven the LGBTQ movement, there's Freudian ideas embedded in it that my attractions and feelings ground my identity. So I could criticize a view that you have without being a personal attack on you. But if your feelings are a part of who you are, and that's your identity, and I say that behavior which is driven from your feelings is wrong, then in this narrative, it feels like a hateful personal attack. So the dividing line is Christians are saying, "Yeah," I think they should say, "people that identify as LGBTQ are made in God's image, infinite dignity and value and worth, but we object to their behavior because we have a different moral code stemming from creation and stemming from the scriptures." But according to a lot of the pushback here in a secular narrative, to object to the behavior is to object to the individual and their right to live as they see fit. That's where this distinction, it really roots in what it means to be human, and the question is where is the law going to settle this?

Scott Rae: Yeah. Now, the contrast here with the place of religious freedom in the United States I think is really instructive, because the First Amendment to the United States Constitution explicitly linked free speech and religion, and it's not an accident that they did so. But the founders were really clear, Sean, that the right of free speech also presumed a moral and religious populationwho had the internal resources necessary to curb some of our worst tendencies. You know, it's well documented that the founders believed that democracy could not flourish in the absence of a moral and religious people. Basically, people who were informed by the same kind of worldview that was in the water at the time of the founders, like you've described. Now, I think the tension today, and we see this, it's different in Canada, 'cause I don't think they have quite the same constitutional connection between free speech and religious liberty, is that, but that both the moral and religious parts of the population in the US have declined, and the law has increasingly replaced morality and religion as they have become less effective in regulating people's behavior. And so it's, the difference, I think, between the US, and, I think the courts here have upheld religious liberty at almost every turn in the last 10 to 15 years. And I think the protection of li- religious liberty in the US has never been stronger at any point in my lifetime than we've had. But, in other parts of the world where it's different, and in, you know, in Canada, they, you know, they have, particularly in Quebec, they have, they've adopted the French notion, that where secularism is the thing that produces actually state neutrality toward religion and different interest groups. And one of the pieces you sent me, Sean, on this, talked- described the f- that f- the French term, I can't even pronounce it, laïcité.

Sean McDowell: Sounds good to me.

Scott Rae: I think is the right way. As the constitutional principle of secularism, and that principle is intended to ensure state neutrality, right? Which let's be really clear about that. Secularism is not neutral.

Sean McDowell: That's right.

Scott Rae: It is its own distinct worldview that is being promoted, and I think some... You could, I think you could actually make the argument that secularism functions in the same way for secularists that religious convictions function for religious people. And it, I mean, it may be intended to ensure state neutrality, but I think it's done anything but that.

Sean McDowell: I think you're right about that. I was reading this book, "The Desecration of Man" by Carl Truman, and we're gonna interview him soon. It is a fantastic book, and he talks about how our identity was traditionally rooted in something outside of us, external to us, our last name from our family, the state in which we live, the religion in which we identify with. It's something that is, in a sense, imposed on us from the outside. And so in America, people had different religions, different traditions, and so it's founded in religious liberty. But what has happened with the sexual revolution is it's moved identity internal to my feelings and my attractions. And so on one hand, we resonate with the idea of liberty 'cause it's deeply American. But we've changed, in a sense, what it means to be human and where we get our identity from. That's really kind of the underlying philosophical and biblical question at play here. What does it mean to be human? What does liberty actually entail? And thank God in America, we have religious liberty and freedom of speech written into the Constitution. Some of these other countries in which you're seeing a clash, so to speak, between what's sometimes called erotic liberty or sexual liberty and religious liberty playing itself out in Spain and Canada, in Finland, and these countries that don't have our protections and maybe don't have the kind of conservative Supreme Court that will uphold that, my concern and heart goes out to them, and, we'll see and cover these stories as they go. All right, this next one kinda does overlap with that, but this is a story I came across, and it was really surprising, also from Finland, interestingly enough. No big reason why we have two stories from Finland. And this one is a major study in a peer-reviewed publication called Acta Paediatica, and what they basically are saying is it's one of the first... Well, I'll get into some of the details of this, but it's pushing back on the efficacy of gender reassignment surgery. Now, here's a few things from this study. It says, "The 21st century has seen a significant increase in the number of adolescents referred to specialized gender identity services," and this increased significantly around 2010 and afterwards. Now, the study says, "The bulk of the literature on adolescent gender dysphoria suff- suffers from two common shortcomings: a lack of control groups and a small sample size." So here's a major peer-reviewed journal article saying previous research on the efficacy tied to gender dysphoria and gender reassignment surgery either had a biased group or had too small of a sample size. That's important. Put a pin in that. They said, "Medical gender reassignment is s- often suggested to be beneficial, even vital, for the mental health of adolescents suffering from gender dysphoria. But evidence supporting subsequent improvement in mental health quality of life or functioning is very limited." So let me just pause and say we've gone forward with all of this experiment in what's called gender-affirming surgery, and now we have a study saying actually the evidence in favor of its positive fruit is lacking.Now, th-this is a Finnish study from two universities, those ages 23 and younger, and they had a sample size of about, 2,083 or so, young people. So decent size. They say, quote, "Those who had undergone medical gender reassignment," and by the way, that's like hormones, puberty blockers, and/or surgery, "also presented with an increased risk compared to both the male and female controls." Now, they said, "Considerable increases in the need for psychiatric treatment were seen among those adolescents who had undergone medical gender reassignment, particularly among those seeking change towards female." That is from male to female. A couple other things in this. This does not support the suggested improvement in mental health after medical gender reassignment, initiated during development years. It doesn't support that narrative. In fact, "And in light of the present findings, severe psychiatric disorders do not appear primarily attributable to gender dysphoria." Another quote, "Actually, considerable increases in need for psychiatric treatment were seen among those adolescents who had undergone medical gender reassignment, particularly among those," again, "seeking change towards female." Now, th-they keep saying this over and over again, but the bottom line, to have a major publication come out on a study in Finland to say, number one, not only is there not improvement, at least with the limitations of this study, but there's also indications of increased psychiatric need and treatment, male and female, two years after gender reassignment. This is stunning to me. It's not surprising, but it's stunning for this to come out now so long after this experiment that we've done on kids. Your take.

Scott Rae: Well, Sean, this reflects what we've talked about before in the Cass report that was published in the UK, a similar set of studies on that. This one in Finland is a longer term study. It's a roughly 30-year study. And, you know, it's not an accident here that Finland was one among the first countries to backtrack on the gender wave of a few years ago when they saw precisely what this study s- points out. And by the way, this study and the Cass review conclude almost virtually the same things.

Sean McDowell: That's right.

Scott Rae: But when they saw essentially that the treatments, the gender affirming treatments were not solving the problems, and in fact, in so- in, not uncom- it was not uncommon for the psychiatric issues to be worsened by the treatments. And, particularly psychiatric psychological assessments were not being done prior to minors seeking treatments, and I think this study bears out all of those concerns. And it-- the conclusion, I think is pretty stark, which you r- which you read from. The underlying issues are not generally not being resolved by these treatments. And what this has shown, I think, is that the gender dysphoria is a symptom, not the root cause of the underlying issues. Now, Sean, what it didn't address is a point I wish it had. This is another key point that other European countries have made, that in many cases with minors, if the underlying psychological and psychiatric issues are treated, the gender dysphoria often resolves itself after puberty is complete.

Sean McDowell: That's right.

Scott Rae: And this, I think, is one of the reasons why s- why a number of countries have actually r- passed laws to limit the opportunities for gender affirming treatments until someone has finished puberty. So, anyway, I-- this was-- I was, I was very encouraged by this. I'm not surprised at all. This is entirely consistent with what we've seen coming out of numerous countries in Europe, and particularly the Cass report from the UK.

Sean McDowell: Great take. I was hoping you brought up the point that so often beneath gender dysphoria are anxiety and depression and other comorbidities driving this, and in some ways the gender dysphoria, not always, but can be a symptom more than the cause itself. So the gender reassignment surgery is like putting a, not just surgery, but the gender reassignment is like putting a Band-Aid on something, not dealing with the root of it. Now, reassignment, you know, makes it feel like it's a loaded term. Like I can-- you and I can give homework to our kids. We can assign it, or we can choose not to assign homework. I actually think a better term I've heard people use is gender rejection treatment. That's what it is. In fact, you could-- it, ins-- I actually stated that wrong. It should be sex rejection treatment because gender is typically used as how you express one's sexuality, and sex refers to the body. So for me, Scott, the more, maybe it's the older I get, maybe it's where we're at culturally, but the importance of clear terms that define what's going on is important. This has been called gender affirming care for a decade. Now the study comes out, and it's like, oh, if we actually affirm your gender, it not only doesn't help, but in many cases you're going to need more psychiatric treatment. It should have always been called sex rejection... Treatment rather than reassignment or affirming care. And so I don't want to offend anybody, but the truth is important, and kids are at stake. And frankly, you know, when Jesus talks about those who make a little one stumble might as well have, you know, a millstone thrown around your-- put on your neck and thrown in the ocean, yeah, that applies to Christians. And some of the things that have happened, like the sex abuse in Southern Baptist churches, in the Catholic Church, is horrific, and it's terrible, and it's inexcusable, and everything needs to be done to make it right. But the medical community, it's just as inexcusable as we've seen there. So I welcome that this inform- study is coming out. I wonder if there's a backstory of how difficult it was to get this published or if people challenged it. I have no idea. I can't even guess on that. But kudos to them for publishing this. But even the article kind of says, "Well, now we just need to be more careful and do more research when we offer this." I'm saying, no, we gotta go even further. Whenever should we deny somebody's bodily sex, which is a part of what's given to them, and in every other issue outside of this, we consider our bodies definitive to who we are. Our race is definitive to who we are. Our age is definitive to who we are. Our height, as much as I wanna be six foot eight, or maybe not now, maybe I wanted to be in the past to play in the NBA.

Scott Rae: [chuckles]

Sean McDowell: My body informs me. And yet when it comes to this topic, all of a sudden it doesn't. So like you, I'm glad to see this research coming out. It doesn't surprise me 'cause the Bible says, like you have written on this with JP, we are body and we are soul, and so denying who and what we are is never going to bring us freedom. So I welcome this. I'm glad to see the ball moving forward and this research coming out, and I hope it's just the beginning of so much more yet to come.

Scott Rae: Here, here. I just w- add one thing to this.

Sean McDowell: Yeah.

Scott Rae: At six foot eight, neither you nor I were gonna make it to the NBA. [chuckles]

Sean McDowell: Oh, I don't know, man. If I was six eight, maybe. I will not concede that. You're probably right, but I still am holding out in my mind.

Scott Rae: All right. I'll, I'll take that probably right part.

Sean McDowell: Fair enough.

Scott Rae: [chuckles]

Sean McDowell: All right. Good stuff. Okay, so this... You sent me this article, really interesting. I had missed this, and it's called "The Scandal of the Sharenting Economy." Now, I actually was not familiar with the term sharenting before this.

Scott Rae: Me either.

Sean McDowell: Oh, you weren't? Okay.

Scott Rae: Me either.

Sean McDowell: And I did a little Google search, so I... Actually, an AI search, and it makes sense. It's the habitual use of social media by parents to share, document, and publish significant amounts of content regarding their children. So it's a combination of the terms sharing and parenting. But kids are raised without giving their consent, without being aware of it, and there's a digital footprint that's left behind. Many are now coming to age and second-guessing the wisdom of that, and some are even looking at their legal options, how they navigate this. So a few things in this article. They say here, "It takes private and non-instrumental moments of childhood, potty training mishaps, barfing, et cetera, and makes them public and transactional." So there was a vlogger named Aubrey Jones who, whose tween daughter's first period was effectively sponsored by a feminine hygiene brand. Now, I missed that one, but that captures what this is about. Now, there was another vlogger, Jordan Cheyenne, who was wrecked because her sharenting career was accidentally... She posted footage of herself coaching her son, who's distraught over the family's sick puppy, to make a specific kind of sad face for YouTube. She said, "Act like you're crying." He says, "I am crying." And so clearly what happens here is these kids' moments are recorded, and then people are watching this arguably somewhat voyeuristically, and these kids are now of age reflecting on this. And so they actually have a section here on homeschoolers, and they say maybe they have the time and inclination to connect with others. It raised an interesting question why people are drawn to watch some of this stuff, because it's not all the dramatic moments. Some of them today making millions of dollars kind of record these just normal, banal, day-to-day kinds of experiences, and it's like people are watching other people's experiences.

Sean McDowell: Let's see, as we work through here. There's s- It, it talks about how there's actually some laws that have been passed in some states demanding that parents who financially benefit from this set aside savings accounts of a certain amount for their kids as they get older, which I think is probably not a terrible idea. Probably a good idea. But here's the bottom line. It says, "As more and more kidfluencers come of age and they confront all that may have been lost or broken in their childhood, they just find that the law is an imperfect instrument for restitution." And it sure seems like a lot of them arguably feel used. They feel that their life was more about display and making money than it was just having a chance to grow up and experience life. And there's arguably certain scars, so to speak, that some of these kids are experiencing. Now, exactly how widespread it is, I don't have any data on that. But it makes perfect sense to me that a kid would have some resentment and in some cases wanna make sure they get their fair due that their parents used them to profit from. Now, I have other thoughts from this, but what do you think?

Scott Rae: Well, Sean, I, you know, every once in a while I come across a, an article like this, and I just don't know quite what to make of it at first glance.

Sean McDowell: [laughs] Okay.

Scott Rae: Because what I-- Well, the first thing I wondered is, and I-- it'd be interesting to, for our listeners to think about this too. Surely there are things in your childhood that you are very glad are, were not recorded and are not available for public consumption.

Sean McDowell: Exactly.

Scott Rae: And, this is, you know, the... I, again, I'm not sure how prevalent this is, but it made it to The New Yorker magazine, and the article points out that the majority of people they're aware of on this are in two states. They're in Utah and California. And they describe that the pr- that most of the people who are involved in this are homeschool parents who are Evangelical Christians or Mormons. Now, that may be a, tha-that, I don't know if that's biased or not. That may, that may not be quite right, but, the people who are mentioned in this piece, they have millions of followers.

Sean McDowell: Yeah.

Scott Rae: They make a, they make a pretty decent amount of money at it because they're attracting, they're attracting ad revenue, they're attracting subscribers. And as the article points out, there's a lot of the stuff that's recorded and is put and is posted is actually pretty mundane stuff.

Sean McDowell: Okay.

Scott Rae: And it's actually, they said, is pretty boring. And, but it's, it's the dramatic stuff that actually get the most clicks and the most, the most views and the most subscribers. So a-again, here m- again, I just immediately went to this, to the, you know, the example you raised about the parent who posted a video of their daughter's first menstrual period. Said, who would do that?

Sean McDowell: Great question.

Scott Rae: Well, what kind of person would do that? And I think there's a huge risk of parents who are exploiting their kids, you know, for clicks and subscribers and ad revenue. And kids, you know, usually you have to get consent to film somebody or to record somebody as an adult. But this is a, this is a place where I think kids, you know... And I think kids in some respects have, you know, don't have great rights of privacy vis-a-vis their parents. You know, the, you know, my kids' room was not theirs that I, th-they could prohibit me from coming into. But this strikes me as a, as a major violation of a child's right to privacy, and putting things out there that... You know, I mean, what kind of parent puts on, puts on video a, an example of a kid having a seizure, you know, and expects to make money off of that? So th-this, I found this really troubling because... And here's the reason that it bothered me so much, Sean. Because in the most teachable moments and in the hardest moments for our kids, when they most need a fully attentive parent-

Scott Rae: I want-- The question I re- wanna raise, are you parenting or are you producing? And I don't know how you can do both at the same time. And I think that this emphasis on producing, dramatic moments for an audience undermines the parent's ability to be the kind of parent a child needs in those very dramatic moments that they're recording. And so I just, I just don't know how you can do both of those things and to do them, to give, to do justice to being a parent. And here's, Sean, I was... You know, the other thing that really troubles me about this is how pedophiles could use this. The article describes some, you know, some of these mom, what they're called momfluencers, are actually filming their children in suggestive types of clothing that I think are actually aimed at pedophiles. And if they're the intended audience, you know, that, you know, I can't think of too many things that are worse to do to a child. Or w- I worry about what AI could do with these videos once they're public. You know, what can, you know, what can somebody do with an AI program that's gonna put, you know, it's gonna do... Who may do God only wa- knows what to these kids who are on video already. And I don't know what this opens the door to, but none of it, in my view, is good.

Sean McDowell: Good take. I'm really glad you brought up how being on camera and making your profession tied to being a momfluencer, kidfluencer, whatever we wanna call it, doesn't permanently change the parent-child relationship. So it's like we've all had the experience when you're at a beautiful place and somebody's on their phone, or somebody's trying to capture it so much. It's like just enjoy it. [laughs] Stop trying to film everything. Enjoy the moment. It, it's one thing to be on a hike and do that. It's the other thing every moment of your life, the next thought is, "Oh, we could record that. Oh, we could make money from that. Oh, we could get views from this." You build that into the parent-child dynamic and relationship, and it can't help but change that relationship in negative ways. And so I understand why those kids get older. Now, my childhood, I still go places and people go, "Oh, I remember that story your dad told when you were five-"

Scott Rae: Yeah.

Sean McDowell: "... And you guys jumped on beds-"

Scott Rae: Yeah.

Sean McDowell: "... And he had, you know, candy bars delivered." Like I kinda grew up with people knowing things about my family. [laughs] And still to this day, I'll meet random strangers, sometimes in like an airport or something, like, "Hey. Oh my goodness, Sean, I recognize you or your dad, and I've told this story." But I can tell you, Scott, I never remember a single thing sharedThat I thought was inappropriate.

Scott Rae: Yeah.

Sean McDowell: And I never remember a single thing that was like, "Oh, my dad wants the version of clicks or money from this." Rather, it was, "I've got a principle I want to share, and here's an illustration from my family that might help yours." So now as a parent with my own kids, I want to be careful to protect that and not overshare. I gotta tell you, if there were stuff in books that I was like, "I don't want that public. Nobody asked me," that would make me really angry at my parents and feel like, gosh, the whole world can see this. And I would-

Scott Rae: Sean, the-

Sean McDowell: ... Feel used by it

Scott Rae: ... The thing is, the stuff that guaran- generates the most clicks is the, are the things that are most embarrassing for the child.

Sean McDowell: That's right. That's exactly right.

Scott Rae: And so how can they not have resentment because of that?

Sean McDowell: Yeah, I can't answer that, but I think, you know, in the past, it's like kids would work for their parents on the farm. That's what kids did, and they didn't expect to have a bank account set up, say, for them legally. So part of me goes, like, "Okay, there's precedent historically speaking that you are to work for the family," but that was, like, the only job option, and you're in a line of farmers, and you'd have kids, and they'd do the same. People are totally opting into this, sharing publicly in a way they don't need to, driven by clicks. And look, given that I'm on YouTube, given I'm on Instagram, I know the pressure to go, "Oh, if I push this button or frame it this way, I'll get more clicks." Like, I understand that, which is why I have certain principles, Scott, that drive what I do. And if you don't have those principles there, and you're driven by money and views and clicks, you're gonna overshare, you're gonna damage your human relationships, and at some point with this lady, eventually it's gonna seep out, and you're gonna realize you're living a false reality to people. It's like The Truman Show, right?

Scott Rae: Something like that.

Sean McDowell: It's just like, wait a minute, this is not real, and people shouldn't be watching these moments of somebody's life. It's like that show in the late '90s saw this coming ahead of time, and we all watched that wanting him to escape because it's artificial. Sadly, it creates an artificial world for these kids where they can't just be themselves.

Scott Rae: Hear, hear.

Sean McDowell: Well, we got some questions here, Scott, some interesting ones. This one, I don't fully know what to do with this. I don't have a ton of thoughts. I'm gonna read it. This individual is a listener from Liberia, West Africa, which is amazing to me. "I have a few questions I would like clarity on about ancient cultures." And right away, I'm not an expert on ancient cultures. I'm not gonna pretend to be. "Were there any recognizably atheistic cultures in antiquity? If there was, how did their worldview influence their morality? Do you know any key points of convergence among the many polytheistic cultures of antiquity? Are there undebatable general moral principles or threads that connect modernity and antiquity?" Do you have any way to help with this one?

Scott Rae: Yeah, I do, actually. I've gi- I've gi- gave this a little thought.

Sean McDowell: Good.

Scott Rae: I think a recognizably atheistic cultures as a whole, probably not so much, except there are, there were Eastern cultures, so- I mean, where, you know, Buddha- Buddhism, ancient Buddhism did not, they didn't believe in a god. But that, those were more rare. There, there were atheists in antiquity that were sort of well-known in Greece and Rome, but they were mostly those who denied the pantheon of gods that were widely worshiped. I don't think they were, they were not unbelievers in divinity like atheists today. Actually, the early Christians were referred to as atheists for that reason also, even though they believed in one God. So I'd say culturally, not so much, but there were well-known individuals. Socrates, for example, was re- was executed for rejecting the Greek gods. So-

Sean McDowell: Great take

Scott Rae: ... That's where I'd go with that.

Sean McDowell: You're right. There were Atomists in ancient Greece. There were Epicureanists were materialists, but in terms of, like, a culture like a communist Russia or communist China that is Marxist and atheist top-down, I think that's more of a modern phenomena. Although I've been asked to speak this summer, I'm going to Mozambique, on topics of intelligent design, and that's kind of Southeastern Africa. But I've had a lot of threads, people I've talked with in Africa, atheism is growing there, interestingly enough, and this is one more indication of it. All right, so this is a longer question about AI, and the person s- wants to know where we stand. Doomers, where this is gonna, AI's gonna pose a severe threat to humanity's future, Accelerationists, who believe AI will solve many of our problems, or Scouts, who believe that AI will be positive for humanity only if we act now to radically control its development. Where do you stand in terms of thinking about AI?

Scott Rae: I'd be a Safetiest.

Sean McDowell: [laughs] Okay.

Scott Rae: Although I did, I did a deeper dive on this, and there are probably 15 different categories.

Sean McDowell: Oh, wow.

Scott Rae: Like, he, I mean, he's, this r- this, listener has summarized them to three. I'm not a Doomer. I'm, I maybe would be a Decelerationist, not an Accelerationist. We ought to go a little bit slower. But here, I think the controls on this is the point, the big idea, controls on AI rest with human beings' choices, not the law or regulation. We're the ones who have to put guardrails on its, on its use, like we do guardrails around phones and screens and social media and other things. And n- and I am not depending on the law to do that for us.

Sean McDowell: That's good. If I had to get a term, it just would be mixed. I'm not fully Accelerationist. There's some areas that will be accelerated by this.I'm also not a full doomsdayer. I don't think AI's gonna take over the world, although even this week, I think it was Anthropic that had this technology that basically developed itself how to hack into systems, and they refused to let it out further. So I think it's gonna solve, help us solve certain medical concerns and be positive, but it's also gonna have big downside, things like just rampant pornography. So like every technology, it's mixed, but its effects might be greater because AI is so uniquely powerful than any other technology like this in the past. All right, Scott, last question. Get your quick take on this one. This friend is an aspiring author, and publishers will not publish his stuff 'cause he doesn't want to include LGBTQ characters inside of it. So how should Christians navigate the space of creating content, books, movies, et cetera? Is it wise for a Christian to describe the same world they live in within their writings? Can we imitate the secular world without contributing to the normalization and glorification of sin?

Scott Rae: I'd say yes to both of those things, Sean, because the Bible doesn't shy away from portraying reality as it is.

Sean McDowell: Exactly.

Scott Rae: And our film school dean, who we ha- we had on some time ago, was with AMC and was very involved in The Walking Dead and Breaking Bad, and, you know, those are, those are really good produced shows that had... You know, Breaking Bad especially had a, you know, had a redemptive theme to it, that was helpful. And I would, I would just say write good books about redemptive themes. Take the approach of the Book of Esther, which never mentioned the name of God, but his hand is all over the book. And, I was just at a lecture not too long ago on the, on the novelist Flannery O'Connor, who was a devout Catholic who wrote lot, about a lot of really dark themes because they portrayed reality as it is. And yet she's recognized as a world-class fiction writer.

Sean McDowell: I actually would say people can't write good fiction today if they don't include people who believe and live differently because that's the world we live in. And of course, we see that all over the Bible. So we're not endorsing certain beliefs and behaviors by including people that view the world differently. Quick example, with my kids, we watched the show Flash for a while, and there were people who lived together. There was a gay police chief, and it, like, never bothered me because these people live in the world in which we live. They were not preaching at us. And then I watched Supergirl with my daughter, and they actually started preaching at us, sacrificing the quality of the story to advance a narrative. That's where it was bad writing. Even an atheist friend of mine is like, "That is terrible writing. They shouldn't sacrifice the story to push an agenda." So Christians shouldn't flip it and just push an agenda that's so obvious and sacrifices the story, but tell good stories about justice and redemption and caring for the vulnerable. But I see no problem in including individuals who see the world differently. That doesn't in any sense mean we're endorsing those individuals. That's the difference between The Flash and between Supergirl-

Scott Rae: Yeah

Sean McDowell: ... As I see it. All right. Good stuff, my man.

Scott Rae: Love it.

Sean McDowell: Always-

Scott Rae: Enjoyed it as usual

Sean McDowell: ... Always fun. This has been an episode of the podcast Think Biblically, conversations on faith and culture brought to you by Talbot School of Theology, Biola University, where Scott and I both teach. We have master's programs and doctoral programs, a DMin track we'd love to have you think about joining us in, for example, like biblical justice or how to engage culture, and master's programs to spiritual formation, apologetics, theology, philosophy, and so on. To submit comments or ask questions, please email us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu. And please take a moment to give us a rating on your podcast app. That really helps. And consider sharing this episode with a friend. Thanks for listening, and we'll see you Tuesday when Scott and I interview Dr. Robert Smith about a new fantastic book that he has written that I've used in my class on biblical sexuality at Talbot called "The Body God Gives." In the meantime, remember to think biblically about everything. [upbeat music]