Biola UniversityThis week, Scott and Sean discuss:
Just War, Modern Targets: Sean and Scott weigh whether Israel’s targeted killings of Iranian leaders can fit within just war reasoning while warning against pulling Old Testament examples out of context.
March Madness, Trust Erodes: A college basketball betting scandal raises the bigger fear that even suspected game-rigging can make fans wonder whether what they’re watching is real.
The Sexual Recession: Two new books spark a conversation about why fewer people are having sex, with the deeper issue framed as loneliness, screen-shaped isolation, and collapsing relational confidence.
UK Abortion Alarm: The final segment takes up a proposed UK bill that they say would remove penalties for self-induced abortion at any stage of pregnancy, prompting a blunt moral critique.
Episode Transcript
Sean McDowell: [upbeat music] Starting with Ayatollah Khamenei, Israel targets leaders in Iran, killing at least three more this week. Is this a moral strategy? Is gambling rigging college basketball an important question in light of March Madness? Are we in a crisis of people not having enough sex? Two books suggest the answer is yes. And a new bill in its current form would allow women to legally get abortions in the UK up until birth. These are the stories we'll discuss, and we'll 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, it's no secret that almost every story from all the publications I read is dominated this week with the Israel-US-Iran war. I don't wanna cover what other publications are covering, but I try to think through what's a unique angle we could take that maybe would be helpful. And given your study in ethics, I'm really interested to hear how you're gonna weigh in on this one.
Scott Rae: [clears throat]
Sean McDowell: So this is an article that's in The Wall Street Journal, and it says, "Israel is hunting down Iranian regime members in their hideouts one by one." And of course, this started with Khamenei, one of the leaders just a few weeks ago, who was assassinated. Then they describe, "Early Tuesday morning this week, Israel's intelligence services found Larijani gathered with other officials at a hideout at the outskirts of Tehran and killed him with a missile strike." Another one this week was, the leader of the feared Baji's militia. I can't even pronounce his first name, but Soleimani was also struck and killed. And then another one followed by that announcement, a day later, Iranian Intelligence Minister Esmail Khatib had also been killed. Now, there's a decent chance by the time [chuckles] people listen to this Friday or later that someone else has been assassinated, known or not known. And the question I really wanna get to with this, Scott, is this biblical? Is this ethical? I've seen some people say this is kind of a form of terrorism, and it's not an ethical means of carrying out a strike. In principle, is such an attack biblical and ethical? What do you make of it?
Scott Rae: Sean, I think these are mostly legitimate targets.
Sean McDowell: Okay.
Scott Rae: As would be US or Israeli commanders. So what's good, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, ethically speaking. Now, Sean, I think we need to see this in the context of the just war concept, which both the United States and Israel claim to adhere to. And what this describes, Sean, are two different types of things. One is, one has to do with justice in the decision to go to war, which was sort of loosely invoked with the notion of Iran being an imminent threat, and we'll talk more about that in a minute.
Sean McDowell: Sure.
Scott Rae: And there's the, but the other concept that's I think a little more relevant is called justice in the conduct of war. There are Latin terms for both these, both these aspects. And the, there's a big difference between the Iran war today and the war in Iraq 25 years ago in regard to the just war concept because one of the things w- I noticed when we were contemplating going to war in Iraq is that the framework of the just war concept was assumed by almost everybody who was commenting on it, and they were asking, "Does this constitute a just war within that framework?" [lips smack] Now, I think what w- it was sort of invoked here with the notion Iran posing an imminent threat to the US, I think whether or not that's actually the case, I think is up for, is up for debate. But the main part of the just war notion involves justice in the conduct of war, mainly the concept of proportionality, limited objectives, and the main one, which is in view here, non-combatant immunity, though it does allow for collateral damage. Now, Sean, our listeners, I think, need to be aware, the just war notion is over 600 years old.
Sean McDowell: Yeah.
Scott Rae: And it was, let's just say it was c- loosely canonized, you know, in an era where war was completely different than it is today. There were, there, you know, there were no drones that you could, you know, you could launch from, you know, somewhere in the United States and obliterate targets halfway around the world. There was no such thing as terrorism, no nuclear weapons, anything like that. So, which has raised questions about whether the just war concept is somewhat out of date, right? Now, we can have that debate at a later time.
Sean McDowell: Yeah.
Scott Rae: But I think for th- for this discussion, the question is d- are the people who are targeted, do they constitute combatants? And I would argue that for most of them, they would because they are either authorizing or providing intelligence for or carrying out the war effort. And I think the, I think Israel, I think is justified in targeting most of the people that they are targeting because of their role in authorizing or participating in the war effort. They, and I, and I think most of the, most of the leadersWho have been targeted so far, I think, I think could qualify as combatants in the same way that in World War II, Winston Churchill was targeted as a combatant by the Germans. And I think- ... I think justifiably so. In fact, there's a, there's a great movie about, [laughs] about the plot to assassinate Churchill, where they send a duplicate in his place-
Sean McDowell: Oh
Scott Rae: ... And completely fool the Germans. It's called, it's called The Eagle Has Landed. It's a, it's a terrific movie, but the premise is that they, that part of the war effort was the effort to cut off what they considered the head of the snake in the, in the commander-in-chief. So I think in my view, these are legitimate targets. There is some collateral damage. I think the, you know, how much collateral damage you can have before you can reasonably say that combatants are being targeted, I think that's a different question here. But I think for the most part, this-- I would say this does not violate the just war, concept.
Sean McDowell: That's a really helpful way to break it down. And you're right to bring it that this is one aspect of the larger just war discussion and debate. And I've seen some Catholic scholars and Protestant scholars say this war su- is supported by it, others are not, which again, is a separate conversation. I was trying to think about this biblically, and one of the stories that came to mind is in Judges, when one of the judges, Ehud, goes in to specifically, kill King Eglon, who is a Moabite who's oppressing the Israelite people. And what happens is it describes in chapter 3 verse 15, "The people of the Lord are crying out to Israel," people of Israel crying out to the Lord for deliverance, and He raises up a deliverer, Ehud, who is a left-handed man, interestingly enough. They... The, the people of Israel sent tribute to him by Eglon, king of Moab. So he makes himself a sword with two edges. Of course, he didn't have the means to assassinate a ruler that we have today. Bound it in his right thigh under his cloth, presented it, and then he came with the tribute to King Eglon. And right there, he, you know, he says, "I have a secret message for you from God," and he just stabs him so much that the fat comes out and he dies. So to get them off of oppressing them, he kills the leader themselves. Now, I think this... Y- In one hand, you could say, here's some precedent within a war. Somebody hired or assigned by God to free the people went in and assassinated a ruler to win the war. And you can make a case that maybe less people will die if you do it this way. My huge hesitation is this is under really getting ready for the theocracy of the Old Testament pre-king. In the book of Judges, how much can we follow the model of what a judge does as a model for what we should do today? That's where I think this is a chance for us to say, "Okay, here's an example of this in the Bible, but do we wanna follow everything Samson did?" Certainly not what Jephthah did. So I don't know that much is going to come from this passage. So more than anything, it gives me a chance to just say to people, let's be very careful when we think biblically, that we don't just find a story that seems to overlap and throw it on there apart of its theological and cultural and historical context. Do you agree with that take? Or do you think-
Scott Rae: Yeah
Sean McDowell: ... There's maybe more from this sense God assigned to him that we could learn for this means of what's happening in Israel?
Scott Rae: No, Sean, I think your caution on that is entirely justified. And because not every example that happens in the narrative parts of scripture is necessarily an example for us to follow. Particularly under the theocracy of the Old Testament like you suggest. Now, the account in Judges doesn't offer a lot of commentary. There's no, there are no editorial comments that would help us understand whether this is an example to follow. The term that's often used to describe this episode is tyrannicide, where- ... It's, it's, it's the murder of a tyrant who is oppressing a people. And so I think we need to be careful that we don't, you know, universalize this. This may have... Because, I think because the King Eglon was certainly a, the leader of the combatants, I think that, I think probably it fits under the just war notion that, you could, the commander in chief is a legitimate combatant in any kind of war effort. So... But I wouldn't, I wouldn't wanna take too much from that. You know, it's, you know, I... It's not clear to me that a population who is under a tyrant, necessarily has the moral option to take him or her out. This is, this is... I think this is different. This is in a, in a, in the context of a war. And I think, I think that's what makes the, you know, the situation in Iran a little different than, say, you know, somebody, an oppressed people, say somebody, some of, some of the, you know, the Chinese, for example, or, you know, other pop- other populations who live under the oppression of a tyrant, having the justification to take him or her out.
Sean McDowell: That's a good distinction. We can't move from the example in Judges to this modern-day Israel, but we can ask, do both of them independently fit under what's called just war, which has at least 600 years of very careful formulation and criteria, each with Latin names. That... Now, of course, there's other positions we're not even going into, such as pacifism, but my question here was, if a war is justified in principle, is Israel, uh-Could one take out leaders in the way Israel has done? And I think your take really helps.
Scott Rae: Yeah. Now, I think it's fair, it's fair to point out there are some folks among the Christian community who reject the just war idea entirely.
Sean McDowell: Sure.
Scott Rae: That's... And that's a different-
Sean McDowell: Yep
Scott Rae: ... Conversation for another time.
Sean McDowell: Exactly. Now, this next one, I think people are gonna not be surprised that you and I, basketball fans, are gonna do something on March Madness this week, but this really is a big story. There was a podcast in The Wall Street Journal this week about how gamblers are rigging college basketball, and the story starts in 2024 when a man wanted to rig a college basketball game so he could bet on it and make some money. So he sent a text message to a group, that got him in charge with somebody at Robert Morris, which is a small Division I college in Pennsylvania, and became very clear that there were players, in person- in particular, someone named Marquise Hastings, the leading scorer for Robert Morris that year, who agreed to shave points and recruit two of his teammates to do so, and these are things like underperforming, missing shots, making dumb fouls. Essentially, they agreed to cheat to make money. Now, they got caught in part because there was a whole scheme behind this, and there was so much money, like hundreds of thousands of dollars bet on what seems like an incidental, kind of bet or gamble that got the attention of some of the authorities. Now, what they say here, and I think they're right, is in this podcast, they say, "The damage to sports and this year's March Madness tournament has already been done." And they're asking the question here, they're saying, for example, it's, it's harder to watch, and of course, we're talking about men's college basketball, leading down to the Final Four. They say, "Especially smaller college basketball, without having it in the back of your mind, is this real? Is what I'm watching genuine?" Like, the integrity of the game has been called into question. And they point out that we're in an era now of ubiquitous legal sports gambling in the United States, and you can bet on games, Division I, any game, anytime, anywhere. And what makes this case so interesting is now we have the NIL money, name, image, likeness, but a lot of that money goes to players going to North Carolina, Duke, Kentucky, et cetera. But these smaller schools, players are not gonna make near as much, so they were much more vulnerable, they say, to a kind of a plan like this to throw a game off. [lips smack] apparently, prosecutors say the scandal involved at least 39 athletes across 17 different schools, and some of these gaming organizations made millions of dollars over several years. There was another scandal in the NBA you and I talked about a number of months ago that was tied to this as well. And, it's... There's so many angles to go here, but one thing they point out is what's called prop bets. It's not just saying who's gonna win or lose, but it's really a bet on anything other than the final outcome, like the number of three-pointers somebody will make in the game, whether there'll be overtime or not, how many specific pl- how much specific players will perform. So they're very narrow kinds of bets. And of course, that invites people to bet more on seemingly insignificant things. So raises a ton of question, but jump in here and give me your thoughts on this trend.
Scott Rae: Yeah. Well, Sean, I think, I think the notion that it is ruining college basketball, I think is probably overstated. But you'd be a fool not to be worried about it. And I think the main argument for this has been, let's bring sports betting above ground-
Sean McDowell: That's right
Scott Rae: ... Let's regulate it and tax it, as opposed to it being, basically an underground business, and I think for the most part, run by really sketchy bookies, if not, if not outright by the mob. And I think the big takeaway from this is what... Part of the article that you cited, but I want... But what comes before it, I think is pretty significant too. They said, and it goes like this: "Everyone's talking about what happened, and it's understandable, but even what didn't happen is a problem. You don't even need to be... Games to be on the take for there to be big problems with sports. You just need people to wonder if they are."
Sean McDowell: That's right.
Scott Rae: That's really [chuckles] the point. And now I find, I think a lot of fans probably feel that way. And I admit, you know, probably, you know, most of the, most of the teams that are targets for these kinds of scams, you're not gonna find in the NCAA tournament for the most part. Maybe some people who... Maybe some of the last four teams in, you know, but for the most part, these... The, the teams that make the tournament, they're the elite. They're the cream of the college basketball crop. They're... You won't fi- Robert Morris, last time I checked, was not in the NCAA tournament.
Sean McDowell: Right.
Scott Rae: But I think what's, what I found real interesting about this is the prop bets that you're describing, they provide a justification or a rationalization, maybe a better way to put it, that what the, what the players are doing when they, when they are tempted to, you know, throw a prop bet, that doesn't mean you're throwing the game.It, it means, it means you're influencing a relatively incidental part of the game, and it's easier to make the re-ration- rationalization that it's, put it in basketball terms, this is a case of no harm, no foul. But I would say watch the utilitarian moral reasoning that's being employed here, because they're saying there's really no harm being done to the integrity of the game, to the outcome, to things that really matter about the game itself. And I would say this is utilitarian, a good example of utilitarian moral reasoning justifying something that you and I think would view on a principled, view is obviously wrong. And I think, there are people being harmed because the, you know, the betting organizations who are, you know, who are victimized by this, you know, they're the one... They're lose ... I mean, they're losing hundreds of thousands of dollars on these prop bets that have these inordinate amounts of money being spent on them, which, you know, you wonder sort of how, you know, somebody probably wasn't thinking real clearly about the amount of money that they were betting on these really insignificant things. And I think at the end of the day, the article concludes how it fa- how it fell apart is the same way that most scams fall apart, Sean, is the people involved, they started making money and they got greedy.
Sean McDowell: [laughs] and they make money in a way that just catches people's attention and don't think through, you know, how obvious it will be. But you're right. If you're in this to make money and you're willing to break the rules to get there, you're gonna keep getting lured into more and more and more, and eventually it's going to break. Now your point about the motivation was if we bring in this gambling into the, kind of the public face, then it'll be, it'll be less corrupt, we can track it. This is the same argument that was made for the legalization of marijuana, and it has not, as we've talked about multiple times on this show, it has actually not helped for a lot of different reasons. The increased THC, the increased use, hospitalization, it's actually made things worse. Now, there's kinda two issues here at play with gambling. One is does it wreck the sport and make us question whether or not, guy, why did they do that foul? Why did that person drop that catch? Was it actually intended or not? Like it raises that question, of course, as a whole, but there's also the effect on the wider, like people who are partaking in this and its effect on them. So there was a piece earlier in The Wall Street Journal written by a Gen Z-er, a college student, and it's an opinion piece, and I thought it was really compelling. This, the title is, "I'm a College Student. Gen Z Sports Betting is Wrecking My Friends' Lives." And it, this pr- this individual, Eli Thompson, says, "Among my college peers, using apps to bet on sport events has become a dangerous rite of passage. March Madness will only f- add fuel to the fire." And so this individual doesn't mention, ... No, he does mention the university. A freshman at North Greenville University. He says, "On my campus, especially among many of my teammates, guys have become obsessed with online sp- bets boarding, sometimes spiraling into debt." He said, "I've had friends who've lost hundreds, lied to their families, pulled away from the team, all while chasing the rush of a winning bet that may never arrive. Sports gambling was a major problem for many of my high school classmates, but it's got even worse in college." Gives a story of during last year's March Madness, one student was down more than $500. For a student, that's, that's a lot of money for anybody, but especially [laughs] for a student. Had to come clean to his family 'cause he had used a card linked to the family's account. Talks about the social fallout from this with the heaviest bettors sometimes ghosting friends entirely, and ghosting is when you're in a relationship with somebody and you just completely stop talking with them, act as if they're a ghost and they don't exist. And one of the psychology behind it is it's one thing to lose, but if you lose and you feel like, "Oh, I was so close to winning," then this says, this individual says, "This exploits the vulnerability by activating our brain reward system almost as strongly as a win, making losses feel like progress and encouraging us to keep betting." Now, what's interesting about this is, and this is what bothers me, I'm bothered by the sport wondering why did they drop that? Is somebody getting paid? But I'm also bothered, when I took my sons to an NBA game, NBA game not long ago, I looked up, I'm like, "Wait, what are all those numbers? I don't understand these stats." And I was like, "Oh, these are numbers for gambling." It's all over commercials. It's all over ESPN. It truly has become ubiquitous. And in this article, this college student says one of his friends told him, he said when he saw DraftKings ad during an NBA game, he thought, "Well, it must be okay if Kevin Hart is doing it." So a part of the motivation is to take beloved athletes like Shaquille O'Neal talk about DraftKings or whoever those athletes are and makes everyone else feel that it's normalized and it's just a part of it really for the money?And so this scandal concerns me. It's not gonna be the last. We've seen it in baseball, we've seen it in other sports. But ubiquity of gambling within sports really makes it hard to enjoy it for me. Now, the last thing in this article I think is great, it says, "What can we do to solve the problem?" It said, "Parents need to talk to their kids." When I saw that, I was like, "Amen. That's biblical." And that was a reminder to me to just use an opportunity to talk to my own son as March Madness is really kicking off, and just talk to about it. Not lecture, talk to about it. Of course, we see that in Deuteronomy 6:4, talk to your kids when they lie down, when they wake up, about biblical things. So this is a good reminder, a good opportunity. Parents, grandparents, talk to your kids, talk to your grandkids about this. Plant some seeds of wisdom and biblical discernment.
Scott Rae: Good stuff.
Sean McDowell: All right. So one of the things that I look for in stories that we cover, you and I are always sending other s- each other stories back and forth [laughs] , is when I see something pop up more than one time. And sometimes there's, like, an AP story that different newspapers will just pick up on. I get that. But when there's different lines that kinda come together of a larger trend, it makes you stop and say, "I wonder if something's going on here." So just this week, I saw a piece, in The Atlantic that we'll come to about a book that's out by somebody who's an evolutionary biologist, and then another book that came out recently on the same theme of less and less people in society having sex. Now, why is this an issue? Why are we concerned? What is happening with this trend? So there's a, an individual who's written a book called Sextinction, which is a creative title, have to admit. And, she is a sexual neuroscientist, and I'm frankly not exactly sure what that means.
Scott Rae: [laughs]
Sean McDowell: But she studied the data, and I find it so interesting. She says, for example, one question is sex really on the decline, or is it that other outlets are taking the place, like pornography, AI companions, et cetera? That's the question she's asking. And in her research, she says everyone across the board is having less sex. So whether you're married or in relationship or single, it's in Eastern countries, Western countries, all the developed countries, all age cohorts, but most specifically among young people. So there's a larger trend she says is going on. Now, she mentions here things like e- when people first started talking about dolls and sex robots, et cetera, "I always thought people would prefer in-person, real-life sex. But I'm beginning to think people are actually preferring the solo methods, and it's dangerous." Now she's shifted her tune and saying these things are getting much more powerful than we anticipated. Apparently, this decline started around the '90s, but it's increased the most the last 20 years. COVID didn't start it, but it made it worse. Now, one of the things [laughs] this is in an interview with Debra, so I'm not totally sure what to make of this, although I have an opinion on it. One study, and you... And advice, we can always take one study as one study. You need multiple ones to back it up. One study of Gen Z found that two-thirds would prioritize a good night's sleep over sex. Two-thirds would. Now, that's really interesting. What is going on? Why? What are the factors here? The other story that came across is this piece in The Atlantic, and it's called The Basic Drive That Humans Might Be Losing. And this says, "In a time of AI, sex, and looks maxing," which is, both of these articles talk about this. This is a phenomena we discussed a few weeks ago about people putting their bodies through grueling kinds of treatment, like breaking bones, to have the perfect physical appearance. They're saying, "In light of AI, sex, and looks makling, maxing, a new book calls on humans to rediscover intimacy." And this book, called The Intimate Animal, takes an evolutionary perspective, which of course you and I would take some issue with, and says basically the two most radical things that reshaped sexuality is some four million years ago when human beings became bipedal, could look at one another face-to-face, and engage in intimate sex. That changed everything, and the internet equally changes everything. That's how dramatic this evolutionary biologist thinks it i- this phenomena is, and they point towards marriage rates being down for decades and other problems that emerge from this, and loneliness, which we've talked about. Now, I could go on with these articles, but just your sense of this trend and your take on these two articles.
Scott Rae: Well, Sean, my summary of this is welcome to the sexual recession.
Sean McDowell: [laughs] Okay.
Scott Rae: And, and I think what we're seeing here is a reaction culturally to the sexual revolution that started in roughly the 1960s and had its apex in the hookup culture. And it's a, it's a we've been there, done that, and have concluded, not surprisingly, that sex without connection is overrated and unfulfilling. Good sex over time, as we've talked about before, requires an emotional, and we would also say a spiritual, connection. In fact, I remember vividly hearing some guy named McDowell-
Sean McDowell: [laughs]
Scott Rae: ... Saying over and over again that most sexual problems are not physical. They're emotionalAnd that our minds are our most important sex organ. Hence, I think this, sexual neurobiologist, I think, is onto something. And here, Sean, I think here's the thing. Connections with real people are messy, and they're challenging, 'cause real people have lots of things going for them, but they got lots of flaws, too. We have lots of flaws. And in my view, it's not surprising that a growing number of especially younger folks are concluding that it's not worth the investment and the headaches that real relationships with real people bring, particularly because now we have so many perceived substitutes. We got porn, got AI companions, you know, and who knows, you know, where this is gonna go in the future. You know, probably sex robots are probably coming next. And I think what the article points out is re- I think a really helpful term, that we are becoming the unpartnered generation, which is producing loneliness at epidemic levels and the lowest fertility rates in a very long time. Now, as we've pointed out before, Sean, these substitutes have, they form what I would call a self-reinforcing cycle, because the more we use the substitutes for real relationships, what we're finding is that that those don't cure our loneliness. Not, not surprising given the fact that we were created for connection with real people, not with, not with digital or other types of substitutes. And I think it... I think some of the article-- some of the ar-are right to point out that these, you know, the AI substitutes, they're not real people, and regardless of how good they become, they will never be conscious. They will never have emotions or feelings. They will mimic those in human beings but never produce the real thing because o-ontologically, metaphysically, they're not capable of doing that.
Sean McDowell: Really good take of tying those two together. That's so helpful to go back to the start of the sexual revolution, talk about what was promised, and this sexual recession that in many ways is driven by a lot of factors. Some is economic, some is technological, but some of it is also worldview. And I found these two lines that kinda tied these two articles together. In The Atlantic piece, they're talking about how, you know, which is something we've also talked about, how apps in dating causes you to look at somebody's physical, characteristics, swipe within seconds to the next person, and they're lamenting the problem with that. And this individual says, "App designs also undermine the dating process by emphasizing physical attractiveness, even though research has found that the trait people overwhelmingly say they're looking for in a partner is kindness," which is interesting. And then Dr. Debra Soh says, "I read about looks maxing. Men think that women want this super hot Chad guy, that he has perfect bone structure, that he has to have all these metrics. Especially guys are getting injections in certain parts of their bodies." And she says, "I mean, some women do like these things, but by and large, most women care more about resources and protection and whether you're a good person." [chuckles] I mean, partly it's nice to see these resources and articles come out and people say, who are not Christians, that character matters, kindness matters. There's differences between men and between women. All of that is welcome, and I appreciate that. Now, there's kind of an underlying theme in this, that the book is, you know, called The Intimacy Animal, and of course, the question is, what do we mean by intimacy? And our culture assumes that sex equals intimacy. Well, the reality is you can be intimate with somebody without having sex, and you can have sex with somebody without being intimate. Really, intimacy is to know somebody for who they truly are and be known for who you truly are without wearing a mask. So it's not just the same thing as sex. It's a deep relational knowing that God has wired us for, which is why in the Old Testament, sex is viewed through a relational lens. Yada, the Hebrew for Abraham knew his wife Sarah, is not in the sexual revolution. It's this physical, biological lens through which we look at it. No, it's this relational lens of knowing somebody. And so that kind of underlines these articles, although at the very end, I did find it fascinating that one of the last lines in this as- at the piece in The Atlantic says, "It's so evolutionarily unprecedented, this idea that we're looking for solutions when the solution is all around us. The solution is social connection," he said. "We don't need to innovate. Our species has done this for millions of years." He starts to sound incredulous over this, and he says, "Just hug a GD person." I won't say it here.
Scott Rae: [chuckles]
Sean McDowell: Just get out and hug somebody. And partly when I hear these things, I chuckle because both of these books recognizing the sexual recession are looking at it through the lens of evolutionary biology, which is very different than looking it through the lens of a biblical theology or of there being a creator and a designerSo this book now that writes, "We're in this sexual recession and it's a crisis, and we need to look to evolution. We're a social animal," I'm like, yeah. I mean, God made us for relationship with Him and for others, and the greatest commandment is to love God and to love other people. We are made for relationship because God is relationship. So I think those couple underlying worldview things in this piece are worth noting.
Scott Rae: One, one other comment on this, Sean. I think it's also a wake-up call on the importance we tend to put on sex in a relationship.
Sean McDowell: Amen.
Scott Rae: I think we... Culturally, we tend to treat it as the main course, when in reality it's the dessert. And I think some of this phenomena that these books are describing is we are reacting culturally to having oversold sex as a source of happiness and satisfaction. And this is one of the things I think we have got to tell people who are, who are, you know, entering serious relationships, moving toward marriage, that, you know, couples may have long stretches where sex is, you know, is challenging and maybe even a bit of an afterthought. During pregnancy, while nursing or raising small children, during illness, especially if it's a serious one or a chronic one, after menopause, you know, you know, on and on and on. But there are, you know, there are lots of reasons to value the person besides what they can offer you sexually.
Sean McDowell: That's a good way to put it. I, you know, both these authors are kind of lamenting that people are not having enough sex. We're not saying people need to have more sex. We're saying-
Scott Rae: No
Sean McDowell: ... People are not having sex. This is a, what you might say, a sign of deeper relational disconnection. I mean, one of these studies, again, it's one study, said in the past month 48% of married couples had not had sex. So this, you know, we spend a lot of time telling teens not to have sex. If that's down, that's a good thing. But the problem is a lot of teens are not going out and spending time [laughs] face-to-face like they did in the past. And the other thing that they point out is a lot of people are not having sex 'cause people have lost the confidence that they can find a lasting partner and date. We're staring at screens. We're, we're socially isolated. And so in some ways this reflects a deeper relational breakdown across all the different barriers that she mentions. The lack of having sex is just like the red flag I say, "Okay, wait a minute," or the red beeping sign. What's beneath this? What's driving it? And I think it's just deeper relational disconnection, which is what leads to loneliness.
Scott Rae: Amen.
Sean McDowell: All right. With that said, we got one more story. This one popped up, and I actually heard this on, Al Mohler's briefing, is there's this piece in The Telegraph that just came out on Thursday, and this is by an individual, Allison Pearson, who's an award-winning journalist and a columnist and the chief interviewer of The Telegraph. But this piece is not like objective news. This [laughs] piece is-
Scott Rae: Yeah
Sean McDowell: ... I don't know any other way to put it. This is an impassioned rant and concern for the UK is how it comes across. And she says Britain is about to make a sickening change to the abortion law. If passed in its current form, a new bill would mean a woman could no longer be prosecuted for inducing her own abortion right up until death. So the House of Lords will vote on what's called Clause 208 of the Crime and Policing Bill, which, if passed into law, means it would no longer be an offense for a woman to induce her own abortion at any stage of pregnancy for any reason, including not wanting a baby, it said including not wanting a baby girl, and right up until birth. She's comparing this to advan- infanticide. She makes a point that in New Zealand, where abortion was decriminalized in 2020, treating it as health service, late abortions actually increased by 40%. She also argues, and again, I'm trusting that this is true, the only other country with what she calls our brutal disregard for the unborn child is China, where abortion is generally legal at any stage of pregnancy. Now, so much more can be said about this, and she makes an argument against it, somewhat morally speaking. Does this surprise you? What's your take on this pending bill?
Scott Rae: Oh, Sean, this is very depressing, but not surprising. The author, I think, refers to late-term, late-term abortions as infanticide, which I think is accurate. Although, I think honestly, I think you could probably call every abortion infanticide. Because it's, you know, it's killing a person. It's just the difference is they're... You know, infanticide technically is when the child is outside the womb. And I, what I wasn't as aware, as aware of is that many countries in Europe essentially have only first trimester allowances for abortion, not in the second or third. And since Roe v. Wade and until Dobbs, abortion in the United States, we need to be clear about this, has essentially been legal for all nine months of pregnancy and for virtually any reason in the United States. Now, Dobbs changed the landscape on that, but in our state here in California, we're operating as though Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land.Now, the, our author, I think rightly laments her experience in the neonatal ICU, seeing premature babies saved while even older preemies are being aborted. The point I wanna make on this, Sean, is this phenomena is exactly what galvanized former Reagan administration Surgeon General Everett Koop- ... Who was an outspoken Christian. It's what galvanized his opposition to abortion and basically jump-started the evangelical pro-life movement, 'cause Koop was a pediatric surgeon who was saving these preemies himself and watching premature babies who he c- he kn- he knew he could save being aborted by the parents. And he saw the same inconsistency in this that our author saw. So I wouldn't, I wouldn't wanna downplay the importance of that experience, 'cause that's really important in providing the foundation for the pro-life movement as it exists today. The interesting part of the article that I took out of this was that our author so laments late term abortions, but she's entirely okay with first trimester ones.
Sean McDowell: Yeah.
Scott Rae: Up to 14 weeks. And the basis for this is not clear, except for the, what I would call the yuck factor- ... In late term abortions. They're messier, and that the unborn baby more fully, unborn child at that point more fully resembles a baby. And I'd wanna point out to our listeners that, there's nothing magical about the 14 weeks marker, or really there's nothing magical, Sean, about any marker between conception and birth, where you can say, you know, here is where you have a person one day before you didn't, and now one day after you do. And to be fair to our author, it's not clear whether her view on this is a principled thing or whether it's just out of expedience that, you know, if abortion's outlawed at 14 weeks only, that's better for the unborn than having it available for all nine months of pregnancy.
Sean McDowell: That's fair.
Scott Rae: Pos- it's possible she's making that argument. So this is, I thought really an interesting piece, and quite depressing.
Sean McDowell: It is depressing, and incredibly impassioned. It surprised me that it was written with such passion. You know, one of the defenses here I wanna, I wanna highlight, but first, your point about so many times the ick or yuck factor of a child that can survive outside of the womb, but is still inside the womb being aborted as infanticide, but maybe a 12-week unborn, which is often called a fetus, not doing so, doesn't look as human to... This is the way the objection goes. "Well, it just doesn't look human." And one of the things that I say when I give my talk on pro-life is I say, "It does look human. It looks exactly like a 12-week-old human is supposed to look. It doesn't look like a 26-week. It doesn't look like an infant. It doesn't look like a teenager or an elderly, because that's not what a human being looks like at that stage of development." So appearance might change from the first trimester to the third, but the kind of being that it is ontologically remains the same. Now, one defense that she gives here, she talks about how, you know, it, Winston Churchill was born two months prematurely. So was Albert Einstein. Sir Isaac Newton was so tiny he could fit in a quart mug. Six weeks premature, Stevie Wonder's blindness was caused by, a damage in his undeveloped eyes. They talk about a certain baby named Fury came into the world three months before his due date weighing one pound. Now he's six foot nine, became the heavyweight champion of the world. Now, these stories kind of move us because we don't want a world without Einstein or Winston Churchill, but we have to remember that their value comes not from how smart they were or politically savvy they were, but from the kind of things that they are. So every unborn, whether we know their names or not, regardless of what they accomplish, are made in the image of God and have value. So I just wanna pause on this article. And again, I don't know if she believes that or not, and this is just kind of a, an emotional argument that does tend to persuade people. But it's important we make a distinction between instrumental value and intrinsic value, which is at the heart of the pro-life case. Well, we will keep tracking this and see if it passes or not, but the whole other piece is even the morality of abortion aside, with less people having kids, you'd think on pragmatic grounds they would not want more babies aborted, but maybe I'm just missing something in the context there in UK. Anything else in the story, Scott?
Scott Rae: No, I don't think you're missing something. I think it points out a fundamental inconsistency- ... In the conversation.
Sean McDowell: All right. Well, let's shift to questions, but first, we just wanna remind folks that we would love to have you come study with us at Talbot School of Theology in person or by distance, and we have programs in Old Testament, New Testament, philosophy, apologetics, marriage and family, spiritual formation, and so much more. We're in an exciting time at Talbot and Biola, where we're really growing and training more people, and just recently moved into the third largest non-denominational seminary, thanks so much to what, really a whole team of people in doing, but the leadership of Ed Stetzer has really been helping us grow there. So we'd love to have you. All right. As always, Scott, we have some great questions, and let's start with this first oneThis individual says, "My daughter's getting to know a young man from church, and they are interested in starting a relationship. Recently, this young man confessed he's been struggling with a pornography addiction. He was in tears, recognizing how damaging this is for their relationship and future marriage. My daughter's conflicted 'cause she knows he is honest and really wants to be a godly future husband, but she also feels that this issue compromises the purity of the relationship. She doesn't know how she can be in a relationship if she cannot trust what he's watching on the internet. What advice would you give my daughter in this situation as she tries to decide if she should pursue the relationship or not?"
Scott Rae: Well, I would tell this person, "You have a very wise daughter." "And you've raised her well." And I would suggest, as this is described, they're, they're interested in starting a relationship, and so it doesn't sound like the relationship is very far down the road. But I would encourage you start really slowly on this, and I would make no commitments and certainly no sexual activity until you are convinced that he's on top of this addiction. And I would, you know, I would have s- you know, I would wanna know how are you being accountable for getting on top of this, and who in your life is holding you accountable to this? 'Cause that can't be, that can't be the young woman's job. So but he's gotta have, he's, he's gotta have some men in his life who he's accountable to on a regular basis to make sure that he's not, you know, his, you know, his future relationships are not continuing to be poisoned by this. And I would say just, you know, slowly, cautiously. This is... I would say, you know, if this were my daughter, I'd say this is a major red flag.
Sean McDowell: I totally agree. I would graciously say to this young man, "Thank you for your honesty."
Scott Rae: Mm-hmm.
Sean McDowell: "You are not damaged good. There are many examples of young men who have go- who have struggled with pornography and who have come out of this and experience tremendous healing," my son being one of them. We have not posted it here on this podcast, but I interviewed him and posted it on YouTube, and he was very frank, and he is working with a group. He is heading it up at Biola. And to see his change and transformation and the decisions he's made out of this is just absolutely encouraging to me and promising. So I'd say, number one, to this young man, "Thank you for your honesty. You can absolutely unmistakably get healing and forgiveness from this and have the kind of marriage that you want to have." I'd also say to this young girl that this is a red flag to me. It's multiple red flags. Like, this is... If, if you want the best for him, end the relationship. Now, you could maybe in the future come back if he gets the right help and goes through steps. Like, it doesn't have to be necessarily permanent. But if you're in a relationship with him, it can discourage the need to take the hard steps to really get counseling and confession and accountability and the deeper healing that needs to take place. So oftentimes porn is not the root of the issue, it's the fruit of the issue, and there's deeper issues for which there needs to be healing relationally, psychologically, emotionally. And so if this girl was right here, I would say, "I know you care about him. If you want him to have the right happy marriage in the future, and if you want this, graciously say, 'I'm sorry. This relationship is done,' certainly until you get the help and steps and transformation that you need." That's what I would say to any young woman in this kind of situation. And I agree with you, remarkable girl to notice this in the first place.
Scott Rae: Hear, hear.
Sean McDowell: This second one I think is pretty quick. It says, "I'm overseeing a small Bible study group for boys and girls this fall. I want to educate myself beforehand about what youth today are facing. My two two kids are grown, so I'm out of the loop. Can you suggest a good book or books that will explain what is happening to our Christian high school and college students?" Now, I have a suggestion too, but anything you want to throw in there, Scott?
Scott Rae: Well, I think our co- our colleague in philosophy, Dave Horner, has done a terrific book, more for college students, called "Welcome to College," and it's sort of a primer on what students can expect when they get to college and what some of the landmines are for their faith that they ought to be aware of. That, that'd be my go-to thing for somebody who's maybe a little bit older than a high school student, but, you know, someone who's either in college or headed to college soon.
Sean McDowell: That's awesome. If you wanna understand this generation, the Barna studies on Gen Z are really helpful. They've done three volumes, and volume two and three are more recent, and it's just the worldview, it's the mindset in this generation, volume one and volume two. And I guess for a shameless plug, I wrote a book with J. Warner Wallace called "So the Next Generation Will Know," and we did a ton of research on why kids are disengaged in the faith. We found every study we could find, and it helps to write a book with a detective who can do [chuckles] the detective work.
Scott Rae: [laughs]
Sean McDowell: Combine it together and give real practical steps how to pass on your faithSo that book, So the Next Generation May Know, might help as well. All right, one more question. "Hi, Sean and Scott. I never seem to fully agree with any scholar, theologian, church leader, or apologist. I don't agree with everything," and mentions a whole bunch of people, the Pope, N.T. Wright, William Lane Craig, C.S. Lewis, my pastor, even what you and I say. Is this a problem, or is this a fault with Protestants in general? Why is there over 35,000 denominations? Are we supposed to start a denomination whenever we don't fully agree with somebody? Your thoughts on this one.
Scott Rae: Well, Sean, it's a big problem that he disagrees with you and me.
Sean McDowell: [laughs]
Scott Rae: Not, not the, not the rest of these folks. [laughs] But, and I think you sh- you should expect that you would disagree with people on most... I mean, there's only, there's only one person that I will never disagree with and only one book that I will never disagree with anything. And it's, you know, it's Jesus and the scriptures.
Sean McDowell: Amen.
Scott Rae: And so it's not a, it's, it's not a personal problem. And I don't think it's a fault with Protestants because there's... I mean, there are a lot of Catholics and Orthodox folks that disagree roundly with each other and very passionately about things. And I don't think, you know, I don't know if we need to start a new denomination every time we don't fully agree. The reasons some of those denominations started are for th- good theological reasons, others not so much. They're started for, you know, political reasons or financial reasons. So and I agree we have too many denominations. And sometimes that does indicate that we don't, we don't play well with others. But, I think you should expect that you will disagree with almost everybody about something in a fallen world. Because nobody's infallible, you know, after the Lord Jesus. So, I think the, some of these denominations are clearly a blessing to the body of Christ. I don't see them necessarily as abominations, or something that's, there's something that's immoral. But, you know, some denominations I question why they were started, and, you know, and sort of what use they are.
Sean McDowell: That's great. I actually would have more concern if this person wrote in and said, "By the way, I agree with you guys on every single thing." Then I probably would say, "You know what? You need to maybe think a little bit more critically and not let us think-" [laughs]
Scott Rae: I mean, I would say, "You, yeah, you're not listening that carefully." [laughs]
Sean McDowell: I mean, you and I disagree... We agree far more than we disagree, but we've had substantive conversations on IVF and other issues that we disagree on. So it's not a problem that you disagree with people in principle. The question, of course, is why do you disagree with people? Now, the end of this question seemed to say, is this a problem with Protestantism and leaning towards Orthodox and Catholicism? I would say I think there's gonna be less unity in those two faiths than you suspect from the outside. Now, I might get some criticism for that, but I've had a number of people... In fact, this week, I got a call from a student who is thinking about converting from Protestantism to Catholicism, and I listened, and I asked questions, and he said, "You know what? There's not the amount of unity I expected here on a range of issues." Especially the vast majority Catholics do not follow the Catholic Church on sexual teachings. They make up their own minds, the vast majority there. So that is not a knock. We Protestants obviously have our own issues. I'm not denying that. But bottom line is why do I disagree? Do I go back to the scriptures, and am I willing to change my mind? Those are some of the most important things as we approach this. So Scott, good stuff, my man.
Scott Rae: Yeah. As, as usual. Good stories. Lots, lots of good stuff to talk about.
Sean McDowell: This has been an episode of the podcast Think Biblically: Conversations on Faith and Culture, brought to you by Talbot School of Theology, Biola University. We have master's degrees, as I mentioned earlier, online and in person, theology, Bible, apologetics, spiritual formation, philosophy, online, in person. We would love to have you join us. To submit comments or ask questions, please email us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu. And please take a moment just quickly to give us a rating on your podcast app. That really truly helps. And consider sharing this with a friend. And we'll see you Tuesday when a regular episode airs. In the meantime, remember to think biblically about everything. [outro music]
