Cultural Update: Pope's Encyclical on AI; Research on Politics in Church; Texas Creates Clinic for De-transitioners

Episode Transcript

Sean McDowell: [upbeat music] The pope releases an encyclical about AI. A new Pew Research poll reveals how much churches actually talk about politics, and it might surprise you. And Texas creates the first gender clinic for de-transitioners. 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, this is one of the weeks where you sent me a story early saying we gotta talk about this AI encyclical, and that is for so many different reasons. But let me just lay out a few things that happened. Probably a lot of our listeners are aware that this was released, but a couple things before I turn it over to you for some context. This was released kind of in the context of, like, the Tower of Babel, framing what happens when we have new technology and what damage could potentially be released. The Vatican released a 250-page encyclical letter translated as The Magnificant Humanity. It's been hailed as the first official Catholic document to wrestle with AI, and by the way, you and I have talked about this, Scott. This comes out of some conversations that the Vatican and the Catholic Church has been hosting with experts for years weighing into this. But rather than deal, according to a lot of the articles, rather than deal strictly with the hazards of AI, the letter, which is signed by Pope Leo XIV, has two overarching purposes. First, to defend humanity against those who've grown jaded about our shared nature and existence, and second, to warn society about the threats posed by the temptation to outsource human capabilities to computers. Now, there's a ton of questions that are raised by this. One of the pope's surprising arguments is his insistence that humanity is fundamentally good. Now, it doesn't mean morally good, but really we are good because we're human, and our goodness in stem parts from how we are distinct from machines. So one of the quotes is, "Indeed, precisely because we experience limits, vulnerability, suffering, and failure, we can recognize the inviolable dignity of every person, both our own and that of others." So he's worried about any willingness to allow human powers of reason, creativity, and compassion, and care for fellow people to be usurped by machines. So really one of the underlying themes here is that artificial intelligence and technology is pushing us towards perfection, but we have to recognize there's actually something good in the way that God has made us as finite and good in what it means to be human. Now, a ton more is here, but I wanna turn it over to you. Give us your take on this encyclical.

Scott Rae: Well, there is, Sean, there is so much here, and, you know, thankfully for our listeners, we're not gonna read through all 250 pages of it.

Sean McDowell: [laughs]

Scott Rae: But I think here's but my general take on this. It's cautious about the dangers of AI and hopeful about its benefits. It's not Luddite, and that term is used to describe somebody who's just completely anti-technology, but it's not three cheers for AI either. I would call it maybe a cheer and a half-

Sean McDowell: Okay

Scott Rae: ... For AI. It's a call to a, for AI to serve human beings rather than to degrade and displace them, and I think that's the big idea from it. And the question that's raised, I think, is a, is a good one. Will it become something that enriches humanity, or, as one writer put it, is it, will it become a technological toxin that dulls our thinking and inhibits our relationships? Here's... I love the way Leo put this, I think, in a very succinct way, and I'll quote him, or I will quote one part of the encyclical on this. "The pursuit of greater profits cannot justify choices that systematically sacrifice jobs because the human person is an end, not a means, and the economic order must remain subordinate to human dignity and the common good." I think he's absolutely right about that. Now, Sean, the backdrop to this is really important, and it's, it I think it had, it has something to do with with actually the name that the pope took for himself as Leo XIV. Because it was released on the same day as the influential, a very influential encyclical from Leo XIII that was issued in 1891 called Rerum Novarum, which was the beginning of basically the beginning of Catholic social teaching.

Scott Rae: And since that point, Catholic encyclicals have responded to various things that have to do with the intersection of Catholic faith and the the, basically the broader society. And here's, Rerum Novarum, just a little bit about that I think will help set the context for this, was written in response to the Industrial Revolution that was sweeping Europe and the United States. And this set the stage for curbing many of the abuses of industrialization, such as, such as, you know, safety risks, child labor, you know, toxic pollutants, all kinds of things. And it paved the way for, I think, a movement I call a mixed bag, which we, Protestants, Protestant version of that was the social gospel, and for the New Deal legislation. And Leo, I think, sees AI as a similar industrial revolution with the corresponding dangers.And I say, you know, in the first half of the 20th century, Leo XIII's fears about industrialization, I think were mostly realized.

Scott Rae: And some of the benefits are realized also. It created middle classes. It moved millions out of desperate poverty. And the current Leo, I see, sees some of the same threats and benefits. He has the same fears of the concentration of wealth and power, and the misuse of those at the expense of human dignity and the common good. Now, there's just so, there's so much more. I just... You just sort of got me started here. But I'm--

Scott Rae: very encouraged that the Pope used the language of the common good. Since in our autonomy-driven culture, Sean, which we talk about all the time, I've been afraid for several years now that we have lost the language for even talking about the common good. And I think, it, we are, I, we are slowly losing that. And I think this is one of the reasons why you We haven't, we haven't, we haven't connected the dots quite like this before, but I think this is one of the reasons why families are so important for the culture. Because families are the training ground for the common good, where you learn and you practice subordinating your self-interests for the interests of the common good of the family. There, I think, is, you know, is a smaller version of what we're intended to learn about our role as citizens and our role in the broader culture.

Scott Rae: All right, I'll let you weigh in here. I got a lot more to say, but I'll give our listeners a break from my ranting here.

Sean McDowell: Oh, man.

Scott Rae: And you, and you can take over.

Sean McDowell: I wanted to keep going. I just have a few points that jump out to me as I think about what role is the Pope playing here. When we look in the Old Testament, there was prophet, priest, and king, and clearly the Pope is not trying to be king here. In fact, one of the piece in Wall Street Journal was critical, saying he's giving too much confidence to the state to be able to fix this. That's a separate conversation. But he's not operating as king. He's not operating as priest. The Pope is operating with a prophetic voice. In some ways, this is, I think, some of the best of what faith can do, is speak from outside of kind of the power structures, at least of the business, outside of the government. Although, of course, the Pope has a lot of power, no question about that, with one point four billion followers. But speak into the cultural moment with a biblical message that ties back in stories like Babel, going all the way back to Genesis chapter eleven, which is kind of saying, "We've dealt with this before." This specific technology is new, but this kind of crisis is nothing new. With a humanizing message, and I haven't read all two hundred and fifty pages of this. I actually really want to when I have time. But it seems to be capturing a humanizing message, what makes us distinct as humans. We cannot lose this, but with appropriate caution and concern that if this gets out of control, there could be serious damage. I heard a story this week from Anthropic about how an AI system, they were shutting it down, and somehow the AI figured out that it was being shut down. And so it was able to rewrite the code so as not to be shut down and read all the emails of an executive and threaten to blackmail this executive, because the executive was apparently having an affair, if they shut this AI down. [chuckles] Now, when I heard that story, I thought, "What on earth?" This is not conscious or self-conscious, but it's functioning like that, and this is gonna get out of control. Now, how much can a a papal encyclical really do? I don't know the answer to that. My suspicion is the amount of power and the amount of money tied behind AI, it's not gonna stop anything. But in some ways, I think of Isaiah chapter six, it's like they're not gonna listen, and they're not gonna see, but speak the truth, and that's one prophetic role that the church as a whole must do. And again, I haven't read all two hundred and fifty pages, but the way I've read about it being postured, I'm like, "Good, this is humanizing. It's a call to concern without being alarmism." This is the kind of thing as a whole I think the church should do. Your take on that, or keep going on what I think is important.

Scott Rae: Well, agree, agreed. Kind of two points on that. I wouldn't underestimate the power of, the persuasive power of the encyclicals.

Sean McDowell: Okay.

Scott Rae: Because what Rerum novarum started a hundred and thirty-five years ago, I think may initiated some very profound changes in the way, industry operates. We have, we have much more concern for safety and for worker welfare, and we've eliminated child labor. You know, and we've have a safe... We have unemployment insurance now. We have, we have a safety net for some of the dislocations that happen when resources move from pro, from unproductive to productive sectors of the economy. Now, it, you know, it I, wouldn't say it's directly responsible for those things, but it was, it was the initial, I think the initial tipping point that, gave rise to a whole lot of changes to our industrial landscape.And I think what

Scott Rae: what the current encyclical does, it was very similar to what Rerum Novarum did. It gave a moral purpose to industry, and I think that's what the pope has done here. He's given a moral purpose to AI, that let's be, let's be certain that it doesn't go beyond what the moral purpose of it actually is. Is to create better opportunities, to create a better life, to contribute to the common good. I think that the church, the church basically stayed in its lane here. And, stayed away from the technical side, although there was... One of the founders of Anthropic, was very influential in some of the content of the encyclical.

Scott Rae: Now the other thing, Sean, that I think is really

Sean McDowell: Let me jump in just really-

Scott Rae: Yeah

Sean McDowell: ... Fast before I go to the other thing.

Scott Rae: Yeah.

Sean McDowell: The only reason that I'm skeptical, and that's encouraging to hear about the impact of that encyclical. I love that. When I look at AI, this is a global phenomenon. China is not gonna listen to Pope. India is not presumably gonna listen to Pope. And if we do and they don't, they win the AI war. [laughs]

Scott Rae: Right. Well, yeah

Sean McDowell: ... That's the-

Scott Rae: And you may be right about that

Sean McDowell: ... Added layer here.

Scott Rae: Yeah.

Sean McDowell: But keep going.

Scott Rae: Well, the other thing, the prophetic role that you describe, where the pope sort of stood above the market and above the competing interests, like the Old Testament prophets did, and spoke truth to, you know, whoever was willing to hear it. The reason that's so important is because that prophetic element gets lost when the church becomes too tied to a partisan agenda.

Scott Rae: Because you lose the ability to stand above the different realms of politics. And this is I think it is so important, I think that the church retain that prophetic role and not undermine it by becoming too allied, either on the right or the left, with a particular political platform or agenda. All right. I, Sean, I am not surprised actually that he tackled AI in his first encyclical. And as you rightly pointed out, the Vatican's been working on this with industry for at least the last decade, before before anybody had really outside the industry had heard much about AI. And the Vatican actually published an ethics guideline for AI use as far back as 2020. Which in the, [laughs] in the, in the scheme of things for how quickly AI has developed and kind of taken over, 2020 seems like ancient history.

Sean McDowell: ChatGPT was 2022, I think.

Scott Rae: Yes.

Sean McDowell: That's when it seemed to really hit-

Scott Rae: Yeah

Sean McDowell: ... Within culture.

Scott Rae: Yeah

Sean McDowell: ... It's good.

Scott Rae: And and the interesting part, you also raised the Tower of Babel imagery. It's framed through two competing biblical imagery. That's one of them. The other one is the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem- ... Under Nehemiah after the exile.

Sean McDowell: Nehemiah.

Scott Rae: And the interesting part of this, Sean, is that just three days before the encyclical came out, the chief of staff for the Anthropic CEO claimed that AI was, quote, "building God." And if that doesn't sound like something akin to the Tower of Babel, I'm not quite sure what else to make of it. But rebuilding the wall of Jerusalem in the time of Nehemiah is the positive example that refers to seeking the common good with a, and protecting the bonds of community. That's exactly what the walls were designed to do.

Scott Rae: So, there's just, I mean, there is so much here. I think, I think the notion of, artificial intelligence designed to make us more human, I think that's a tall order-

Sean McDowell: [laughs]

Scott Rae: ... To say the least, but I think it's the right one. And here's, this is, Arthur Brooks, who wrote the, wrote the forward to the encyclical, put it like this. He said, "Artificial intelligence supposed to make us more human? That notion seems to fly in the face of practically every science fiction plot, which involves technology stripping people of their basic humanity, taking away their agency and free will, simulating experience, and replacing people with robots, and so on." His advice, don't outsource to AI what makes you human. Don't outsource your ability to think and reason and love and form relationships and community to a chatbot. And I think, I think he's got that right. Now, whether we can resist the urge to do that, I think, is the $64,000 question, and I think the jury, the jury's still out on this. And, but I'm encouraged to see some of the, you know, some of the folks that we've, you know, that we've been talking to as, that are going public with a recognition of some of the dangers and some of the guardrails that have to be put on AI to make its use profitable and responsible as opposed to degrading and displacing of human beings. One final thing on this. And it's a really interesting discussion I think that you brought up about human limitations and fallibility as being a significant part of what makes us human. And, one of, one of the, one of the articles that I read on the pope's encyclical talked about how they like novels that are written and stories and things that are written by human beings, that have flaws in them, because it it emphasizes our intrinsic humanity.And I don't, I don't want to be in a sort of a sanitized world that AI is increasingly creating at the expense of some of the things about human fallibility and human limitations that, highlight our humanity.

Sean McDowell: I think that's great. The way you framed it a minute ago, can AI make us more human? I haven't thought about it that way. I don't know how AI can make us more human. That's not the primary question I'm asking. I'm asking the question, how do we not let it take away from our humanity and dehumanize us? So I don't look at this as a tool positively that's gonna help us become more human, 'cause by its very nature, what AI does is tasks that humans naturally and normally do. And I know this is what you meant. The heart of the question is, how do we use this tool that so easily blurs the lines between what is human and what is not human effectively without losing our humanity? That's the question, and I don't think anybody has an answer to that. The New York Times has a podcast I listen to pretty regularly called The Daily, and it was in this week, and they talked about an 85-year-old woman who lived alone in Washington near the coast, like miles from anywhere. It takes her, like, a day or half a day to get to the grocery store. And there was this AI bot that somehow was given to her that, you know, if you're 85 years old and you've never seen this technology, like she couldn't even FaceTime. And the way she described this, it would tell her jokes. It would ask her questions. It helped her not feel lonely, but at the end of the podcast, she's kinda like, "This is the best friend I've ever had. I love you." And it also blurred the lines of, like, is this healthy? Is this good? And I don't think anybody's answered that yet, and we are just jumping in with this technology to save time because it's efficient to compete. And I think at best what this encyclical is reminding us is that actually our limitations are good. And the only way we come to that conclusion is if we have a biblical view of what it means to be human, which is the opposite of what you said earlier. If I believe I'm the author of my own life and I'm autonomous and I don't need anybody, then weaknesses hold me back from being and doing what I wanna do. But if I have a corporate sense that I only find myself and happiness when I live for others, and God has given us weaknesses, because when I rely upon other people who see things and know things that I don't do, there's relationship that's built, and there's goodness, and I'm reminded of my finitude. That's what I'm afraid that we'll lose, and I think this biblical worldview, at least from the part that I read in this, it was like, no, our faults and our weaknesses are good, and they help us rely upon other people and work together for the common good. If AI works against that, then I think it is undermining what it really means to be human.

Scott Rae: Yeah. Sean, the Bible's pretty clear that the search for self-fulfillment that focuses on the self is ultimately self-defeating-

Scott Rae: ... And won't, and won't work. And I think that... I think the folks who I think are a little bit more optimistic will say that the time that we save by using AI to do things that take tons more time will actually free up time to do things that will, that will contribute to our flourishing, like additional time to be in community, to worship, to connect with God. Although the history of time-saving devices has-

Sean McDowell: Exactly

Scott Rae: ... Not, has not really been the case for that.

Sean McDowell: It's created more anxiety than less actually.

Scott Rae: Yeah. Well, and we actually fill up that time that's been freed up with other things- ... That are, you know, not really contributing to our flourishing.

Sean McDowell: So this story, dropped this week from Pew Research, and I'm eager to get your take on it, 'cause it popped up kinda right before we recorded, and it said: What political issues do Americans hear about in church? And here's a few things, and this Pew poll, I mean, this just really dropped, towards the end of this week. It said, "A new Pew Research Center survey finds that two-thirds of US adults who regularly attend religious services," which I think is, like, once or twice a month, "say they have heard their clergy speak about at least one political or social issue in the past few months. Of the seven topics we asked about, abortion, Israel, and homosexuality were among the most commonly cited." So to give this some context, this is, people who regularly attend service at least once or twice a month, and over the past few months at least heard one political or social issue mentioned. So there's somewhat of a low bar here, and they conclude, they say 66% of Americans who regularly attend religious services hear about at least one political or social issue from their clergy. Now, 35% said abortion, 34% said Israel, and I suspect that would not have been mentioned three years ago plus, but Israel is now number two in this survey. Homosexuality number three at 31%, and then it kinda drops down to the mid-20s for immigration. They even talk about military action in Iran, the environment, and people who are transgender. So top three, abortion, Israel, and homosexuality. Here's a couple things they point out. "We found that Americans who regularly attend religious services hear more about the need to welcome and support immigrants 15%..."More than the need for stricter immigration enforcement. That might surprise a lot of people. Five times as many people, according to this poll, hear more in church about the need to welcome and support immigrants than the need for stricter immigration enforcement. They said protecting the environment, 15%, than opposing environmental regulations, 3%. That also somewhat surprised me. Now, this last one said opposing transgender identity 15% and accepting people who are transgender 3%. So there's some fascinating findings that are here. A couple more, and then, again, eager for your take. This Pew study says, "Among people who attend services at least once or twice a month, 90 pers- 19% say they think their clergy are mostly Republican, while 8% think their clergy are mostly Democrats." So basically, people who attend services once or twice a month, one in five think their pastors are Republicans, almost one in 10 think that their pastors are Democrats. But this is where it got interesting. It said, "But most either think their clergy are politically mixed, 27%, or say they're unsure about their clergy's political leanings, 44%." So to kind of bring this back, one in 10 roughly think their pastors are Democrats, one in five res- roughly think their pastors are Republicans, 71% either think their clergy are mixed, are mixed, or they don't even know what their clergy holds politically. That's fascinating to me. Now, there's a few other stats and things here I might bring out, but what was your take on some of these numbers in this new Pew poll?

Scott Rae: Well, Sean, these are, these are very interesting results to me, and my main take is just I don't think it's hard to pick out which types of religious groups are in view based on the issues that are addressed. The more conservative ones are the ones that talk about abortion and sexuality. The more progressive ones are the ones that talk about immigration, the environment, and Israel. I think as a general rule. Now, I was struck not by the percentage of clergy who have talked about these issues, but the percentage of clergy who have not talked about any of these.

Sean McDowell: I agree.

Scott Rae: Those, they were clear majorities all around. And I was also... You know, this, and the observation you made reinforces it, that the clergy in these places, where the participants are not sure of their affiliation or that it, or that it's mixed, that's a clear majority also. And I think that reflects a couple different things. One is I think it just, it reflects a general reluctance of pastors and church leaders to weigh into some of these divisive issues because they've heard things from their colleagues and fellow pastors about how weigh- wading into these things can split churches and put, puts you in a hot seat. And I think some of the, some of the clergy who are involved here, their attitude is, "I just, I'm just not going there." and we're gonna focus on the spiritual formation of our, of our folks, and we're just not gonna go down that road. The other thing it reflects, I think, is it reflects the shortcomings theologically and biblically of any specific political platform. And we, this, we've said this repeatedly before, that no political platform is gonna, is gonna match perfectly with a, the, a biblical worldview because that's, that wasn't their intent when they were drafted. And I think, I think cler- the clergy are, they are generally not uncritical advocates for a particular platform, which I find encouraging. I think it leads to... I think, I don't know if this may be too strong, but I think maybe some of their folks would say, "You know, my pastor is, maybe fits in the politically homeless category. Doesn't, I don't see a good fit in either place for my pastor." and if that's, if that's the case, I would think that's a healthy place to be.

Sean McDowell: Good take on this. I I had a few insights that jumped out to me. It's interesting, at the very beginning when they ask, "Has your pastor talked about a political issue?" Well, in the minds of people, if you talk about abortion, that's a political issue. If you talk about immigration, that's a political issue. Well, to me, it has political implications, but it's not first and foremost a political issue. So it makes me wonder how often somebody talks about life or a pro-life position, just to take one issue, and somebody thinks, "Oh, you're going more political here." Well, that's not necessarily the case. I think the fact that we think that way somewhat illustrates how just overly politicized our cultural moment has become, where we almost see everything through the lens of politics. So every one of these issues, he mentions homosexuality, the environment, immigration, transgender, abortion, all of these have political components, but you and I would say they are fir- they're not first and foremost political topics. These are theological topics. These are philosophical topics. These are ethical topics, and they have political implications. And so I do have to wonder when I see a poll like this, how much are people making those distinctions in their mind? My suspicion is most people think if you mention immigration, if you mention pro-life, now you're talking politics, and maybe don't nuance the way in which people-... Talk about it. So you and I on this podcast, we've never told anybody how to vote. Off air, we talk, [laughs] you and I will debate over lunch and have our opinions, but we talk about these moral issues. We talk about how Christians maybe should think about politics, what it means biblically speaking, but we don't weigh into politics, and I'm not sure a ton of people make some of those distinctions. So that jumped out to me. The other point I thought was fascinating is I think a lot of people would say that churches probably push more to the political right, and of course, that's gonna depend what church you go to, for sure. But I just found it fascinating that five times as many, again, this is one poll, said the need to welcome and support immigrants over the need for stricter immigration enforcement. I actually would've predicted the opposite on that. But that tells me that there's, obviously both are taking place, but the predominant voice, at least according to this story, is let's care for immigrants. That's number one. That story doesn't often get out. And even the environment, protecting the [laughs] environment is talked about far more than environmental regulations, again, five times as much. And of course, there's something so biblical about that politics aside, that creation is good, and we're called to care for it. So I just thought some of the, some of the studies that came out here are really interesting. Now one apparent, I don't know if it's a contradiction, when it comes to immigration and environment, it's caring for immigrants, it's protecting the environment first, but then when it comes to transgender, it was the opposite. Accepting people who are transgender is now a fifth of opposing transgender identity. I just, I don't know what to make of why that's so different. Now, what it means to accept transgender people, if it was worded like loving transgender people, that could change the entire study. But I wasn't quite sure to make of that, and it made me wonder, are we seeing that one more political us versus them versus some of these other stories? I don't know the answer to that. I'd like some more data on this, but that definitely jumped out to me.

Scott Rae: Well, it

Sean McDowell: Anything else? Go ahead.

Scott Rae: Well, I it is really interesting to see how the questions are phrased.

Sean McDowell: That's right.

Scott Rae: And what people think constitutes a political discussion, where, you know, I would hope at least one time a year my church talks about abortion- ... When they recognize Sanctity of Life Sunday. I, think as a minimum that I would think churches need to do that. And I think, you know, you could, you could just as me, you could make application to, you know, if you're preaching on the, mandate to love your neighbor as yourself, you know, you could make application to immigration, to transgender folks, to LGBT folks, without it necessarily being a political discussion. So, I think you're right to point out how the question is phrased could make a really big difference. The other thing I wanna be careful about is, you know, I I don't, I don't wanna do anything that's gonna encourage a privatized faith because as we've talked about several times before, Christian faith, the authentic Christian faith has an intrinsic social dimension to it. And to, the, just the idea to love your neighbor as yourself takes it out of the realm of strictly the the, your private relationship to God. And so I wanna be careful that we safeguard the things that are entailments of our relationship to God that have to do with how we interact with our community and with people who are different than we are, people who think differently than we do, and not reduce Christian faith to the just the private sphere of life.

Sean McDowell: Amen to that. And by the way, I was actually gonna go there if you didn't, that we're ... The title of this podcast is Think Biblically, and our tagline is Think Biblically about Everything. All of these issues, we need to think biblically about them, abortion, Israel, homosexuality, immigration, military action in Iran, the environment, people who are transgender. Our first question is, how does the Bible inform this? Let's think biblically about it first. Now, I don't envy pastors. I don't have a clue how to do this, [laughs] to be honest with you. Like, how do I think biblically about these issues when there's some disagreement within the church? That, after 2020, is one reason being a pastor is so incredibly painful and difficult for many people today when there's political differences and agreements on the gospel, and these political differences matter. They matter deeply on a lot of levels. But I would maybe encourage our listeners, given that, how difficult this is, one of the reason I think a lot of pastors don't talk about it is people get divided, they get angry, and they're concerned about the gospel and unity. Easier said than done how to balance that, but let's have some grace for pastors who are trying to wed this. And if you have concern, don't post something on social media. Don't attack them. Go to them personally, give them the benefit of the doubt, talk it through, and if at the end of the day it doesn't fit, maybe you just need to go to another church. That would be a respectful way to deal with some of these political differences for the most part. That's my last two cents. Anything on this one, Scott, or we'll keep rolling?

Scott Rae: Well, and I, and I, and I'd say that, you know, to exhibit grace to pastors who choose not to weigh in on these, but also for the ones who doUh, and may take a position that you have some challenge with. 'cause we, you know, I've had, you know, I've had personal experience, in relationships with some of our Talbot grads who've lost their churches- ... Because they took stands on things that were unpopular or because they refused to take stands that their people wanted them to take. So both of those are potential paths of peril, for pastors. And so, I think being very cautious and discerning about how you approach some of these issues is really important, while at the same time not giving aid and comfort to a faith that's strictly a private matter.

Sean McDowell: Good stuff. I think that's well said. All right, so this last story you actually sent over to me. This was a piece in The Wall Street Journal, and it's from Chloe Cole, and we're gonna get into her story. She's a detransitioner, one of the first who really started to speak up and be bold about this. And it's, an opinion piece, and it says, "Texas creates a clinic for gender detransitioners." And this was, earlier this week. On Tuesday, this dropped. Well, Chloe Cole says, "God bless Texas. On May 15th, Attorney General Ken Paxton announced that Texas Children's Hospital will create the nation's first clinic for detransitioners. As someone," and this is the author, "who started down the sex change path at age 12, I can't overstate how much this clinic is needed." Until now, the many detransitioners she argues have had no help with this. So here's the facts as Cole lays it out. Between 2019 and 2023 alone, according to a Do No Harm investigation, that's Chloe Cole's organization, nearly 14,000 American children received medical interventions to change their genders. They say the the number's arguably much higher since we don't have a lot of insurance data on some companies who, patients when they self-pay. Regardless, thousands of vulnerable teens and preteens were told they've become something they're not. Their bodies were pumped full of chemical cocktails, puberty blockers, and cross-sex hormones. At least 5,700 kids got sex change surgeries, such as double mastectomies and even the removal of their sexual organs, all before 18 years old. Now, Chloe Cole goes on and describes these as invasive and irreversible kinds of treatments that have lifelong health challenges. At 21 years old, she's now been asking these questions for five years. She said she was kind of a tomboy as a kid. "After getting sucked into social media and video game communities online, I became convinced that I was a boy. Mental health professionals affirmed my delusion," and I think that's the right word. "Doctors soon gave me puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and finally at age 15, a double mastectomy." At age 15. "They told me I'd finally be happy. I believed them. My parents believed them, 'cause they said if I didn't transition, I'd probably commit suicide. But after all that was done, I looked in the mirror and hated what I saw. I was growing up and realizing that I was, in fact, a girl." Now, she walks through more her struggle to get care after detransitioning and is just elated and thrilled that in her mind, Texas is standing up, making the first clinic who will listen to and understand medically and emotionally and psychologically detransitioners, the many of whom who are suffering and want to return back to their natal sex. Your thoughts on this trend and this piece.

Scott Rae: Sean, I read this and it was... This is a tragic story. And in my view, it's about time that we started providing care for people who I would consider victims of the trans movement.

Sean McDowell: I agree.

Scott Rae: And I think she's a, she's a perfect example of this. This is an excellent step in the right direction. It's badly needed by kids who had gender treatments in adolescence before puberty was complete, who realize now that it didn't solve anything because it didn't address the underlying mental health issues, which were much more fundamental. And these folks need care. And I think what Chloe points out in this piece is that the road back from regretted transitions has not been charted for them. Now, the facts here, I think, are tragic, and it verifies a lot of what we've talked about previously in the Cass Report from the UK and how European countries are backing away from these treatments for minors and treating the mental health issues. And here's the big takeaway from this, Sean, is the tangible help from those who are detransitioning has been virtually nonexistent. And the reason for that, in part, is because it forces the medical community and trans activists to admit something that they don't want to admit.

Sean McDowell: That's right.

Scott Rae: That these treatments prior to puberty finishing are premature, and that treatments without treating the mental health conditions are misguided, and the threat of suicide for those who don't get them is vastly overstated and often used to manipulate parents into agreeing to them for their teenagers. That's the, those are the things that the that I say the trans industry does not want to admit. Now, I've got, of course, we've got a lot, a lot of sympathy for-Uh, the teenagers who have, you know, who go through all sorts of mental health challenges, and those are, you know, we've talked about those. You know, those are- they have huge challenges that you and I didn't face as adolescents. I think the part that is so tragic about this is that they sort of charged ahead into these, into these treatments before, you know, before we really knew what some of the outcomes were gonna be. The We just sort of full speed ahead, and it's, you know, we'll, you know, we'll go down this road and ask our questions later. And we desperately need, Sean, to have some sort of pathway for these detransitioners who are likely going to face a lifetime of health challenges because of decisions they made as adolescents and they're now regretting. So I have a lot of, I have a lot of sympathy for adolescents who have, you know, the who wrestle with trans issues. But I think we need to have an equal amount, if not more so, of sympathy and compassion for the people who went down that road prematurely or ill-advisedly and have regrets about it, and now, and have got... They're looking at a lifetime of challenges that they're gonna have to deal with.

Sean McDowell: I think what makes it so painful is people weren't told upfront, "Hey, X number of people will have regret. X number will want to detransition." They weren't given an objective truth ahead of time of saying, "This surgery and this transition will work a certain percentage of the time." Her- she reports that she was promised about this, in fact, I would argue manipulated and told, "If you don't do this," to the parents, you know, "your daughter's gonna commit suicide." That's what's so egregious about this. And then the studies come out years later, the Cass Report, and some have challenged it from, but from what I've seen, it's a pretty thorough report saying there's minimally not the evidence that this is helpful. Even the social transition of shifting the names, let alone all the way to the sex change, doesn't have the positive health benefits that were promised, and that's because, as you and I have talked about many times, there's often other comorbidities underneath the surface that if you're told, "Hey, you fix B, you'll be happy," but really it's A, and that's not addressed, then the anxiety and the depression and the loneliness, whatever it is, persists. And so what upsets me about this, and I have sympathy like you do, I have sympathy for the teens who go through this. I mean, I have, I have some sympathy for the parents who are being, I would argue, being bullied into this. You have medical professions telling you this is what you need to do, and they're trying to do what's best for their parent or their kids. I don't think that necessarily excuses going along with it, but I have sympathy there. When it comes to some of the medics and the doctors who pushed this and promoted the false information, I'm not a cancel culture guy, but I would like to see more reckoning from this, and people should not be practicing in medicine again, and there should be consequences. To rush through, and minimally 5,000 young people went through the surgery, irreversible, and quite a few of them have regrets. Like, shame on those who are in power in the medical community who push this narrative on kids, and now there's people like Chloe who speaks up and says, wait a minute, this is actually physically painful." And finally, thankfully, Chloe has a detransition clinic, which I hope is just one of the beginning of a movement, maybe like the Pregnancy Resource Center. Now, of course, this is not as common as abortion is, but maybe there's, there becomes kind of support that churches would even come behind if this is done in the right way to support people who've gone through this. So this article at the same time just made me angry that we have to even have detransition centers, and reading again what Chloe Cole went through. But I also thought, "You know what? She's courageous. She is brave. Good for her," and I hope this is a sign of more to come, 'cause I suspect there's a lot more hurting young people out there who detransition who have regret now, and if they don't, they will in the future.

Scott Rae: Well, and we've talked, and we've talked about, too, maybe that the court system is the place where that accountability's gonna be provided. Because the, early results from detransitioners who are suing the clinics where they underwent their treatments, in my view, has been an encouraging note of accountability.

Sean McDowell: Good stuff. All right, Scott, well, as always, we've got some great questions coming through here, but I just wanna remind folks before we turn to questions, we would love to have you come study with us at Talbot School of Theology. We have programs in philosophy, programs in New Testament, Old Testament, marriage and family, apologetics, online and in person. Think about studying with us. We are now, correct me if I'm wrong, Scott, the third-largest non-denominational seminary. We have been growing the last three years remarkably, adding programs. We have new faculty coming this fall. It's kind of an exciting moment to be here, and we'd love folks to join us. All right. Here's a question. It says, "I have a question concerning the cessationist-continuist divide among Christians today." This has to do with the spiritual gifts. "I grew up in a cessationist church and still lean in that direction theologically. Although I personally hold more closely to the cessationist position, I wrestle with the implications that holding to either view have for the Christian life.""Both camps have a lot of solid, genuine Christians, yet only one position can ultimately be correct." That's true. "And though it may be a secondary issue, the implications of being wrong still seem to be significant. What practical wisdom can you offer to Christians on both sides about valuing each other and cooperating with one another in a Christ-like way amidst this particular theological issue?"

Scott Rae: Well, Sean, let's be clear about what he means by the cessationist and continuationists-

Sean McDowell: Good

Scott Rae: ... Divide. The cessationist view is that the sign gifts, which are gifts of healing, tongues, prophecy, words of knowledge, things like that, ceased roughly when the the canon of the New Testament was closed, around the time, maybe in the first 100 years of the early church. The, rationale for that is that the sign gifts in the scripture were used to mark, radical changes in the way God was dealing with His people. The continuationist view says that, no, there's not a lot of evidence for that biblically and that the sign gifts are still going on today. And in fact, the, I think the continuationist would say we see a lot of these sign gifts operating in the developing world today, in ways that we don't see in the West. Now, Sean, interesting, we talked about this just yesterday, between the two of us, and both of us are much less cautious about the supernatural than what we spiritually grew up with.

Sean McDowell: That's right.

Scott Rae: And, for myself, I don't see much biblical support for the cessationist position, and I don't think it's as widely held in Christian circles like it was in the past. So and for those who are more charismatic, I would say avoid a sense of spiritual superiority based on your gifts, which is precisely what the New Testament warns against. For those who hold to more to a cessationist per- view, I would say, you know, just be careful that we don't, put the Holy Spirit in a box and recognize that there, you know, there may be certain ways that we're ruling out the Spirit's movement. I would, and just in general, I'd be really careful that the, that we regard the work of the Spirit, which is designed to be unifying, we don't regard the work of the Spirit as a source of division and disunity. Overall, I'd say be discerning, but be open to how the Spirit can move today.

Sean McDowell: I love that. What a, what a great word. Maybe to cessationists who think the Spirit's, the miraculous gifts that you described have ceased, there could be a sense of looking at continuationists as just being naive and gullible and foolish, and maybe from the continuationist, you could say, "Well, they're closed-minded and dogmatic, and they are not open to the Spirit moving in their lives." That's an attitude we want to avoid and have charity towards others in Christ who experience the Holy Spirit differently. This is not like denying the Trinity or the deity of Christ. It's about the operation of the gifts today. Biblically, this may be open more of a can of worms than is worth, but one of the passages that often comes up is in 1 Corinthians 13, the love passage, and it says, "For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away." Now, the perfect is often referred to as the scriptures, and the partial is sometimes understood as some of the miraculous gifts that we won't need anymore. Not always interpreted that way, but that's one way. I'd say that's possible, but I'm not convinced by that biblical argument that they have actually ceased, plus some of the promises that Jesus gave in the Gospel of John and we see in Acts makes me think, like our late beloved professor, Dr. Sosy said, we should be open but be cautious, is a way that both of us would take towards this. All right. Good stuff. Let's move to the second question here. It says, "Barna recently reported that even practicing Christians are turning to AI as a source for guidance in their spiritual lives. What counsel would you give those who might be wondering about the legitimacy of this practice or who are actually turning to AI for spiritual guidance?"

Scott Rae: Sean we've talked about this before, too. And I think if, you know, if this helps you ultimately get to scripture and to get to church, to get to community, to get to a small group with real people in real life, then I think that may be a case of no harm, no foul. But if it becomes a substitute for those things, then I would say you are not doing your spiritual formation in real life. And this, the, you know, the in real life thing, this now become an acronym, 'cause you, we wanna do, we wanna do our spirituality IRL, not, in real life, not just, in the digital world.

Sean McDowell: Good stuff. For me, I ... Look, I almost every morning I use Logos Bible Software. I don't know if you use that or not, Scott, but it has a new feature embedded within it with artificial intelligence. But what it does is it limits AI to the resources that I have in my library, which is vast and extensive resources that I trust, and everything that it says I can track down and then find that resource and go back it up for an answer. My concern with AI online is it pulls from anything and-

Scott Rae: Right

Sean McDowell: ... Everything, from every, not just denomination, that doesn't concern me, but from cults, from progressive Christian, from any blogThat's the strength of AI, but when it comes to studying the Bible, to me, that's a real weakness. So I use AI in my Bible study. There's this, anyways, you can actually, through Logos, you can have a conversation. You can ask questions and, like, dialogue with it, but every answer is from within my system of resources, and I can add different resources, maybe more to the left or the right. That's totally up to me. So it uses the power of the search engine of AI. Sometimes I'm, like, having a dialogue with my system, but it's not just pulling any random thing from the net. So to me, that's a balance that I've found with it, trying to study the scriptures and grow spiritually, but not just have such an open brain that my brains fall out. So that's one tool that I do. One more question that was for our guest host a couple weeks ago. Read this to you, and it said, "A few weeks ago, Thaddeus Williams said, quote, 'What Talarico does...'" And this is somebody running for,

Scott Rae: Yeah, James Talarico. He's running for Sen- the US Senate in Texas

Sean McDowell: ... In Texas. "does to scripture to make it compatible with left-wing socialist ideas is not that different from the Chinese communist false gospel," end quote. It seems to me that to compare a clearly decent man with cons- who consistently shows the fruit of the spirit with a brutal totalitarian like Xi Jinping is way too over the top. James Talarico's theology is problematic for sure, and I think it's actually fair game to critique it, but I wonder whether you'd assess Talarico similarly or differently than Dr. Williams has.

Scott Rae: We actually will let Dr. Williams speak for himself on this, 'cause we posed the question to him, and so here's the response. You know, you okay if I go, just go ahead and read that?

Sean McDowell: Yeah, do it.

Scott Rae: Yeah. This listener is concerned that I created some sort of moral equivalence between Talarico and Jinping. What I was equating was a twisting of scripture to support a left-wing ideology, not comparing the magnitude of Talarico's and Jinping's evil impact. Though one could argue that the abortion industry Talarico has supported by twisting scripture has killed far more precious image-bearers- ... Than Jinping. So I think he's he was not, he was not making an exact comparison. I think only suggesting that, what they have in common is twisting scripture to support a more left-leaning ideology.

Sean McDowell: Good word. We will let that settle. I think he was making an analogy, but not analogy in every way.

Scott Rae: Doesn't walk on all fours

Sean McDowell: ... A sufficient analogy for the point that stands. So great response by, Dr. Thaddeus Williams. Scott, as always, this is fun. I think we should let our listeners know that soon you and I will be taking off the month of July, so we'll be keep the WCU Weekly Culture update going through June, but when it comes to July, we're gonna take a much needed break over summer. But we do have some bonus episodes we'll be putting in on Thursday, some fascinating ones people are going to love. So I just wanna prepare people for that. This has been an update of the podcast Think Biblically: Conversations on Faith and Culture, brought to you by Talbot School of Theology, Biola University, where both Scott and I and Thad Williams and others teach. We'd love to have you join us for theology, Old Testament, New Testament, Bible, spiritual formation. We have a D Min program as well, multiple ones. Please keep submitting your comments or asking your questions. You can email us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu, and we'd be honored and grateful if you'd take a moment and just give us a rating on your podcast app. Seriously, every single rating helps. And we'd be honored if you can consider sharing this episode with a friend. We'll see you Tuesday when I grill Scott personally with 10 of the most common but misunderstood claims or slogans you've heard about morality. This is a fun one, an insightful one you'll not wanna miss on Tuesday. But in the meantime, remember to think biblically about everything. [outro music]