Cultural Update: Rise of Religiosity in Men; Trump's Messianic Imagery; The Ethics of Sports Gambling; Awareness in Vegetative Patients

Episode Transcript

Sean McDowell: [upbeat music] More young men say religion is very important to them. Did Trump send a meme depicting himself as Jesus? If so, what do we make of it? Is sports gambling the new pornography? And are vegetative patients more aware than we previously knew? These are the stories we'll discuss, and we will also address some of your questions. I'm your host, Sean McDowell.

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

Sean McDowell: This is the Think Biblically weekly cultural update, brought to you by Talbot School of Theology, Biola University. Scott, I think this week we have about as much variety of topics as we've had in a long time.

Scott Rae: I... This, this is, this stuff is all over the map this time.

Sean McDowell: It, it is. And this first story really jumped out to me because there's been so much discussion that we've discussed about this so-called rebirth of belief in God, revival, interest in God. We're seeing studies going both ways. And The New York Times posted this article. It says, "More young men say religion is, quote, 'very important to them,' a poll finds." So this is a new Gallup survey they say adds muscle to these anecdotal reports we've heard about renewed interest in spirituality. This one poll finds a sharp rise in the share of men under 30 who say religion is very important to them, 42% in 2025 versus t- 28% in 2023. That's a 14% increase within two years. That's actually really significant. Now, the article says, "Gallup survey, which combined polling data across multiple years, seems to confirm that young men are indeed becoming more religious. But it's found that religion is dropping in importance among young women, widening a surprise gender gap for young adults. For decades, surveys have found that women are consistently more religious than their peers." And we've talked about this, Scott, but going back to, I don't know, maybe the '80s and '90s, there was kind of a talk about the feminization of the church in worship, in the way it's approached, and that men were being turned away, and that's because more women were spiritually interested. Is this shifting? The article says yes. A quote from somebody, who they interviewed about this, a young man, said, "All my entertainment right... Is right here in front of me, but there's no fulfillment from that. I wanted something new and something traditional and something that felt holy." He said, "What I was really looking for, and still am, was purpose. The church definitely provides that." The article says he's far from alone. Catholic diocese across the country are reporting an influx of people joining the church. Attendance and membership at many Orthodox churches are rising, and Bible sales are surging. Now, it mentions that young women have dropped off. I won't go into the numbers there, but I think the point is very significant. They're asking why, and they said, "The reasons for the growing gender grap are-- gap are complex, but the split mirrors a similar divide in politics. Christian identity, in particular, has become increasingly associated with right-wing political beliefs." That's their assessment here. They said there's a growing religiosity concentrated among Republicans. And yet, I appreciate they put this at the end because this is what Ryan Burge has argued. They say, quote, "The broader story for American religion remains one of continued decline." So this is one study within two years that ex- that suggests not an insignificant increase in the number of young men who say religion is very important, but the larger trend is still our culture, at least American culture, shifting in a secular direction, especially as young people start to become more and more of the population and older generations pass away. What's your take on this?

Scott Rae: Well, Sean, I'd like to know, first of all, what does it look like for someone for religion to be important to them?

Sean McDowell: Great question.

Scott Rae: What, what ex-- I mean, does that mean that they're headed back to church? Does that mean that they're reading the Bible more often, praying more often? Does it mean that they're serving in their communities? Does it mean that they have developed a heart for the poor and the marginalized? You know, I don't know. What's, what's the measuring stick by which we're evaluating this? I think that would've been really helpful to know and gr- and would've been great data for pastors and church leaders. I'd say overall, I think this is, this is pretty encouraging. You know, anything that brings an upswing in people taking their faith seriously, I think is encouraging as long as it's, you know, as long as what we mean by that is, you know, within the same ballpark. I'd say the jury's out on whether or not that's a trend. And I think in large part, dec- the story of decline, I think, is dependent upon what parts of religion that somebody's referring to. You know, the mainline denominations have been in my view, pretty serious decline for some time, and there's nothing, there's nothing on the horizon that's, that's changing that. Catholic and Orthodox, we're s- we're seeing people, you know, being more attracted to those for l- I think for liturgical reasons and contemplative reasons. And I think, you know, what we've, what we s- cited in the past is that, the downward trend among evangelicals has at least flattened out, if not, con- if not increased slightly. But Sean, what really struck me in this was this, was that the gender gap has been re- is being reversed. That's a significant one, and I'd like, I'd like speculate on some of the reasons whyUh, and I don't know, but this is just, you know, my, you know, my speculation.

Sean McDowell: Sure.

Scott Rae: I think some of the, you know, most of the denominations that are experiencing the growth are also ones that are associated with the pro-life movement and are... Can be perceived culturally as being against women's reproductive freedom. I think some, you know, some of these denominations are perceived to be more patriarchal, which could be a turnoff to women. The Catholic Church in particular, some of the Southern Baptists have been tarnished by the sex abuse scandals. That is not surprisingly a turnoff to women. And I think evangelicals are perceived to be more allied with Republican politics. But as you pointed out, the growth is, among religiosity is concentrated among Republicans. So I'm not quite sure what to make of the conventional wisdom that, young pe- young people are being turned off by the trend in evangelicalism toward, embracing Republican politics. I think we can have other reasons to be critical of that. But, I think that's, that strikes me as somewhat of a mixed bag as far as the data goes.

Sean McDowell: Good take. I have a few thoughts as I looked at this. Number one, it says, "When young men say religion is very important," your take was, how does this translate to read the Bible, serve the poor, go to church? My question is, what does it mean to say something is really important to me? And Christian Smith, sociologist, has done some work on millennials. Now, this study was 30 and under. Millennials are, like, 25 to 44, roughly. So this includes some younger millennials still. And in his research, he said, if I remember correctly, this is probably from 15 years ago, he said about two-thirds of millennials would say that religion is very important to them. He said, "But what they mean is it's very important in the spiritual category of their life where they place spirituality, which is purpose and value and meaning, not that they assume it's objectively true." So his point was, when we think about very important, behind that is very important where faith is supposed to belong, which is something that gives me meaning, something that gives me hope, which is not necessarily something I think is objectively true. So when I saw the title, that's what I thought. And then as I went through the article, I do think it's somewhat confirmed here because he said, quote, this individual said, "All my entertainment is right here in front of me, but there's no fulfillment from that. I wanted something new and something traditional and something that felt holy." So there is a desire for the transcendent, which I love, but it says this feeling holy I think is interesting. And then it says, "What I'm looking for was purpose, and the church provides that." So are we looking for the true purpose? Are we looking to connect with reality and then experience holiness and spirituality of that? Or am I just looking for something to give me meaning and purpose in the transcendent, whether or not it's true? And I suspect for a big segment of this, it's not about finding truth and reality, it's about community and meaning, which has been stripped from our secular culture. Tell me what you think.

Scott Rae: Well, that's a, that's a great observation. And I would like to be, people to be attracted to Christian faith for the main thing, not for a byproduct.

Sean McDowell: Exactly.

Scott Rae: The main thing is whether this is true or not.

Sean McDowell: Yep.

Scott Rae: And, and whether it's good or not intrinsically. The byproduct, I think, is it does provide a connection with the transcendent. It does provide a sense of meaning and purpose. But Sean, as you know, there are a lot of, a lot of things out there that can give people a perceived sense of meaning and purpose.

Sean McDowell: Exactly.

Scott Rae: And, you know, some... You know, I say some are more obviously built on sand than others. And but I wa- I wanna go back and, I think, press the question, and this is sort of the apologetic side of us coming out, that, the main thing is it, is it possible for something to provide an enduring, long-lasting sense of purpose and meaning if it's not also objectively true at the same time?

Sean McDowell: That's right.

Scott Rae: Now, I think it can... It probably can do these, can do those things. But whether it will be enduring or not, and whether it does justice to say, you know, Paul's example in First, in 1 Corinthians 15, that if Christ has not risen from the dead, we're, we're nuts to think that our sins are forgiven and that life really does have purpose and meaning. And we are... What, what does it say? "We are of all people most to be pitied." Because w- not because, not because their, our lives are less fulfilling, but because we've based, we base them on something that is categorically false.

Sean McDowell: Well said. I love that. I think that's exactly right. I... What concerns me is that people are coming back to the church for an experience of the transcendence, coming back to the church for a feeling of purpose. If they find somewhere else that gives them that feeling of purpose or that feeling of transcendence, they'll leave. So the reason somebody should become a Christian is because it's true. Out of that, we get purpose. Out of that, we get the transcendence. Now, if a need for purpose and transcendence is what draws somebody to church, good. That's the open door, and that's the felt need.But that must not be the root of somebody's faith, or they'll leave when they find something that fulfills that feeling or that desire more deeply.

Scott Rae: Well, and they'll leave when they find something else that fulfills that desire for meaning without the costs involved of following Jesus.

Sean McDowell: Well said. I think that's really well said. O-one more point about this is the article says, "The survey suggests that much of the growth in religiosity is concentrated among Republicans." Well, yesterday you and I did a series of interviews we have not released yet, and I don't know if he'd want us to mention his name or not, so I won't, but just a young, brilliant African American pastor, and I asked him, "Are you seeing any kind of revival in your church?" This is a church in Southern California. And he lit up and said, not only growth in terms of people coming to his church, but on major college campuses where there's outreaches, hundreds and sometimes thousands of young Black men coming and open to spiritual things, asking questions. So I don't know exactly how they vote, but historically speaking, the Black church votes far more Democrat than they do Republican. So when this article says it's among Republicans, I wonder if that's the whole story, and it makes me think it might cross racial differences, it might cross certain, political differences. That's data that I would like to see, and we'll keep tracking it and bringing it here. But that was so encouraging yesterday, 'cause you can have these top-down Gallup su-surveys, but yesterday we had this young pastor in studio talking about young men coming to faith, and it was really anecdotally, encouraging as well. All right, this next topic has been all the rage on X, in the talk shows, tied to Trump's, I don't even know what you'd call it, feud with the Pope, with some X's and what he calls truths that he sent out. This piece in New York Times I thought maybe could kinda spur our conversation. This is by Ross Douthat, who's one of the few conservative columnists at The New York Times. He's also Catholic, and he calls it "Trump's blasphemy is a warning." And it kinda walks through how through the history of the church, we shouldn't be surprised that a head of state is at odds with a pope. He says, you know, when popes speak generally, they're not considered infallible. They don't get everything right. That's not the expectation according to, say, their doctrine. What he points out here that is, that is interesting is as you go through the article, he says a c- few things. He says, "What's at issue here is that it seems like this is an unjust war." This is his analysis of it. And he says, "And the president's response to that critique," and here we reach the innermost circle of the story, "emphatically does not belong to a normal push and pull between church and state, pope, and empire, nor is it even a normal kind of Trumpian abnormality. Instead, we have outright pro-profanation and sacrilege in a pattern that began with his social media post on Easter Sunday, cursing and threatening violence and sarcastically praising Allah, and then escalating himself through a post attacking Leo, and finally a post of AI slop depicting himself as Jesus Christ." He says, again, this is Douthat, the core issue, in his opinion piece, is that, "There's a consistent thread linking profane Easter Sunday threats, a rant against the world's most famous Christian leader, and a depiction of yourself as the second person of Trinity. The compounding offense isn't against religious identity or pop- papal dignity. It's a violation of First and Second Commandments, where the offending party is Almighty God." And he concludes with some strong words. He says, "In which case, a turn to presidential blasphemy is a warning for his religious supporters about potential conclusions to the story and the spiritual peril of simply sticking with him till the end." We could spend hours talking about all angles of this story, but is there any way you wanted to weigh into this debacle this week, Scott?

Scott Rae: Well, yes, and not about the memes that have been... That the President has posted, 'cause everybody's talking about that. So I don't feel a need to weigh in on that.

Sean McDowell: Sure.

Scott Rae: Here's... What I wanna emphasize, I think, is a, what I think is a more important issue, and that is the phrase that I've heard from several folks, in, you know, in the last few days about the warning the Pope to be careful to stick to morality and stay out of politics.

Scott Rae: And here's the reason I think we need to be careful about that admonition is that it fails to recognize that, as we've said before several times, Sean, politics is fundamentally a moral enterprise. It's about how we order our lives together in community. And war, I would say, is even more fundamentally a moral enterprise. And if the Pope remains silent about war, he would be neglecting what I would consider a grave moral issue. Now, to be sure, to be clear, obviously, tactical matters about tr-troop deployments and, you know, weaponry, things like that, are, of course, best left to the military. And the Pope's view on the just war theory is not quite clear. But my-- Sean, my best read on this is that he does adhere to the just war theory, since it's a part of longstanding Catholic tradition. But he also believes that few, if any, modern wars actually meet the criteria. Now, to be fair, it's not clear to me how he would view something like World War II-

Sean McDowell: Sure

Scott Rae: ... Where I think you could make a good argument that resisting the Nazis was a just cause.

Sean McDowell: Yep.

Scott Rae: But I think you also have to point out that the use of nuclear weapon against Japan violated the non-combatant immunity part of the tradition.The other thing I think to be, that we want to be clear about is that the original just war theorists did not believe that war was intrinsically evil. They believed that war could be a moral good if the just war tradition was followed explicitly. And I think you can make a good argument that resisting the Nazis was not just the lesser of two evils, but it was actually a moral good- ... That the World War II accomplished. Now, the bigger picture of this, Sean, when morality touches public life, as it does with war, immigration, poverty, abortion, you simply cannot avoid mixing politics and morality. And I would say in most cases, public policy is what I would call applied morality to specific situations. Because as we've pointed out several times, with the... With public policy and the making of laws, there's almost always a moral underpinning that's presumed. And for laws to be just and applicable laws, they have to be consistent with some sort of a moral framework. That's what, that's what makes laws just. So I- the i- the idea of sticking to morality and staying out of politics, I think is something that is really hard to do if the Pope's gonna do his job- ... And speak about the morality of war, poverty, immigration, abortion, assisted suicide, and the other things that are, that are pressing for the attention of the church. When... I think when he's criticized for speaking out on these things and people admonish him to just stick to the matters of the church, what they're asking for is that the Pope be content with a private faith that has nothing to say about the public, the public outworkings, the public entailments of Christian faith. And in my view, that you're asking the Pope to ha- to practice a truncated view of religious freedom, that... And, and anytime any religious faith, I think, is cloistered in the private sphere only, it's o- it's only a pa- a partial expression of that, of that faith.

Sean McDowell: That's a good take. You know, you got me thinking that when somebody doesn't like a position that the Pope may speak on, it's probably a position they disagree with, and they wouldn't raise the same in principle objection if it's an issue they agree with.

Scott Rae: No, they consider him an ally if it's someway, something they agree with.

Sean McDowell: Yeah, which is a reminder to me to be consistent in that, whether... You know, and I think a reminder for all of us. You know, this story, so many people have been wading into this, and I just, I kinda wanna use it as an opportunity, the teacher and the professor in me wants-

Scott Rae: Go for it

Sean McDowell: ... To more make people think about this. And in some ways, it really has become a Rorschach test how people assess this meme. Now, a Ror- a Rorschach test is kind of used in clinical, forensic, counseling settings to understand how a person organizes reality and processes emotions. So they reveal an image or a story to somebody, and how the person processes it reveals their underlying beliefs and worldview. So I just thought it was so interesting on this how different Christians would process this story and meme of Trump differently. So I'm gonna use two examples here. One comes from, Roger Olson, who's... I think he'd describe himself as an evangelical. He wrote a post called "Does Trump Think He is Jesus?" But he's a little bit more left-leaning, I think, on social issues. Not a progressive Christian. He actually wrote a book criticizing progressive Christianity, but would probably be more left on a lot of social issues. And here's what he wrote. He says, "If you're tempted to defend the image, ask yourself, 'What would you think of any other world leader who posted an identical image of himself, but with his face instead of Trump's?' I bet every American Christian, and most others, would think that world leader was trying to create an idea of himself as divine, a heavenly redeemer, savior, messiah, whatever. As a Christian theologian, I'll dare to say that I consider the image blasphemous, hideous, frightening, and I cannot understand why any sincere Christian would disagree." He stayed his post boldly. Franklin Graham sent out a very thoughtful post. I could tell he put a lot of thought into this, and of course, also a Christian, but much more conservative, arguably in his politics and on social issues. Never met Franklin Graham, but had the chance to work with the Billy Graham Association on a number of occasions. In his X, he said, "I do not believe President Trump would knowingly depict himself as Jesus Christ. That would certainly be inappropriate. I'm thankful the President has made it very clear that this was not at all what he thought the AI-generated image was representing. He thought it was a doctor helping someone, and when he learned of the concerns, he immediately removed the post." He said, "When I looked at the illustration, I didn't jump to the same conclusion as some. There were no spiritual references," and this is an interesting point, "no halo, no crosses, no angels. It was a flag, soldiers, a nurse, fighter planes, eagles, the Statue of Liberty, and I think it has a lot to do about nothing." As I read the different takes, I thought, here's two evangelical Christians who agree on theological core issues as far as I can tell, radically different interpretations of this. And so I would invite people who are looking at this meme, rather than reacting, look at it, pauseThink, ask what is going on, what's being stated, is this Jesus? Is this not Jesus? What do we know? And just taking time to think about it rather than react, and ask ourselves if we have any blind spots. Now, I'm not inside Trump's mind. I don't know what he's thinking. I don't know why he released it. God knows his thoughts, and God'll judge his thoughts, and He'll judge all of us. I think my take is just minimally, it's incredibly unwise to post this, and insensitive, and foolish to do so. It's just to depict himself in I think what is clearly a glorified, salvatory, healing posture, whether he meant Jesus or not, there's clearly... He's depicting himself in kind of almost a messianic status. It's just foolish, and it's insensitive. And the Bible has so much to say about thinking and how our speech reflects our hearts. And of course, a meme like this is a kind of speech. I think of Proverbs 16:23 that says, "The heart of the wise makes his speech judicious." Ecclesiastes 5:2, "Be not rash with your mouth, nor let your heart be hasty to utter a word before God. Let your words be few." Like our president, agree with our president or not, he just doesn't have a filter. And in some ways, when I see something like this, you ask yourself, like if you posted this, Scott, I know you never would, I would definitively give you the benefit of the doubt thinking he had a bad day, he didn't get any sleep, because I know you and your character. And the question is, has Trump done this before? And of course, he's done this before. So again, not a policy point. I don't know what was in his heart. But minimally, I think a foolish, insensitive thing to do that believers should at least minimally look at this and say, "You know what? I need to think before I speak. I need to be gracious and kind in my words." And I know Trump is not a Christian. He made that very clear when he spoke at the Charlie Kirk Memorial that he despises his enemies, so I realize we hold him to a different standard. But let us look at this and learn about our speech, because the Bible has a lot to say about that. Agree, disagree with that take? Anything you wanna throw in there, Scott?

Scott Rae: No. That's, that's a good take, and I appreciate the emphasis on looking in the mirror and thinking hard before you speak. Those, those are all... That's, that's good, that's good advice in the polarized culture that we're in today.

Sean McDowell: Well, you and I don't have a microphone obviously like the president does, but we speak a lot. And it's a reminder for all of us that the power of life is in the tongue, and the tongue, the words we speak reveal our hearts. So all right, we'll move on. This story was an op-ed by David French, and I thought it was really insightful. And we've talked about sports gambling before, but the title is "We Are Gambling Away Our Future." And he makes this point at the beginning. I don't know why I didn't connect this before, Scott, but I think it's a brilliant point. He says, "What's the problem here related to sports gambling?" He says, "We are making virtue more difficult and vice easier to access." I think that's right. And of course, he talks about how sports gambling is everywhere, and the numbers have exploded. 52% of men 18 to 49, and just for the record, I'm still in that category for about one more month until I turn 50, just for the record. 52% of men from 18 to 49-

Scott Rae: No, no comment on that

Sean McDowell: ... [laughs] have a sports gambling account. He walks through and he says here, h- "According to studies, half of all sports gamblers were either problem bettors or at risk of becoming problem bettors. The studies found that people with gambling addictions had the highest rate of suicide compared with other addictions. There's a substantial increase in average bankruptcy rates." But then he asks this question, French asks, he says, "Is sports betting the new pornography?" And he talks about the same biochemical processes in the body that make pornography so addicting, the release of certain chemicals. It's the same kind of phenomenon that we have in pornography. And he says that pornography dehumanizes people. And his point here is, and I... This line is good. He says, "At the precise time when young men and boys struggle the most with sensation-seeking and impulse control, our culture and economy has handed them a device that can function as a porn theater and a casino at the same time." He says, "The combination of pornography and gambling does far more damage to young men than any ideological debate over toxic masculinity." Now, he goes on and on about the economic reasons, but the last thing he says, he says, "Our government right now makes starting a business, it's harder to get an education and do the right things for which you develop virtue. But at the same time, we're making it easier and more accessible to become people of vice, and it's polluting young men in the next generation." What do you think?

Scott Rae: You know, Sean, this pr- makes me think back to one of the best object lessons I gave to my kids was on a vacation to Las Vegas when Vegas, you know, had this sort of family-friendly stretch- ... That they were trying to, you know, trying to encourage families to come. And so we bit on that and, actually had a great vacation. But I wanted to show them how quickly I could lose $50 in a casino.

Sean McDowell: [laughs]

Scott Rae: And I had all three of them with me. I'm not quite sure how I s- I sort of smuggled them inAnd I p- I show, I just, I said, "Here's," you know, I got $50 in, you know, coins that I was putting into the slot machines, and I lost $50 in about 45 seconds-

Sean McDowell: Oh, my

Scott Rae: ... On slot machines. And their eyes sort of got big, and it'd been, it'd been a while. I think s- you know, they were not accustomed to seeing, you know, 50, you know, anybody with $50 in their hands. But the, how quickly that was gone, I think had a, had an impact on them. Now, and I love the point that's being made here, that we have both, you know, a porn shop and a casino right at our, at our fingertips. And I think the point that is being made here in the article, that we're incentivizing vice and discouraging virtue-

Sean McDowell: Yep

Scott Rae: ... At exactly the worst time of life,

Scott Rae: before their impulse controls are fully matured. And I think one of the most insightful parts of this article, Sean, what I would call the wisdom of Chesterton's fence, which, he describes the old adage of the late theologian G.K. Chesterton, who said to be sure you know why a fence is there before you tear it down, which is another way of saying beware of unintended consequences that are gonna come back to bite you in the rear end. And I think the parallel to porn is entirely appropriate here, because both of them can be addictive. And in the name of freedom and liberty, we have demolished fences around both those things that have served us, I think, pretty well in the past, and have prevented those unintended consequences. You know, we've, we've talked about this on numerous occasions. Porn has been clearly shown to undermine relationships. Gambling undermines what the article calls industry, which is the idea of self-improvement and a work ethic. And I think the article, the article's right about the avenues toward industry are becoming more challenging today with the cost of college and the debt that's incurred. And I think he's right about the hurdles that exist, the regulatory hurdles to starting a business for yourself. That's particularly true in our home state of California. So I think there's a lot of insight here, and I think we have, we have torn down Chesterton's fence when it comes to pornography and gambling. And I think we're seeing both, we're seeing both cases, unintended consequences that, you know, maybe we foresaw.

Scott Rae: You know, I think the people who advertise porn as this harmless entertainment, I don't think, I don't think foresaw what this was gonna do to real, live relationships. And I'm pretty sure that the people who wanted to legalize sports gambling did not see all of the things that we're gonna gamble on, you know, f- and I mean, we, you know, you cit- you cited a couple weeks ago, when you took your kids to the, you know, to a Laker game, all the things that were available, you know, freely advertised and, you know, right in plain view that you could av- that you could bet on from your seat on your phone. So I think there's a lot of wisdom to this, and I appreciate that the article did not try to do something that I think is unrealistic, which is to prohibit both porn and gambling, but to put some reasonable guardrails around them until, at least until a young person's ability to con- to do impulse control, where that stuff has fi- has finally matured, you know, in some time in their early to mid-20s.

Sean McDowell: Good stuff, Scott. I think that's a wise, sober response. I... A friend just recommended me a podcast, and I think our listeners know I read The New York Times almost every morning and try to listen to multiple sides of an issue. I started following a podcast by Newt Gingrich, former speaker of the House. Brilliant, thoughtful... Or head of the Senate, not speaker of the House. Don't wanna get that wrong.

Scott Rae: No, he was speaker of the House.

Sean McDowell: It was speaker of the House.

Scott Rae: Yeah, you are right.

Sean McDowell: Now I gotta re-correct myself the second time. Back in the time of Clinton. But he's brilliant, insightful presidential candidate. Has a podcast. There's way too many commercials on it, by the way, but it's interesting.

Scott Rae: [laughs]

Sean McDowell: And he was interviewing a guy this week about sports gambling. And since we're covering this story, I thought, "Ooh, I wanna hear this one." And one of the first things the guy said is, "Sports is too important for it to be affected or controlled by so much gambling." My first thought was like, "Uh, that's a little overstated. Come on." Even though I played former college basketball and I watch and love sports, that feels too much. And then I thought about it, I was like, "You know what? I think maybe he's right about this." Now let me step back before I explain that. I was trying to think of a biblical connection here, Scott. And allow me to explain this [laughs] before people think I've lost my theological bearings.

Scott Rae: [laughs]

Sean McDowell: I think of John chapter 2 when Jesus clears the temple. You had something sacred, holy, that was being compromised by money. They were turning something meant for worship into a medium for economic gain. Now, sports is not remotely sacred like that. It's not the place [laughs] where God meets mankind, but it is important. It's important for entertainment. It's important for unity that can bring people together. It's important just sometimes in life for a diversion. It's important for relationships. And it's being corrupted. You have something good... Being corrupted by sports gambling. And the more I think about it, I watched the game Wednesday night with the Clippers versus Golden State, and Steph Curry hit the most unbelievable shots at the end of the game. It was just, he's gotta be w- not only one of the greatest players, but one of the greatest closers ever. It's like the more the game gets pressured, the more fun he's having and the more confident he is. You just know the ball's going in deep with somebody pressuring him. And I'm watching this thinking, "Well, why are people cheering? Are they cheering 'cause he made an incredible shot, or are they cheering 'cause they just made money betting on him?" Nonstop through the game, there's commercials and there's tags coming up, and I'm thinking, "This is ubiquitous, and it's everywhere." And I think just like we can over-politicize things, now we can over-monetize things, and gambling, I think, is compromising it for the collective non-good, so to speak. Now, with that said, my question for you is, and if you don't have a perfect answer, that's fine, but what is the government's role? Because when you have something that I think arguably harms the collective good like this economically, emotionally, and life, I think a connection can be made, and yet we're supposed to have liberties to make choices. What is the government's role to balance liberty with stopping vice like this?

Scott Rae: Well, Sean, first of all, liberty and responsibility go hand in hand. And the founders were very clear that the o- the only people who could be trusted with liberty were those that had the internal resources to check their self-interest and to put guardrails around that. So, that's, I think, an important part of that. Government's role, I think, is to protect, society from the things that bring clear, tangible harm to it. But government also has to ask itself, what are the, might the, might the unintended consequences be of trying to enforce that? So there's, there's a practical question as l- as well as a principled one. You know, and prohibition, I think, is a g- is a good example of that. Where the costs of trying to prohibit the sale of alcohol, I think outweighed the benefit that was gained from taking it off the table. 'Cause in reality, it did nothing of the sort. It just drove it underground. So at least I think if it's above ground, it has, it h- we have a chance to regulate it to prevent some of the most egregious harms. And so w- you know, one of the articles, one of the points that the article makes is that, g- you know, sports gambling should be restricted to peop- to people under 25, and that would be the age cutoff, where after 25 you could, you could, you could take advantage of those opportunities. And then I think he also suggests there's certain types of gambling that should be prohibited also.

Scott Rae: So I think, I think government does have a role here, and w- and I think we're accumulating more and more data to suggest that, there are significant harms coming. The question government has to decide is on a utilitarian one, essentially, is what will the consequences be if the law drives it underground where it's completely free from oversight and regulation?

Sean McDowell: That's fair, and that's a hard trade-off for the government to balance. It's difficult.

Scott Rae: It is.

Sean McDowell: And, as Christians, we don't look to the government to cultivate virtue. That's not its role. So, you know, I think when I l- when I look at this, it's just a reminder that our default is not to virtue. [chuckles] Our default is to vice because of our fallen human nature. We have to resist vice, and we do spiritual disciplines, and of course, with the power of the Holy Spirit to help transform us into virtuous people. And it's hard to think of a time in history in which we didn't have easier access to-

Scott Rae: Absolutely

Sean McDowell: ... Such vice at the age where people are most vulnerable to it.

Scott Rae: Yeah.

Sean McDowell: That's what I think is so, just so damaging about this.

Scott Rae: Let me make one more point to think-

Sean McDowell: Yeah, please do

Scott Rae: ... Think, thinking Biblic- think biblically about this for the, for the Christian who's considering this. I think there's a parallel here in scripture to drunkenness- ... Where we're admonished to avoid drunkenness, but instead to be filled with the Spirit, and the reason those two things go together is because y- if you're under the influence of alcohol, you can't be under the influence of the Spirit at the same time. And I think those two th- I think those two the two things, porn and gambling, that we can make application to that if you are under the influence of pornography or under the influence of gambling, it, and it, when it's, when it becomes addictive, then you c- it's, it's pretty difficult to be under the influence of the Holy Spirit at the same time.

Sean McDowell: Exactly. Exactly. And of course, you said... Well, there's an open question about whether any kind of gambling is ever okay. I don't have a problem if somebody says, "I'm gonna play in ping pong, and I'm gonna put $20 on it." I go, "Fine. That's fun. I don't care. That doesn't bother me." But when it comes to pornography, there's no example of it ever being moral.

Scott Rae: Right. That's right.

Sean McDowell: It's corrupted by its very nature. But that's a conversation for another time. We need to do a deep dive on gambling in a regular episode. I don't think we've ever done that.

Scott Rae: Agreed.

Sean McDowell: Folks, let us know if that would be helpful. Send in, seriously, and, we could kinda take a biblical approach to that. All right, this last story, we could probably spend the whole time on this story, so I don't wanna go into too much depth on this, but this really jumped out to me as a significant shiftAnd in how we care for people in a, quote, "vegetative state." This New York Times piece, it was lengthy piece, 13-minute read. It said, "Vegetative patients may be more aware than we know." And it's basically a story of a woman whose husband fell into a, quote, "vegetative state," and she was told, "He's not going to survive. You basically have a small window in which you can pull treatment, let him die naturally," and kind of said the part of him in his brain that is him is no longer there. And she started feeling unsettled about this. She was like, "Wait a minute, can I pull away food and necessary things from my husband?" And so she delayed. His eyes opened up. She was encouraged again, "Well, he's just in another kind of vegetative state. He's not really there." And she started doing some research. It was called a persistent vegetative state. And she came across this New England Journal article from the Journal of Medicine in 2024, and this basically said, of 241 patients, 60 in this vegetative state, 60 appeared to do what they were told, meaning they were more aware, this like a quarter, to what was being said and what was being done, and are not, quote, "brain dead," like many people say. And she writes here, it really is-- it's kind of heartbreaking how doctors were... It-- again, this is just her experience. Doctors were very dismissive about him, didn't treat him really as a human being and as a patient. Some of the nurses were a little bit less so, but one nurse in particular kind of had the vibe of like she'd walk in and say stuff like, "He's still alive. He's still here," and it really bothered her. And so she's pressed into this and just tried to say, and the data seems to be showing that there's far more awareness and a consciousness of people not showing physical signs until we probe more deeply, that they're actually present. And so we should rethink how we talk about people in a vegetative state. [chuckles] We should rethink, whether they're truly brain dead and rethink how we treat people in a, quote, "vegetative state." What was your takeaway from this lengthy piece?

Scott Rae: Well, Sean, first of all, person in a vegetative state are not brain dead. There's, and I wanna just to be clear about that in a vegetative state, your brain stem is still functioning, but your cerebral cortex, your higher brain functions are all gone. And a vegetative state and a coma are not the same thing. Because coma generally is what we call eyes closed unconsciousness, and a vegetative state is eyes open unconsciousness.

Sean McDowell: Oh, okay.

Scott Rae: So there's, there's so... I got a lot to say about this, that we're gonna have, we're just gonna have to give an abbreviated version of this, and I think this-

Sean McDowell: Sure

Scott Rae: ... Might be worth a, another conversation.

Sean McDowell: Okay.

Scott Rae: But, you know, I first came across this probably 10 years ago-

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm

Scott Rae: ... When a woman who's so similar to the person that this article is about, wrote in challenging, the ethics of Peter Singer at the end of life, and the title of it is "What Is... What If Something's Going On In There?" And the conclusion was, I think similar to this article, is s-something probab- something may be going on in there. How much? We don't know. In any, in any ca- if there is something going on, the, this patient is still severely neurologically compromised. And I think one of the things the article points out is that it's, it's, it's not quite correct to say that the person is somehow in there in that body. The person is the body and soul. And so I think we need to, we need to view the person in a, regardless of their impairments, as a living human person. And when I need to... We-- the article, I think is partially right, but they don't, they don't get the personhood correct. They argue that it requires more than a beating heart to be a person. It requires certain capacities to feel, to be self-aware, to reason, to remember, have interest, to value life. And Sean, this is the r- my big takeaway on this, is it makes personhood a matter of degree. Which it most, which it biblically clearly is not. And the image of God, if the image of God is based on having those qualities, then the image of God is a matter of degree, which biblically most assuredly is not. The person is not, is... It's not the person is in there, but is there in body and soul. [lips smack] so yeah, here just my, the other kind of big takeaway from this, I said, what does this change about how we treat these patients or how we should treat these patients? And I would suggest maybe not very much.

Scott Rae: I think you can make an argument that be- actually being in this condition, severely neurologically compromised, and being modestly aware that you are trapped in this condition might actually be worse than not being aware of it. One eth- essay I read probably 20 years ago compared the vegetative state to some, to being in exile. Only now you might be somewhat aware of it. Even the ones that are misdiagnosed, I would say are still minimally conscious, even not technically in a vegetative state. And I suspect, Sean, I could be wrong about this, that most patients with an advanced directive would not change their preferences for treatment if they knew this information. Now, I think that it's, it's, it's, it's really important that we recognize these patients are still full persons made in the image of God. But with all serious illness, we're not obligated to do everything at all costs to pe-pe- keep people alive because that, as we've talked about before, that's what makes an idol out of earthly life, and that's not what the sanctity of life necessarily entails. So there's a lot more to say about this. By the way, the article refers to one of the neurologists that examined Terri Schiavo-

Sean McDowell: Yeah

Scott Rae: ... Who was a very prominent case, is actually a good friend and is one of our students in the science and religion program.

Sean McDowell: Oh, no way.

Scott Rae: Currently, yeah.

Sean McDowell: That is-

Scott Rae: He's a, he's a, he's a great brother.

Sean McDowell: That is super cool. Hey, let me ask you this. You made a point that personhood is not a matter of degrees. That's an ontological point. The challenge when it comes to end-of-life decisions is epistemological. Is this person, present? Is there any hope? Like, what's going on we don't know. Is it biologically possible to keep a heart beating and keep some kind of life when the person is completely gone and totally brain dead? Can we know that, so to speak? Like, how... Talk about that a little bit.

Scott Rae: Well, I think w-we do have, I think, pretty reliable neurological criteria. You know, we measure, we measure blood flow to the brain. And we can, we can do, you know, sophisticated electroencephalograms that monitor electrical activity in the brain. And if they're completely brain dead, that means the brain stem is not functioning either. And they-- the heart can be kept a- kept beating, and vital functions can be kept going. But here's the point, Sean, they're not self-initiating

Scott Rae: once the brain ceases to function. So we- ... We do, we keep people alive for, you know, you know, a time period if we're gonna donate their organs or so- you know, something like that.

Scott Rae: But as soon as those things are withdrawn, within a very short period of time, all those vital functions are gonna stop.

Sean McDowell: Okay.

Sean McDowell: There was a couple things in this article that jumped out to me. Some of the ethics of it are above my pay grade. I know it's in your lane, and you've done a lot of good work on this. You have an extended treatment of this in your-- the update of Moral Choices coming out this summer, which is exciting. We're gonna do some shows on that. W- couple things jumped out to me. I thought this line in here was the lady whose husband went into this state. She says, "The doctor was explaining that the human brain is composed of distinct regions, and that in Aaron's case, it was, quote, 'The part of the brain that makes you you.'" I thought, "Well, that's interesting." There's a difference between seeing whether there's neuronal activity, whether there's life, and reducing life to the neuronal activity and the brain activity itself. And I think this indicates that in medicine and in much of science in the West, there's been such a materialistic assumption about the brain. And so we're learning that there's consciousness beyond what we maybe knew shouldn't surprise us at all when we don't reduce down just to the brain. That jumped out to me as interesting. And there also was a debate in this about how people are saying at some point when somebody's just gonna be in this state, do they have a life worth living? And I read that and was like, "Oh my goodness, that is somewhat similar to the claims that we heard about the Jews in World War II," like it's a life not worthy of life. Who are we to make these assessments? Where does human value come from? And I think we're seeing a challenge to some of these materialistic questions that, to me, sh- don't surprise me as a Christian because I don't think we're just a body, and I think we intuitively know that all life has value. So I am pleased to see the conversation shifting this direction, and, maybe we'll circle back and do a deeper dive on this one as well.

Scott Rae: Sure.

Sean McDowell: All right, so we got a ton of questions here. Let's just take a couple of these. The first one is, "Over the past several weeks, you've discussed the Iran war in relation to just war theory. That's helpful, but I'd like to know what your thoughts are about Pete Hegseth and any other political leader invoking Christianity in support of the war. How should we assess such religious framing of a war, and is this even appropriate for someone in political office?"

Scott Rae: Well, I'd say if it's a ju- if it's a just war, then I think it could be appropriate. If it's not, then I've got a lot tougher time with it. And I think the debate about the Iran war is whether that's a just war. We've, we've said before that, I think there's, there's considerable debate about this, but my own view is that Iran poses an imminent threat to Israel but not to the United States. Unless they acquire a nuclear weapon. Th-Then, then I reserve the right to change my mind on that at that point. So I'd say if it's a just war, then I th- I-- it could be, it could be okay to invoke, you know, invoke the name of God. And I think it-- in World War II, I think on the Allied side, that was, that was appropriate to do.

Sean McDowell: Okay. So you don't have an in-principle concern or issue with this. It's more is the war just or not. I agree with that, and so I'm with you in principle. The only caveat I would give is I'm just always leery when any politician is citing the Bible to support any cause-

Scott Rae: True

Sean McDowell: ... Because it's coming-

Scott Rae: Fair enough

Sean McDowell: ... From a politician.And so to me, I'm gonna say, "Wait a minute. Are they using this to get a vote, using this to justify something?" And so we just have to guard our hearts from being persuaded for or against something, and ask the deeper question like you did. Okay, what's it being used for? Is this war just? Is this fitting within the passage? I think that's something Bible-minded Christians need to keep in mind.

Scott Rae: Hear, hear.

Sean McDowell: Okay. Let's jump to this second question, third on our list. It says, "You guys have discussed how Christians should engage visual media, especially about how Christians should approach the film industry. You haven't talked a lot about your own movie preferences. Sean is a comic book fan. What's your favorite comic book movie or movies? And Scott, as an ethicist, what movie or movies do you like for ethical dilemmas they present?" I will let you go first. This is a great question.

Scott Rae: It is a great question. I appreciate that.

Sean McDowell: What movie do you like in terms of ethical dilemmas?

Scott Rae: Well, there's two of them. The classic one is Sophie's Choice.

Sean McDowell: Oh, wow.

Scott Rae: Which is a great... It's a great movie.

Sean McDowell: Wow.

Scott Rae: In fact, we used, we used to use that as a fi- as a final exam question in one of our ethics courses in the philosophy program. The other one, I think, is Schindler's List.

Sean McDowell: Okay.

Scott Rae: Yeah, the sort of the story of Oscar Schindler I think is great. And then I'd also point out there's a te- there's a television series that I've been watching that has a medical ethics dilemma in almost every episode. It's an HBO series called The Pitt.

Sean McDowell: Yeah.

Scott Rae: P-I-T-T. And it's, it's really well done. The language is not quite what I would hope for, but there's, there's a medical ethics dilemma that just jumps off the, off the screen in almost every episode.

Sean McDowell: I've heard a lot of talk about that, but haven't watched it. That's a great plug. Superhero movies, I would say here's my top three. And I really enjoyed Thor 1. I did not expect to, but it is truly the classic story of the hero who needs to be humbled and broken, banished to Earth, and can't be the hero until he's willing to lay down his life, then he gets his hammer back. And I love the end. He says to his father, you know, "Maybe someday I could be a king like you." Now, after that, I think they started to mess up all the Thor movies, but I digress. Actually, I enjoyed it through 3. 4 I thought was abysmal. But Thor 1 I really enjoyed. I think Captain America 2 with the Winter Soldier is a great story. Captain America has lost kind of the reason why he wants to be a hero. He's questioning things. He needs to recover it. And the villain in that one, of course, the Winter Soldier, is such a good villain. But Captain America is kind of like a Christ-type figure in that he's fighting him, and at the end, he kind of lays back, opens his arm up, and is like, "I'm not gonna fight against you. I'm gonna take a hit from you." And inside that is a kind of the sense of like, if you wanna change somebody's heart, you gotta sacrifice for them. And that takes me to my all-time favorite superhero movie, which you and I did a deep dive on. It probably [laughs] was six years ago now, on the movie Infinity War. I think the movie Infinity War asks the question of what a human value, human life is worth, and when can we sacrifice a life. And it climaxes in Endgame, where Iron Man, the ultimate hero, willingly lays down his life as a sacrifice and a Christ-type figure. You can go read the deep dive that you and I did five, six years ago, but those are three superhero movies that I particularly love. Scott, this is fun. I hope we get more questions like that last one.

Scott Rae: Yeah. I agree.

Sean McDowell: That is one of, [laughs] one of my favorite questions of all.

Scott Rae: And I, and I admit I haven't seen, I haven't seen any of the superhero movies. [laughs]

Sean McDowell: None of them?

Scott Rae: None of them.

Sean McDowell: Oh, man.

Scott Rae: But, I think, I think I've realized I'm missing out.

Sean McDowell: Oh, my goodness. We need to have a conversation about that one.

Scott Rae: Well, you can, you-

Sean McDowell: In fact, maybe we could do some movies of your reactions when you finally see some of the greatest movies of all time.

Scott Rae: I'll do... I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll go for that.

Sean McDowell: Awesome. All right. Good stuff, man. Enjoyed it, and as always, looking forward to next week. 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. Scott and I and our amazing faculty here have master's programs in theology, Bible, apologetics, spiritual formation, and more, and some remarkable doctoral programs as well. To submit comments or ask questions, again, such good questions we got this week, please email us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu. We'd appreciate if you took a moment to give us a rating on your podcast app and consider sharing this episode with a friend. Thank you for listening, and we'll see you Tuesday when we air a fascinating conversation with Clay Jones, who's co-written a book about why God allows suffering. In the meantime, remember to think biblically about everything. [outro music]