Biola University- Supreme Court Backs Parental Rights: The Supreme Court issued a 6-3 emergency injunction blocking California's policy that required schools to hide students' gender transitions from their parents, affirming that parents—not the state—hold primary authority in their children's upbringing.
- Progressive Christianity Enters Texas Politics: James Talarico, a self-described progressive Christian who won the Texas Senate primary, claims to offer a faith-based alternative to the Christian right.
- Epstein Files and Moral Unity: The near-universal outrage over the Epstein revelations is a rare moment of cross-partisan moral agreement.
- Listener Question: Attending a "Believer-Unbeliever" Wedding: A listener who won't attend same-sex weddings wonders whether consistency requires skipping the wedding of a Christian sibling marrying a non-Christian.
- Listener Question: Protestant Wrestles With Catholicism: A listener considers converting to Catholicism.
- Listener Question: AI and the End Times: A listener asks whether AI could play a role in the rise of the Antichrist or the mark of the beast.
Episode Transcript
Sean McDowell: [upbeat music] The Supreme Court sides with parents blocking California's trans student policy. Progressive Christian James Talarico wins the Texas Senate primary. Is a new vision of the intersection of faith and politics emerging? Could the Epstein files actually unite Americans on a shared vision of clarity regarding evil? These are the stories we'll discuss, and we will also address some of your questions. I'm your host, Sean McDowell, and today we have guest host, who's almost a regular, he's filled in so many times-
Thaddeus Williams: [laughs]
Sean McDowell: ... Dr. Thaddeus Williams. Good to have you, my man. Thanks for filling in for the one and only Scott Rae.
Thaddeus Williams: Joy to be with you, brother, as always.
Sean McDowell: Well, this story dropped early this week, and it's really important we think biblically about it, 'cause it relates to marriage, it relates to sexuality. And the story I'm reading from, and even the way it's framed, we can tell it's coming from The New York Times, and it's an opinion piece. It says, "Supreme Court sides with religious parents blocking California's trans student policy." So on Monday, the Supreme Court sided with a group of religious parents temporarily blocking California from using policies that generally bar public school teachers from outing transgender students to their parents. So it was a group of Christian teachers and parents who asked the justices to intervene on an emergency basis, so this is not a typical ruling that releases in, say, June, contending that the state, California, had adopted a policy that requires public schools to hide students' [chuckles] transgender status from their own parents and to facilitate their social transition, even over their parents' objections. So the concern was that parents were put in a position... Actually, teachers were put in a position to actually [chuckles] lie to parents when parents inquired. Now, California's attorney general, Rob Bonta, he said, "The consequences of compelling the disclosure of confidential information about their gender identity would be irreversible." So he came out saying that this would cause damage to kids who identify as transgender being forced for the school to out them to their parents. Now, the conservative majority, I'll wrap this up and then really want you to weigh in. The conservative majority said s- parents have, quote, "sincere religious beliefs about sex and gender, and they feel a religious obligation to raise their children in accordance with those beliefs." The majority added that these California policies violate those beliefs and impose a burden on parents' religious beliefs. The majority said a broader set of parents beyond those with religious objections have a separate right, quote, "not to be shut out of participation in decisions regarding their children's mental health," and that the state policies most likely violate their rights to direct the upbringing of their children. Now, what's really interesting about this is there's some other cases pending we won't get into about transgender sports and about parents being able to opt out of, certain education and books being used in public schools. But in this story, what happened is parents certain challenged this law, and they only found out when their child was attempting suicide and had been identifying as the opposite sex, and were never informed by the school. Now, there's so much more going on in this case, and I actually read the original report that's online right now, but I'd love your general takeaway from the story.
Thaddeus Williams: Sure. I mean, you and I are both dads, and, Are your, are all your kids out of high school now?
Sean McDowell: Two in college, one is in junior high.
Thaddeus Williams: Okay. So I got one in high school, and I got a call, about this time last week that my 15-year-old, had a migraine. And-
Sean McDowell: Oh
Thaddeus Williams: ... You know, I was notified [chuckles] about a migraine. It seems odd to me that a student could be battling something as monumental as, gender dysphoria, and zero parent notification required. Particularly, you know, a migraine, you recover. When it comes to ge- social gender transition, I mean, this is just a whole other animal. You look at, I have, I have a dear friend, he's, he's contributed, to some of my work over the years named Walt Heyer.
Sean McDowell: Yeah.
Thaddeus Williams: Walt Heyer has a brilliant website called sexchangeregret.com. Stellar resource on all this stuff. It'll help you debunk sort of the narrative that's behind a lot of the, Bonta's argument that, you know, you're, you're forcing these kids out of the closet, which is... If it's not a supportive home, you're basically signing their death certificate. And Walt Heyer at sexchangeregret.com takes you into some of the hard facts on that and debunks the pervasive myth to show us that, you know, if somebody undergoes, say, a medical transition, they will experience a rush of euphoria, particularly if it's a female trying to identify as a male, with testosterone pumping through their veins. The, you know, the science on this is clear that, "I feel amazing. I feel like I could conquer the world." But once things sort of level out, all the suicidality rates, which are egregious and heart-wrenching, they eventually return to their normal state. And so what we're dealing with here is a massive mental health crisis. And to leave parents in the dark on that? Like, Walt Heyer says this. This is a quote from, Walt Heyer. He says, "Studies show up to 92% of children with gender dysphoria outgrow it," 92% outgrow it, "if they aren't encouraged into gender transitions by adults."So instead of self-proclaimed experts in the medical community or education priding themselves on transitioning children, and in the medical community with puberty blockers to interrupt their natural development, playing God with children's bodies. And so to me, it's, it's just one of those [chuckles] issues, Sean, where it's like what world are we living in where it's even a question, where it's even a question that a parent should have awareness if their kid is suffering from gender dysphoria, which is a mental problem with massive implications. And, and to keep parents in the dark on that, I mean, I've, I've done a lot of my academic research on Marxism and its current iterations, and the idea of keeping parents in the dark on this kind of thing, make no mistake, it is a page torn from the Marxist playbook because there's an ideology that is so totalitarian at its core that the State with a capital S cannot risk having parents of differing convictions overriding the meta-narrative that the Marxists are trying to push. And so that's not conspiracy theory. That's plain history. Underneath these little legislative squabbles that pop up, make no mistake, there are deeper worldview questions, on the table. And so, I think of a just closing thought that there is no neutrality. This, this is an insight from Abraham Kuyper, Herman Bavinck, Cornelius Van Til. There's a rich tradition of Christian thought that says in the West, there's this myth that we can just be totally neutral on things. But in-- if we're thinking biblically, the tagline of the show, there is no neutrality. Romans 1 spells it out. It's either a reflection of creator worship or creation worship. And the ideology that many in power would like to push on kids without their parents knowing is an attempt to convert kids to a version of creation worship that erases male/female distinctions. So there's, there's my take as a theology nerd wanting to bring it back to Romans 1.
Sean McDowell: That's a great take. By the way, I'm sitting here with my son. He's in the other room. He's in your Gospel Kingdom Culture class, and we were taking bids on how long it would be before you would cite somebody reformed-
Thaddeus Williams: [laughing]
Sean McDowell: ... In this [laughs] Kidding aside.
Thaddeus Williams: What was it, three minutes? Who won? Who won? [laughing]
Sean McDowell: [laughing] I actually didn't say that to him. I'm just kidding.
Thaddeus Williams: [laughing]
Sean McDowell: But I'm actually really glad you went this direction because underlying this is really what w- for lack of a better term, is a worldview divide or worldview battle, the differences in authority for kids.
Thaddeus Williams: Yep.
Sean McDowell: So it is a Marxist, authoritarian, top-down, way of thinking that says the state knows what's best for the kids.
Thaddeus Williams: Yeah.
Sean McDowell: And we need kids to conform to a certain, again, top-down worldview, and then the parents get in the way of what the state knows which is best.
Thaddeus Williams: Yeah.
Sean McDowell: This is not a biblical way of thinking. You see it in the Old Testament and the New Testament. Arguably, the central passage in the Old Testament, the Shema, right, in Deuteronomy 6:4, it says, "Listen, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord God with your heart, your soul, your mind, with all your strength. These words that I'm giving you today are to be in your heart. Repeat them to your children. Talk about them when you sit in your house, when you walk on the road, when you lie down, and when you get up." In other words, there's a certain authority and responsibility from the bottom up. The first-
Thaddeus Williams: Yes
Sean McDowell: ... Institution that kids are born into are a mom and a dad.
Thaddeus Williams: Yeah.
Sean McDowell: And sure, some moms and dads can fail, and sometimes the state needs to step in, but that's the exception and should not be the norm. Of course, in the New Testament, there's parent responsibility, and there's the church responsibility, but this is still a localized kind of authority, not mandated from the state.
Thaddeus Williams: Yeah.
Sean McDowell: And so I'm thankful as I read this. I pulled up... I mean, if our listeners have never taken time to read a Supreme Court ruling, it's really just interesting. I've probably read a dozen or two in my entire life just to read them. This is a brief. It's not even that long. It's 18 pages, but it's Elizabeth Mirabelli, versus Rob Bonta, who's the attorney general of California, and it's online. And basically, the summary says, "The parents object that these policies prevent schools from telling them about their children's effort to engage in gender transition at school unless the children consent to parental notification." So the authority is placed in these children and these kids rather than in the parents, who 99.9% of the time know the kids best, have the wisdom and experience [chuckles] of life, and are the ones who are responsible for those kids, and the Supreme Court recognized this. It said, "The parents also take issue with California's requirement that schools use children's preferred names and pronouns regardless of their parents' wishes. The teachers object to their compelled participation in the implementation of the state's policies." And that's really the rub, especially for Christian educators. In California, we're put in the bind of having to basically affirm not only something that they think is false, use language they think is false, but cannot tell or arguably we're compelled to not speak the truth to parents who want to know what's going on with their kids.
Thaddeus Williams: Yeah.
Sean McDowell: That is a serious-
Thaddeus Williams: It's almost state-mandated deception. [laughs]
Sean McDowell: That-- I think that's arguably exactly what it is, and everybody should take issue with that, but especially Christian parents should take issue with that. So as you read-
Thaddeus Williams: Yeah
Sean McDowell: ... Through this, you know, fortunately, this is inUh, in the majority opinion, which is a short opinion, obviously, it's not as long as they typically are, and it's Amy Coney Barrett who wrote this. The ruling was six to three, so I'm glad it wasn't closer. They said, "Under long-established precedent, parents, not the state, have primary authority with respect to the upbringing and education of their children."
Thaddeus Williams: Yes. And, and I would just encourage parents out there-
Sean McDowell: Yeah
Thaddeus Williams: ... Sorry to cut you off, but-
Sean McDowell: Do it. Go
Thaddeus Williams: ... But I learned this firsthand, with one of my daughters, During COVID there was... I'll keep this to the point. There was a meeting amongst parents over Zoom, the good old COVID days, with the consultant a particular school was bringing in to do the sex education. And during the Q&A I asked, you know, "How, how are you gonna handle our kids' questions about gender identity?" And she said, "Oh, well, you know, I'm gonna do the genderbread person-"
Sean McDowell: [laughs] Uh-huh
Thaddeus Williams: ... "which is pretty well established in sex education for young people, and it's, it's very innocuous, it's very harmless, and then we move on to other things." And I, like, unmuted, [laughs] didn't go full, like, dad bear mode.
Sean McDowell: [laughs]
Thaddeus Williams: I was as kind and winsome as possible, but I just said, "All due respect, I know the genderbread person. This is a major area of my study, is theology and gender. It's not harmless. It's not innocuous."
Sean McDowell: Right.
Thaddeus Williams: "I know where it came from. I know it came from John Money. I know it came from Alfred Kinsey. I knew it came from Wilhelm Reich, all pedophiles themselves or pedophile rights activists." And once I spoke up, the parents came out of the woodwork because it wa- sometimes it's just being the spearhead, the first one through, that signals to all other parents like, "Oh, you can actually do that. You can actually push back on this stuff." And I do think we're at a turning point in this country where a lot of the trans ideology had free reign for a long time.
Sean McDowell: I agree.
Thaddeus Williams: And people are slowly finding their courage. I encourage all parents out there listening, you have more of a voice and more power than you realize to stand up what, at the end of the day, I think is a demonically inspired trans ideology.
Sean McDowell: How do you really feel about it, Thaddius? [laughs]
Thaddeus Williams: [laughs] Sorry to mince words.
Sean McDowell: I-
Thaddeus Williams: Sorry to mince words, you know. [laughs]
Sean McDowell: You know, to... This is really helpful. I'm glad you said that. I think of people like Riley Gaines who spoke up when she was threatened, and she was silenced. She was the college swimmer competing against, quote, "lia Thomas," the trans male who had clear biological advantage-
Thaddeus Williams: Yeah
Sean McDowell: ... Forced to change in many ways and not complain in the presence of him. Well, the thing that this, Supreme Court... I don't know exactly what you'd call it. It's not an official ruling. It's like a temporary... It's kind of an injunction until the ruling-
Thaddeus Williams: Yeah, an injunction
Sean McDowell: ... Goes down at the lower courts, is they said... Oh, here it is, "And the injunction here promotes child safety by car- guaranteeing fit parents a role in some of the most consequential decisions in their children's lives." That's really interesting-
Thaddeus Williams: Yeah
Sean McDowell: ... Because the way this has been framed for the past decade is parents and educators and doctors need to get in line with how kids feel-
Thaddeus Williams: Yeah
Sean McDowell: ... For their safety, and if you don't, then your kid might commit suicide.
Thaddeus Williams: Yep.
Sean McDowell: That's been the narrative that I think-
Thaddeus Williams: Yep
Sean McDowell: ... Is actually very manipulative, and it's not supported by the evidence. So these parents find out months after their daughter identifies as a boy and attempts suicide even though the school affirmed this and never let the parents know.
Thaddeus Williams: Yeah.
Sean McDowell: That's incredible. So I'm grateful for this court. I'm grateful that they're speaking up, pushing against this, and we'll stay tuned and cover some of the other stories that come up tied to this topic when they do- drop typically in June. All right, Thad, this next story, I'm really interested in your take on this because it was kind of one of the biggest stories of the week, tied to the Texas primary Senate race. And Democrats, since I think the early '90s if I'm not mistaken, have been trying to turn some of the state of Texas blue. Beto O'Rourke tried. That didn't work. And now the latest 36-year-old, you might say mainstream Protestant, James Talarico, wins the Texas primary. And what's really interesting about him is he kind of couches himself, so to speak, as the response to the religious Christian nationalist right. So a lot of the response so far has been, like, AOC and the kinda secular socialist reaction against this movement. Now you're kinda seeing this friendly, Southern type feel Christian who's a progressive Christian gaining a little bit of steam, and it'll be interesting to see if he wins in Texas and beyond. But what concerns us here is not so much the political issue behind this, but the worldview issue behind this-
Thaddeus Williams: Yep
Sean McDowell: ... And the theme of progressive Christianity. And so, what's interesting is there's a piece in Mere Orthodoxy, and they describe how Talarico's currently making a national name for himself by positioning himself as the moral antidote to the religious right. He wants you to know he hates how religion and politics have been fused. His response, to fuse his faith with modern-day progressive politics.So there's questions whether or not we should ever fuse our faith with politics, how we should fuse our faith with politics, and then there's the question, is it okay on the right, and is it okay on the left?
Thaddeus Williams: Yeah.
Sean McDowell: These are really important questions that often get skipped over. Now, you and I are not going to say that we should keep religion out of the public discourse. My goodness.
Thaddeus Williams: Yeah.
Sean McDowell: People like Martin Luther King Jr. Applied his faith to-
Thaddeus Williams: Yeah
Sean McDowell: ... Civil rights.
Thaddeus Williams: William Wilberforce. Yep.
Sean McDowell: Oh, yeah.
Thaddeus Williams: Sojourner Truth.
Sean McDowell: Susan B. Anthony. Yep. Exactly. You've written on this more than I have [chuckles] and of course, William Wilberforce, like you said, Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
Thaddeus Williams: Harriet Tubman.
Sean McDowell: What I would argue, what I would argue, and I'll probably get some criticism from this, is that he's actually offering a counterfeit faith, that this does not line up with the faith that Jesus taught and we find in the scriptures. Now, there are some issues, of course, Christians can agree to disagree on, and we can debate policy, we can debate passages like gun control, right? How exactly do we apply our faith to gun control? How exactly do we apply it to immigration? But he's gone further than that in some of the things that he has proclaimed and he has taught, that I would argue at the heart of it really undermine what it means to have a Christian faith. I'll give one example, and then I'll throw it to you.
Thaddeus Williams: Sure.
Sean McDowell: Is one of the things that he talks about is he said, quote, in reference to J- in, Matthew chapter 25, is this is kind of a typical liberal view of theology as opposed to a, what's called a fundamentalist view, is he writes, "Jesus in Matthew 25 tells us exactly how you and I are going to be saved, by feeding the hungry, by healing the sick. Nothing about going to church, nothing even about being a Christian." So sometimes the conservative gospel has been said, it's all just about grace and faith, works don't matter. I think that's a perversion. On the other hand, that what I think he's pushing, amongst other things that would concern us on pro-life and marriage [chuckles] and a range of other issues, is this kind of works-based salvation that is really nothing new, and I think it goes back to the fundamentalist conservative divide earlier part of the 20th century-
Thaddeus Williams: Yeah
Sean McDowell: ... And J. Gresham Machen saying liberal Christianity, it's a different gospel, it's a different Jesus, it's a different diagnosis problem in the world. It's fundamentally a different religion. At core, I think that's what's going on here. But so much-
Thaddeus Williams: Yeah
Sean McDowell: ... Could be said. What's your take?
Thaddeus Williams: Yeah. [laughs] this... You, you took it back to Machen and the fundamentalist liberalism controversy. Let, let's go back even further, Sean. Let's go back to the 1st century, where you have this conflict between Jesus, the red letter Jesus, and- ... The Pharisees. You have works. You have, you have monergism versus synergism. Is God the one who saves, or do we meet him halfway and prove ourselves worthy by our righteousness? Fast-forward a little later in the 1st century, and you have the, about the 50s and 60s of the 1st century, and you have Paul squaring off against the Judaizers. Not Jews, but Jew, Jewish converts who claimed that to be saved, it's exactly what Talarico said, it's, it's by works, by obeying Jewish dietary restrictions. If you're a dude, you gotta get circumcised. And Paul, when he's at his most just unleashed and bold, is when he's taking on that heresy that's adding to the finished work of Jesus as if what Jesus accomplished through his death and resurrection wasn't sufficient for salvation. And he doesn't mince words. He, he calls them, emasculators of the flesh. He calls them dogs. He calls it a different gospel, a counterfeit gospel. And when I read Talarico saying what he did about salvation by works, he's, he's wearing his colors on his sleeve for all to see. This is not Christian, friends. This is according to our own New Testament, an anti-gospel, a counterfeit gospel. Now, here's something I've noticed, 'cause I've, I've studied progressive Christianity [lips smack] in right and left-wing politics for the lion's share of my academic career, and here's a connection that becomes clearer to me every time I study it, which is if I'm not saved by God's grace alone in the complete, adequate, all-sufficient finished work of Christ alone, then I still have this lingering guilt problem. And if I'm not getting that existential guilt solved at Calvary, I still need to deal with that guilt somehow. And so along comes left-wing politics, and it gives me a way of feeling like I'm a good person that is fundamentally apart from the cross work of Christ. I'm a good person, and I've watched, plenty of Talarico's interviews, over the last few months, and h- that's what he's selling people. "If you vote for me, you're a good person. You're on the right side of history because you're pro..." And then, Sean, he just lists the far left's political platform by the bullet point, but baptizes it in Christian lingo in a way that gives people apart from Christ a sense of saying, "Yeah, I'm righteous. I'm a very good person because I'm against those Christian nationalists, those evil Christian nationalists." [laughs] And, and what strikes me, Sean, as so funny about this, you know, I taught... Before I came to Biola University, I taught at a secular college in California for almost a decade, and most of my students were atheists. I taught classes like History of AtheismUm, I'd say the ratio of believers to atheists in my class was something like 1 to 99. [laughs] Okay. And for those 99, non-believers or atheists or agnostics, if you ask them, "Hey, write a list for me. What are your top five things that drive you bonkers about those fundamentalist Christians?" They would say things like, "Oh, well, they're, they're very self-righteous, and they're very judgmental, and they only see things one way, and everything's black and white." And, and if you just took that list and turned it around back at them, and I mean this [laughs] in truth and love, most of those students would be looking into a mirror. That the very things they loathe about so-called fundamentalist Christians were the very things that were the identifiers of their political identity and their ideology. It was very dogmatic. So if you think that there's only two genders, according to Talarico, you suffer from this Christian nationalist theocratic mindset. If, if you think the Ten Commandments should be posted in public schools, then according to him, this is a quote, "You're forcing your religion down their throats, and that is not love." Mm-hmm. And, and so there's this idea that if you're endorsing any kind of Christian political involvement that doesn't agree with, point by point, the far-left ideological boxes you have to check, then you are a Christian nationalist. A- [laughs] and what's fascinating about this is one of the marks of ideological possession, that somebody has been taken in by a politic and made it their identity, and they're, they're falling for some version of idolatry, is if you pretty much know what they're gonna say before the question's asked given the issue. Oh. That, that they're not gonna a- they're not gonna add any kind of unique or pushback to the party line. And to me, the fact that Talarico, when it comes to gender, when it comes to abortion, when it comes to, name the issue, you already know what he's gonna say. Now, here's what's fascinating to me, Sean, about listening to him, is he says so many of the right things. He c- he criticizes Christian nationalists w- that he sees as an exclusively right-wing phenomena. He accuses them of starting with their politic and then adding on Jesus to sort of baptize their views to make- Right ... Them sacred and transcendent and authoritative. But the blind spot is exactly what I experienced teaching atheist students for 10 years. The very things they were opposing were the very things they were doing. There's an old Pearl Jam lyric, "If you hate something, don't you do it too." "If you hate something, don't you do it too." And, and so for me, Talarico, not only is he a heretic on salvation by grace alone, but he commits another heresy of [laughs] let me be a theology nerd here for a second, of an over-realized eschatology. He talks a lot about the kingdom, the kingdom that Jesus inaugurated at His resurrection, announced, you know, during His earthly ministry, and will establish at His return. Talarico is trying to politicize that, which was the earliest heresy of the apostles. When Jesus is talking kingdom, they keep thinking, "Okay, so you're gonna overthrow Rome." The exact parallel is, "Okay, Talarico, the kingdom, you're gonna overthrow Trump, and you're go- you're gonna do all this now so that we can set up the kingdom in America." That's Christian nationalism from the left. [laughs] It's the same exact thing. It is left-wing progressive Christianity trying to enforce its ethic, its pro-abortion ethic, its pro gender transition for kids ethic. It's trying to enforce that under the thin veneer of Christianity, and again, you know, we need to take a stand [laughs] and say, "If you're against Christian nationalism, be even-handed with it. Be against baptizing Jesus as some, you know, progressive." And, and let me... I'll... I know I could easily ramble, rant on this for the next two hours, but let me just distill it down to this. One of his talking points, one of Talarico's talking points, he gave this on The Stephen Colbert Show, and it drove the crowd nuts. They were just cheering, standing ovation type moment, mic drop moment. He said, "These Christian right-wingers..." And for the record, I'm not Christian right-wing. Just throwing this out there. My- Sure ... Allegiance is to Jesus. But I'm certainly... Anyway, I digress. Keep going. He made the point that Jesus never mentions abortion even once. Jesus never mentions gay marriage even once, and the Christianity's been hijacked by the right-wing Christian nationalists who have made their whole party about, you know, opposing same-sex marriage and LGBTQ+, and opposing abortion. And I listen to this and I'm like, "Man, oh, man." So when in the red letters does Jesus talk about, you know, public healthcare? When, when does he talk about socialist economic policy? Jesus never in the red letters opposes burning your neighbor's house down. Does that mean if, Talarico is facing legislation now, if he wins all the way to the Senate and makes it all the way, that he's gonna say, "You know, this bill-... That outlaws burning your neighbor's house down. Jesus didn't talk about that. Or, or maybe a more powerful example would be, you know, Mengele and the Nazi doctors who experimented on the undesirables. Jesus never said a word about eugenic, mutilation of image-bearers. He, he never spoke directly to that. He never talked about eugenic experimentation. Does that mean that you're being a Christian nationalist if you oppose experimenting on people to create some master race? No. What Jesus did all through the New Testament, and Paul did, and the other New Testament authors, is instead of let's list, let's give a laundry list of here's 99 things that you could do wrong, what Jesus did, and part of his brilliance, is he said, "Here's the positive principle," not the 99 negative ways you could violate it. "Here's the positive principle." What does Jesus champion as positive principles? Loving your neighbor, including your tiny in utero neighbor, the 73 million who were exterminated last year. I'd be interested in Talarico's, take on whether we're loving our pre-born neighbors. What does Jesus emphasize? Marriage as a male-female union. He doesn't have to speak to a 20th century, late 20th century innovation on it. So all that to say, I think Talarico, I would love to have a conversation with him if-
Sean McDowell: Oh, me too
Thaddeus Williams: ... By a one in a million chance he's willing-
Sean McDowell: Oh, man
Thaddeus Williams: ... To come on the show. I'll give him nothing but love and a fair hearing. But, at the end of the day, I think Christians need to not be duped by leftist ideology disguising itself as Christianity.
Sean McDowell: That's really good and helpful. I'm glad you spelled that out. And by the way, some people are gonna say, "Wait a minute, why are you only critiquing the left when it comes up?" If you've listened to the Weekly Cultural Update enough, that's not the case.
Thaddeus Williams: Yeah, or listen to my work. I'm-
Sean McDowell: One of the-
Thaddeus Williams: Yeah, plenty of critiques-
Sean McDowell: You do, you do both
Thaddeus Williams: ... Going both ways. Yes.
Sean McDowell: But I've been giving a talk recently that first gave at our home church, you and I go to the same home church, called Nine-
Thaddeus Williams: Yes
Sean McDowell: ... False Gospels. And I start with an example where Trump refers to in ... When Russia invaded Ukraine, he said if he could broker a peace deal, this might be what helps get him to heaven. [laughs] And-
Thaddeus Williams: Yeah, same heresy
Sean McDowell: ... Later he... Same. It's the same heresy. He came back later and said, "I was joking." And then at the National Prayer Breakfast, like, three weeks ago said, "But I really think I should probably make it. I'm not a perfect candidate, but I did a heck of a lot of good for a lot of people." Like, it's the same works-based-
Thaddeus Williams: Yep. They both believe the gospel
Sean McDowell: ... From the left or the right, wherever you push s- place somebody, that's a false gospel.
Thaddeus Williams: Yeah.
Sean McDowell: And I think that's exactly what we're seeing come through here. And you're right, it doesn't go back to the fundamentalist divide at the o- beginning of the 20th century. It goes back to Galatians and the early-
Thaddeus Williams: Yeah
Sean McDowell: ... Church. These false gospels that add anything to the work that Jesus did on our behalf is a false gospel.
Thaddeus Williams: Yeah.
Sean McDowell: That's why Ephesians 2:8-9 says, "It's by grace we've been saved through faith. And it's not from ourselves, it is a gift of God, and so no one can boast." And then verse 10 says, "We are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works." So our works don't justify us. Our works flow from a recognition of who God is, who we're made to be, and what God has done for us. Now, one quick response to this I wanna throw in there is he's come out ... I mean, Talarico, the reason I'm talking about this, he's been on The Joe Rogan podcast, The Ezra Klein Show, getting a ton of coverage here, and he made an argument for pro-choice that I thought was, I don't even know how to say this charitably, but incredibly weak. He made comments suggesting that God is pro-choice when it comes to reproductive rights. Why? Because the Angel Gabriel asked Mary in the first chapter of Luke for her consent before the Holy Spirit caused her to conceive. Scripture teaches that creation has to be done with consent. You cannot force someone to create. To me, he said, that is an affirmation in one of our most central stories that creation has to be done with consent. Now, the obvious distinction here is there's a big difference between somebody asking for and requiring consent before you conceive, and what we do once a human being has conceived, consent or not, and now there is a third human being as a part of the matrix. So you and I would agree with those to the left of us, secular or progressive Christian, that consent is necessary. We just say it's not sufficient for a sexual ethic. But that is completely separate. And it's so interesting he cited Luke chapter 1 to justify this, because if you actually look in Luke chapter 1, when Mary visits Elizabeth, she entered Zachariah's house and greeted Elizabeth. When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, this is Luke 1:41, the baby, who's John the Baptist, leaped or leapt inside her. It says again, verse 44, "For you see, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped for joy inside of me." Now, clearly this is an unborn human being inside of Elizabeth, and just as we had inside of Mary, there's no distinction between, well, the unborn is pre-human or a human, but not a person. None of that is in the scriptures. So the very passage he uses to make an argument, number one-
Thaddeus Williams: Yeah
Sean McDowell: ... Is not a good argument, even if it goes through. Number one, Luke 1 is actually a good argument for the humanity of the unborn.
Thaddeus Williams: Yeah. Exactly.
Sean McDowell: So in principle, I don't have a problem with somebody bringing scripture to bear... Publicly as one kind of argument for a position. Now, we as Christians have to also make our case from natural law. We have to make our case from science, not just from scripture. But in principle, if somebody wants to bring that as a part of it, I'm okay with that.
Thaddeus Williams: Yeah.
Sean McDowell: But you're gonna have to make an argument that works, and he's twisting scripture to give there. That's my concern-
Thaddeus Williams: Sure
Sean McDowell: ... More than anything.
Thaddeus Williams: And I would just wanna ask him a basic question. You know, I'd say, you know, "Talerico, James, nice to meet you. What makes you believe you have a right to life and the pre-born image-bearer of God doesn't?" It's that simple.
Sean McDowell: That's a good question.
Thaddeus Williams: It's, because you end up-- now he's, instead of being able to market himself on the right side of history, he's very clearly on the wrong side, where "lebensunwerten Lebens" was a phrase that the Nazis threw around, lives unworthy of living. And whenever that divide is made between these human lives are worth living and these aren't, the people making the distinction always put themselves in the lives worth living category. So I'd wanna ask him point-blank, "Why do you think you personally, James, you have a right to life? Is it you're more sophisticated, like neurologically? Is it you're bigger? Is it a size thing? Is it you have, spatial privileges they don't enjoy because you're independent of a womb?" I'd, I'd love to hear, how he attempts to justify 73 million, murders in 2025 alone at the hands of the very ideology he seems to be endorsing.
Sean McDowell: I'd also like to know-
Thaddeus Williams: So it's a standing offer, James. Welcome. [chuckles]
Sean McDowell: I love it. I also would like to know, if he affirms same-sex marriage, why adults have the right to marry somebody of the same sex and adopt kids, but kids don't have a right to their mom and their dad.
Thaddeus Williams: Yeah.
Sean McDowell: That's a question-
Thaddeus Williams: Great question
Sean McDowell: ... I would like to see answered, but that is for another place and another time. Now, this week you wrote a piece, and it occurred to me that we have not talked about the Epstein files actually at all on the Weekly Cultural Update, as prevalent as they have been, but this is great time with you co-hosting me this week. You have a piece in World Opinions called "Jeffrey Epstein's Descent to Pagan Rome." Now, folks can read it, but, I'm pretty sure everybody knows what's going on, that Jeffrey Epstein has somehow made a ton of money. He's made connections with high people in the government and influence, Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, leaders in the UK, the US government, and was, seems-- the evidence seems to indicate, committed suicide not long ago 'cause he was arrested on so many charges of sex abuse, and the documents are now coming out, and still people are combing through them, and we're seeing the fall culturally for so many people from this. Your piece I think is fascinating, so lay out why you think this actually might unite people in a-
Thaddeus Williams: Yeah
Sean McDowell: ... Movement against evil.
Thaddeus Williams: Yeah, I mean, let's face it, Sean, we're in such a... And it-- I mean, it's just become a cliché to describe our age as polarized, right?
Sean McDowell: [chuckles]
Thaddeus Williams: That we're in kind of like an ideological civil war. It's just like, well, duh. Look around. So, and I've been thinking a lot about this lately, how that polarization has gone so deep that we could watch the same footage and draw polar opposite conclusions. Like think of-
Sean McDowell: That's true
Thaddeus Williams: ... Rene Goode. Some people will see that and see an officer in the act of being run over, defending himself. Other people will see a freedom fighter, mercilessly gunned down by a thug, by the new Gestapo. Like, our differences have transcended just the abstract level and made their way imminently to how our eyeballs interpret the same footage between our retinas and our brains. [chuckles] Like, like we see things fundamentally different. And so in a, in a day and age like this, I think it's so important to, whenever that rare bird comes along of a headline with potential to unite, we need to shout that from the rooftops and say, "Look, for all the 10 million things we disagree on, maybe we can find some common ground. Maybe here, you know, the circles will overlap, and we'll find a shaded area." And I think the Epstein files is one of those, where folks-- I have dear friends on the left and right, and they all seem to be saying the same thing, so far as I can tell, which is transparency, full disclosure, full prosecution for the victimizers, full justice for the victims. And so that had me scratching my head, why? Why does there seem to be some measure, some modicum of unity on the perpetrators, that the patrons of Epstein's island should be prosecuted? And it all clicked for me. I saw a post, he's a culture commentator named Paul Att Lightner, Ann Lightner.
Sean McDowell: Yeah.
Thaddeus Williams: He says it this way. He says, "Here's an uncomfortable truth about the Epstein accusations. We only find them reprehensible because of Christianity." He continues, "Before the spread of Christianity civilized Greek and Roman elites openly flaunted underage sex slaves. This was normal. We've heard for decades that Christianity's a barrier to moral progress, but if you undercut the moral foundations of Christianity from the West, culture reverts back to pagan norms." And I thought that was so brilliant. It was just like he was completing a sentence that I had been forming in my mind, and so that set me off to do some deeper research on this.I found the great historian Tom Holland in his bestseller, Dominion. He documents how in ancient Rome, this is a quote, "Sex was nothing if not an exercise of power. In Rome, men no more hesitated to use slaves and prostitutes to relieve themselves of their sexual needs than they did to use the side of the road as a toilet." Glenn Scrivener, a brilliant historian, wrote a great book I would, endear to our readers called The Air We Breathe, how Christianity is the foundation of s- consent and progress and equality in these things. Glenn Scrivener says, quote, "Our modern concept of sexual abuse would be nonsensical to a freeborn Roman man, since he considered that he held an unquestioned right to the lower status women, children, and prostitutes, and slaves." And so the whole point is, if Epstein was doing what we found out he'd been doing in 1st century Rome, nobody would bat an eye. Nobody would be bent out of shape. It's like, well, duh, that's the way things are done. But it's into [chuckles] that perverse world, Sean, that Christianity came, and with it what I call in the article, the original sexual revolution. So the original Christian sexual revolution, it elevated... It actually liberated women, restrained male lust, protected the young. And so one fascinating case in point of this is, you know, the Greek world had a name for grown men sexualizing young men. Their term was pederastia, which is love for children. And when Christianity came around, they had a new term. They called it paidophthoros. Paidophthoros, which is what it actually is, the destruction of children. And Christians-- So, so again, what we try to do on this show in the weekly update is take whatever the headline is and get at the issues behind the issues. What's the worldview stuff going on under the surface? Because your Christian faith tells you everyone bears God's image, that means everyone has intrinsic rather than just instrumental value.
Sean McDowell: Amen.
Thaddeus Williams: Our Bible tells us men and women were created for complementary, covenantal, life-giving sexual relationships. It tells us that sex is just a s- has a sacred value, not just a stimulatory purpose. It tells us our bodies are homes for God, not just a playground for the amusement of others. It tells us, this is red-letter Jesus here, that those who abuse children should have a millstone fastened to their neck before being cast into the sea in Matthew 18:16. And then you have Paul. I'll, I'll wrap up here soon. [lips smack] But Paul gave these deeply un-Roman commands about mutual consent in the bedroom. And he, and he advanced this revolutionary idea that the husband does not have absolute authority over his or his wife's body. And so you see all the way through, just a resource to commend to our readers, Paul Among the People by an academic named Sarah Ruden. She documents this stuff and shows how Paul is typically stereotyped as the misogynist. He's anti-women. But Sarah Ruden, with careful a- scholarly detail, shows that Paul and Jesus in the New Testament with their core Christian doctrines actually liberated women, actually protected children, actually restrained male lust. So headline being, if you're appalled by what's being revealed all too slowly in the Epstein files, then you have Christianity to thank for that. And Christians listening, let's take this as a moment to be true to our Christian heritage, to stand for justice for the victims, not just of Epstein's Island. You can think of the Diddy scandals. You can think of sex scandals within the church. Christianity has a long history of championing, [lips smack] sex- the sacredness of sex in a way that actually protects people. We need to keep that legacy alive in the 21st century.
Sean McDowell: It's a great timely article, and we'll link to it. But Jeffrey Epstein's descent into pagan Rome. And it's worth asking and thinking about, like if Jeffrey Epstein and we e-e-existed at the time of Jesus in pagan Rome, we could go back in time and see it, there would not be the uproar about his behavior.
Thaddeus Williams: Yeah.
Sean McDowell: He was using power. He was seeking sexual outlets. I mean, we even know that many babies, if, Roman parents didn't want them for whatever reason-
Thaddeus Williams: Yeah. Garbage
Sean McDowell: ... They had the wrong sex or they had a disability, they could just go expose them and allow them to get taken away-
Thaddeus Williams: Yep
Sean McDowell: ... And killed by the wild animals. There would not be the uproar in that culture. And Scrivener and Holland's argument is the reason as a culture we have uproar about this is we have a sexual ethic descending from Jesus.
Thaddeus Williams: Yeah.
Sean McDowell: We believe in the Imago Dei descending from Jesus. We believe to care for those who are powerless-
Thaddeus Williams: The least of these
Sean McDowell: ... In society, the least of these, widows, orphans, children, coming from the ethic of Jesus. That's such a powerful, important point, I think, to draw out. And as I think about it, you know, if I get the opportunity in conversation with people and the topic of Epstein comes up, it's worth even asking, like, "Hey, presumably you think this is messed up. Tell me why. Where, where do you think-
Thaddeus Williams: Yeah. By what standard?
Sean McDowell: ... This idea of things is messed up?" And if somebody's open to it's a wonderful opportunity to point towards the root of why that outrage we feel actually maps onto reality. So great article. Good stuff, man. Grad- glad that you brought it. We're gonna go to some questions, but wanna make sure our audience knows that we'd love to have you come and study with me, Thaddeus, Scott Rae, theology, apologetics, marriageAll Old Testament, New Testament. We have programs in person, we have programs online here at Talbot School of Theology. We are growing, which is really exciting. Love to have you join us. We also have a conference coming up in May 12th to the 14th called Anchored Conference. I will be speaking there, in fact, that Wednesday night, having a conversation with an atheist friend of mine. Would love to have you sign up and be a part of that. Just search Anchored Conference at Talbot, and if you come, make sure you say hi. All right, we got a bunch of questions here, Thaddeus. I'm not sure we'll be able to get to all of these, but here's one that, was from a couple weeks ago. Sometimes we hang onto these when we don't get to them. And this individual wrote in and said, "My wife and I agree that attending a wedding... That by attending a wedding, we're showing support for what is taking place between two people, thus they are against attending the wedding of a same-sex couple as they would a polygamist marrying a second spouse, if that were legal. They would not attend such weddings even if it was a family member." But this person has felt convicted about being more consistent when it comes to attending weddings in general. "In light of his biblically based convictions on same-sex weddings, would it be inconsistent or wrong of me to attend the wedding of a sibling or child who professes to be a Christian, yet is marrying a non-Christian? Would it be a greater good to just go to preserve the familial relationships or skip it due to convictions of being unequally yoked?" This is a really good question. I'd... What, what's your take on this one?
Thaddeus Williams: I'll kick this to you, man. That's-
Sean McDowell: [laughs]
Thaddeus Williams: I have thoughts, but it's-
Sean McDowell: Okay
Thaddeus Williams: ... It's a, it's a tangled web. Yeah.
Sean McDowell: Okay.
Thaddeus Williams: Kick it back.
Sean McDowell: So here's... Fair enough. I will take that, and I won't kick it back to you.
Thaddeus Williams: [laughs]
Sean McDowell: I would say a couple things. I think one of the first questions I ask people when when they raise questions of, say, using preferred pronouns or going to a same-sex wedding, is are we consistent with other issues or just singling out this one? So the call for consistency is really important. Now, there are some differences here that we have to bring up. So a man who's a... Or a woman, an individual who's a Christian marrying a non-Christian is being disobedient before the Lord, but it's actually still a marriage. It's actually still a wedding. Whereas a man marrying a man or a woman, and this is in quotes, "marrying a woman," is actually not marriage. Now, we can act like it's a marriage, we can legally treat it like it's a marriage, we can, give legal sanction to it and allow people to adopt as if it's a marriage, but it's not really a marriage within itself. So it's not actually identical cases together. One is about Christians who are not being faithful to God's call for marriage, but they're getting married. The other is entering into a relationship itself that has been sanctioned by the state, and once they've changed the nature of marriage, then there's implications for kids. So, like, the kids of a same-sex couple, by definition, will grow up without a mom and without a dad, and I think that is an unjust way to bring a kid into the world. And that's different from same-sex couples saying, "We want to adopt to help a child," but that's not the majority of same-sex couples. It's through surrogacy, it is through other means, bringing a child into the world that's both of them. So I think there are differences between the two. They're not exactly analogous, but I still personally, for myself, out of consistency, would have a hard time going and celebrating for a Christian to marry a non-Christian who is in direct disobedience. Now, there's a lot of things I don't know. Does this person say they're a progressive Christian? [laughs] Are they new in their faith? I would wanna go have a conversation with the person because there may possibly be ways to redeem this in a way you can't redeem a same-sex marriage. But I do think this person, for what it's worth for me, it strikes me as an inconsistency we do need to take seriously and make sure we're not singling out one issue and not others.
Thaddeus Williams: Yeah. I think you nail it. I think you're right to call for consistency. I think you're spot on to think about what makes these questions distinct is in a same-sex marriage, if children are on the horizon, then it does by necessity preclude the children's right to a mother and a father.
Sean McDowell: That's right.
Thaddeus Williams: And I think that's something that sets that issue uniquely apart, along with the fundamental definition, what is marriage, which most same-sex marriage proponents will beg the question and say, "Well, it's a romantic union between two consulting... Consenting adults." but again, the minute you bail on the gender complementarity as an essential of what makes marriage marriage, then who's to say... If marriage is purely a social construct, then why is permanence a essential of marriage? Why not have a wed lease where, you know-
Sean McDowell: Great question
Thaddeus Williams: ... We go for a year or two, and then maybe re-up the lease if things are going well? Or why have exclusivity as essential to marriage? Why can't we just say, "You know, we're gonna have an open marriage or a polyamorous relationship"? And so I think there is something unique about same-sex marriage in that it gets at and undermines the very core of the kind of covenant we mean when we say marriage.
Sean McDowell: Good stuff. Yeah, tough question. Okay. So there's one longer question here about an individual who's Protestant, who's wrestling with Catholicism. I'm not gonna go into the details, but they're asking for a resourceMy top resource would be to listen to Gavin Ortlund on YouTube. He's more of a Protestant theologian and specifically addresses each of the issues you're talking about here, such as the Eucharist, Catholic teaching, the papacy. So my only suggestion, and I love his YouTube channel, he's a friend, he's gracious and biblical, is Gavin Ortlund. Do you have any quick resources you'd throw in there for a Protestant-
Thaddeus Williams: Yeah,
Sean McDowell: ... Who's wrestling with this?
Thaddeus Williams: I'm holding one right here, I'm holding one right here in my left hand. This is a, an underrated book. It, it's a little bit old, but it holds up. It's called Reasoning From the Scriptures With Catholics. Reasoning From the Scriptures With Catholics, that's by an old Biola professor of mine, Ron Rhodes.
Sean McDowell: Oh.
Thaddeus Williams: Very helpful-
Sean McDowell: Awesome
Thaddeus Williams: ... Resource. It goes scripture by scripture. At the end of the day, what's driving our questioner on whether to c- to cross the Tiber and join Roman Catholicism, the final decider should be not what you feel, not what your family's saying, but what does scripture say? And Reasoning From the Scriptures With Catholics with Ron Rhodes, do not make any decision [chuckles] about whether or not to become a Catholic until you've read that. And I would add one quick resource, which is James White, a friend of mine and an expert on Roman Catholicism, his book, The Roman Catholic Controversy, or you could just YouTube James White has decades' worth of debates with-
Sean McDowell: He does
Thaddeus Williams: ... Leading Roman Catholic scholars. I know the way the original question was framed, the questioner asked, "Well, it seems like justification, I think maybe the Catholics are on the right track there." I would encourage you, listen to James White, read Ron's read Ron Rhodes, and don't be so quick to cede the ground that, "Oh, the Catholics got justification right," 'cause I think that really is the issue behind the issue behind the issue. And I think, salvation by grace alone through faith alone is a first-tier issue. So I'd encourage you to read the resources on that, because I think at the end of the day, the gospel, is at stake.
Sean McDowell: Love it. Great response. That's such a good resource. I'm glad you thought of that. There's one question, I'll just give some quick comments on this. We'll... And this individual says, "With the rise of AI technology, do you see any part that AI might play in the end times, such as in the rise of the Antichrist or with the mark of the beast?" Let me just say, with every new technology-
Thaddeus Williams: [laughs]
Sean McDowell: ... This question comes up.
Thaddeus Williams: Yep.
Sean McDowell: So put a serious pause on it. Now, one of the things I've done on my YouTube channel is what I call this series of difficult Bible passages, and I bring on Talbot faculty every Sunday, about eight to 10-minute videos. So who are the spirits in prison in 1 Peter chapter 3? What's the thorn in the flesh? I had Cad- Ken Berning, the world expert, to talk about this. What's the unforgivable sin? We talked about that. And Alan Holberg teaches the class on Revelation at Talbot, and we did five of the biggest questions [chuckles] from Revelation. One is the identity of the Antichrist. Another one is what is the mark of the beast. Have not posted them yet, but for a very thoughtful, biblically based response, we gotta get those questions right before we bring AI into the mix. Just check that out. They drop on Sundays. That'll be over the next few weeks. That's the best I could do on this angle as far as [chuckles] how AI plays into the mark of the beast. Thaddeus, always fun to have you, my friend. Great insights.
Thaddeus Williams: So fun.
Sean McDowell: We'll do it again.
Thaddeus Williams: Good times, unless the AI Antichrist-
Sean McDowell: [laughs]
Thaddeus Williams: ... Overtakes the world and we're unable to. [laughs] No, I'm just kidding. To whoever that questioner is, we love you.
Sean McDowell: [laughs]
Thaddeus Williams: Don't do newspaper theology. Take the Bible on its own authority, not reading Revelation with one hand and a newspaper in the other, and, go with what God says first.
Sean McDowell: Good word, man. Amen. That's a great one to stop on. This has been an episode of the podcast Think Biblically: Conversations on Faith and Culture, brought to you by Talbot School of Theology, Biola University, where both Thaddeus and myself and Scott Rae teach. We have master's programs, like I mentioned before, theology, Bible, apologetics, spiritual formation, and more. Part-time, full-time, online, in person. To submit comments or ask questions, please email us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu. Give us a rating on your podcast app. Every one helps. And please consider sharing this episode with a friend. We appreciate you listening, and we will see you Tuesday when our regular episode airs. In the meantime, remember to think biblically about everything. [outro music]
