This week:

UK Revival Claims Questioned: A new Pew Research study challenges recent claims of spiritual revival among young adults in the UK, suggesting that opt-in surveys may be misleading and random sampling shows Christian identification is actually declining, not increasing.

Social Media Child Safety: Social media giants face a landmark legal case regarding child safety, raising important questions about platform accountability and the protection of minors online.

Posthumous Sperm Retrieval Ethics: Families of slain Israeli soldiers in Gaza are retrieving sperm from their bodies for posthumous reproduction, sparking complex ethical discussions about consent, grief, and reproductive technology.

Harry Potter Generation Politics: The Harry Potter generation is being called to rethink their politics as they mature into adulthood.

Keeping Marriage Strong Forever: Listener Q&A addresses keeping marriages strong over decades with advice to never stop working on your relationship and consider having more children.

Biblical Response to Tragedy: A nurse in Minnesota asks how to biblically process the tragic events surrounding ICE enforcement, including the death of Alex Pretti.




Episode Transcript

Sean McDowell: [upbeat music] Is there a revival among young adults in the UK? A new study brings clarity. Does the Harry Potter generation need to grow up and rethink their politics? Social media giants face a landmark case regarding child safety, and families of slain Israeli soldiers in Gaza are retrieving sperm from their bodies. Is this ethical and a sign of what's yet to come? These are the stories we'll discuss, and we'll also take some of your questions. I'm your host, Sean McDowell.

Scott Rae: And 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, we've got some fun and bizarre stories this week to discuss.

Scott Rae: Sean-

Sean McDowell: I'm really eager. [chuckles]

Scott Rae: Yeah, we can't, we can't make it up as good as it happens in real life.

Sean McDowell: Oh! Oh, man, this last one in particular, but I'm getting ahead of myself. This first one I think is really timely, because the last two or three years, people have been talking about a revival or a so-called revival in the UK and in the US-

Scott Rae: Well, and we...

Sean McDowell: Especially-

Scott Rae: And, and, yeah,

Sean McDowell: Yeah

Scott Rae: ... And we've reported on it, too.

Sean McDowell: And we have. We've covered it, and I've done talks on this, so this is an ongoing theme that's really been a big piece of conversation in the church. Well, this week, Pew, Research released an article saying that this narrative seems to be misleading, that there's a resurgence among young adults in spiritual interest. So what they point towards is they kind of critique what are called opt-in studies, and these are studies where people can choose to opt in and sometimes get something positive for doing so, maybe like a Starbucks card. And they argue that they're just not statistically reliable, and they're self-selective. Now, you know I'm a stat guy, so I won't walk through all the stats here, but this article [chuckles] has, like, five or six studies from Christian organizations going back to about 2020, suggesting that Bible reading, church attendance, Christian identification has grown among 18 to 24-year-olds in Britain over that time. But they say in this article, it's not the whole story. So they actually say that based on random samples, Christian identity and practice are not increasing. In fact, they point towards what's called the Labor Force Survey, that in 2025, 44% of adults in Britain identified as Christians in this survey, down from 54% in 2018. So they argue it's actually the reverse, and there's been a drop if it's random, and we assess Christian identification. Now, with the younger generation, 18 to 34, 28% identified as Christian in the summer '25, down from 37%. So bottom line is they are skeptical of these kinds of trends. One thing they pointed out is they said it might be possible that now large language models, LLMs, could even be atta- adapted with AI to take these surveys as if they're really people and taint the data. So what do you make of this? What, what's your take on this trend in this article?

Scott Rae: Well, Sean, it may be that, you know, we've talked in the past about, AI and its impact on what we see visually, you know, and seeing is no longer believing. Well, it may be that, you know, studies show, you know, [chuckles] may not be the drop-the-mic argument that it's been in the past. I think the question for me is, Sean, are these types of opt-in surveys as biased as the article maintains? And are they that different from random sampling survey? Now, the latter, it would seem to suggest, yes, they are a bit different. And I agree, the, you know, the large language models can be programmed to take these surveys is very troubling. And I think the opt-in surveys, I can see where they might appear to be biased in favor of the recipients who are responding to the invitation to opt in to the survey. Now, we have a good friend. He's on the Biola board. He's... I think you- he was a Biola student around the same time you were, if I remember right. Um-

Sean McDowell: We were in the same dorm room, by the way.

Scott Rae: [laughing] So you know him very well, David Kinnaman, who's the president of Barna Research. I s- I sent him this article, just, a little while ago, and it turns out he's had a, you know, you know, an ongoing conversation with the author of this piece, that appeared in Pew Research. Here's what... Here's, he gave me, he gave me permission to quote from his response to the article. He said, "On the question of what is really happening spiritually, our team and I are in close proximity to thousands of faith leaders every year, who, quite independent from our research findings, are describing meaningful, positive changes in their attendance and engagement, especially among young people. We are hearing this in spades via our clients, churches, campus ministries, media leaders, publishers, and more. In my three decades at Barna, I've never seen anything quite like it, a sparkle in the eyes of leaders who routinely describe their excitement at the current spiritually open moment they are experiencing with real people." I found that really helpful, Sean, that, you know, they have... This, this would be lots of qual- you know, qualitative research, that they've been doing. It's not, it's not surveys, it's not quite the same thing, but they are- they have been gathering data on this since, at least since 2020, and are noticing a s- a s- a n- a not insignificant increase in the level of church attendance and spiritual commitment.... So I'd wanna take that for what it's worth. And I think that counts for a lot, that the access they have to faith leaders, you know, of all sorts in various domains, around the world.

Sean McDowell: I think there's something to the difference between these opt-in surveys and the random surveys. So that's a fair distinction to draw. But if you have opt-in surveys, and you have years of them, and the trends change, that seems to indicate, at least minimally, that a whole lot of people believe that there's a shift in this generation, which is, minimally telling us that people sense that something different is going on today. So if they only had opt-in surveys from one year and different ones, I'd be skeptical. But given that they've seen changes over time going back at least to 2020, that's enough to get attention. I did a, an interview on YouTube, didn't post it here, probably a week or two after the assassination of Charlie Kirk with Allie Beth Stuckey and asked her if she thought a revival was going on. And we both agreed that it's still too soon to really know. We've gotta give this some time. And so we wanna rush in, and I think some Christians, we've gotten ahead of ourselves outside of the number and relied solely upon anecdotes. We've gotta give this six more months, a year, three years, five years, and then we can really see, is it like 9/11, where there was a bump? Is there not even a bump? We still need more time to really assess this. I do think, you know, given that I've done this about 25 years, minimally, we know the conversation has shifted from the days of the new atheists. There's an interest in psychedelics. There's an interest in New Age. There is... Some of the leading figures today have an openness to faith that didn't so much in the past. We've seen high-profile conversions. So I do think something is happening in this moment. Whether or not we can call it revival, I can't assess that, and apparently, the numbers are not significant enough to prove that. But I do think the conversation is shifting, and as I talk to pastors and talk to young people, I sense an openness and a vigor in this moment, that is different from what I've sensed in the past.

Scott Rae: And I think that's right. A, an uptick and a revival are two different things. And we should- we shouldn't confuse those. I will say, at least our friend David Kinnaman with Barna has... He, you know, he also pointed out that they have, they have quotas in, as a part of their opt-in surveys to ensure that they don't get too many people representing the s- the same viewpoint or the s- the same, type of thing. So they do, they do have some guardrails around the opt-in survey to make it as objective as they can.

Sean McDowell: That's good, and the key point is, it's not like they haven't thought about this and aren't building in metrics to try to minimize it. Last thing I'll say is one thing, you think I like numbers, Scott. My dad loved studies and research, and he'd always say to me, he'd say, "Son, you can't rely on one study, can't rely on two. You need multiple studies and bring them together, 'cause they have different methodologies. They're asking different questions. They have different sample sizes." That's the best way to get a sense of what's going on here, and I still think we're somewhat early with the data. All right, this next story you sent me, I think it's interesting because it's about millennials and Gen Z-ers, and neither of us are a millennial or a-

Scott Rae: [chuckles]

Sean McDowell: ... Gen Z-

Scott Rae: That's true

Sean McDowell: -even though our kids are. And the author I don't wanna miss, even though this is in the New York Times, it's by Louise Perry, and it's kind of written about millennials that she calls the Harry Potter generation. But she actually really shifted from kind of critiquing the sexual revolution to becoming a Christian recently. Her journey is not in this article, but it's absolutely fascinating that she wrote this. And the title is "The Harry Potter Generation Needs to Grow Up." And she just says a few things. She says, "It's been 20 years almost since the final Harry Potter book was released. The franchise is waning, but still, like, the 2023 video game topped 40 million sales, and HBO is working on a TV adaptation of the book." So it hasn't disappeared, but her point is that there's something about the story that captures a worldview, and the stories are very much a product of what she calls the 1990s liberalism. And yet today, she says Zoomers are falling out of favor with the worldview behind the Harry Potter generation. So she says, for example, "In the wizarding world, good people are easy to spot 'cause they're committed to liberal virtues like tolerance, free speech, and nonviolence. The small number of ethnic minority characters are absorbed within a cheerfully colorblind society, but a grand metaphor for racism," she talks about, is, you know, be- with this pureblood wizardry whose ancestors were exclusively magical rather than Muggle. So she's kind of drawing out the worldview that's behind this. She said, "Harry Potter both reflected and reinforced the politics of readers who came of age during the post-war liberal era." So interestingly, she's arguing that these books reflect the era but also taught and advanced it, because there's debates about whether media reflects or shapes, and she's kind of saying in this case, it does both. Now, she contrasts that, and I'm a generation before this, but I remember the tolerance, liberalism, live-and-let-live vibe of the '90s is reflected in that. She says, "Zoomers, or Gen Z, are forged in a very different world, a generation that came of age under the global financial crisis of 2008, long periods of stagnant wages and declining stability. Their generation has barely known an optimistic period of politics," for example.... So it just kind of, they've been raised in a very different state of upheaval that's forged them. And so the optimism within Harry Pot- the Harry Potter universe, she says, doesn't really land in today's, environment anymore. So one interesting point she point out is that in Harry Potter, the good guys do not deliberately kill, and yet what's fascinating is after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, there were so many leftists responding to what she says with just kind of an indifference bordering on glee. It's like there's been a shift how we deal with those who view the world differently. Rather than tolerating them, we annihilate them. Last thing she kind of says, I'd love your thoughts on this, first Harry Potter book published in 1997, and, the, one of the theme songs that year was "Things Can Only Get Better," which was the [chuckles] Tony Blair's Labour Party anthem. And there's kind of a nostalgia for the '90s when people had this positive vibe that liberalism will triumph over the forces of evil, but young people just don't feel that anymore, hence the appeal to socialism, the appeal to antisemitism. We've just shifted, and the Harry Potter generation, Harry Potter no longer represents a new generation. What'd you think about reading this piece?

Scott Rae: Well, Sean, I was thrilled that the idea of worldview came up in a New York Times editorial.

Sean McDowell: All right.

Scott Rae: I think that's a good sign. And the, yeah, I think you captured the big idea of the piece just right, that the Harry Potter story captures a worldview that is no longer attractive to young people who've been jaded by the experience of economic decline, political polarization, and identity politics. And I love the way the article puts it: "They've fallen out of love with Harry Potter because they've fallen out of love with the worldview that the series represents." Now, here's the question. They, they say that the young people have fallen out of love with liberalism, but I wanna make sure we're clear on what we mean by the term liberalism. And I've, I've read this maybe a little bit differently than you might have, 'cause in my view, liberalism does not necessarily mean leftism.

Sean McDowell: I agree.

Scott Rae: And, and it goes... It, actually, the article actually goes back and forth between left-of-center political liberalism and what is commonly known as the classic liberal tradition of the American founders. Things like individual rights, democracy, market capitalism, limited government, liberty, freedom, tolerance, free speech, equality. There are some leftist emphases that appear, like nonviolence. Antisemitism also appears, and I would say, the m- the main, one of the main things that sort of sealed Gen Z's rejection of Harry Potter was when J.K. Rowling came out with her stand against, trans, you know, the trans movement. And I, you know, I can s- but I c- I actually, I commend her for that, and I think she was one of the first ones to speak out against what we would call the trans wave that swept Europe and the United States. Now, Sean, I wanna be, I wanna be clear on this. I think today there are serious questions being raised about the future of the classic tradition of liberal democracy and capitalism, both at the popular and the academic levels. For example, some Catholic scholars, such as Patrick Deneen, have written on this extensively. His book called Why Liberalism Failed, and his other book, Regime Change: Toward a Post-Liberal Future, both have, you know, d- sort of dire predictions for the traditions of the West that have made the West the engine of freedom and prosperity and democracy that it's been for at least the last two to th- two to 300 years. And I would suggest, You know, I d- I don't share the current skepticism about the viability of our democratic institutions, but I do recognize their fragility. And I think, I think they're, in the last decade or so, I think they've, they've been tested, and I think, I think they've held, but they've been tested like they never have been before. And, you know, the American founders, I think, recognized important biblical principles that were just part of the air that people were breathing at the time of the Founding, such as people being made by their Creator in the image of God, which is the foundation for our notion of individual rights and religious liberty and rights of conscience, and the fallen-ness of humanity, you know, the crooked timber of humanity, as they describe it, which gives us our notions of limited government and checks and balances within the constitutional system. Commitment to the common good, the notion of private property that emanates from the notion of the, you know, the sixth commandment of thou, "Thou shalt not steal." those were all... You know, it's not clear to me that all the founders embraced Christian faith. I don't, I don't think that's true. But they embraced, I think, some of these principles that were just-- they were part of the water supply, during the American Founding, and I think those principles are still necessary for the kind of freedom and flourishing and prosperity that we want to enjoy in the future. And this is the question that, you know, Nietzsche raised originally, our friend Os Guinness has raised it again.... Is it can, you know, can the traditions of sort of the classic liberal tradition survive if they've been cut off from their theological roots? And I'm, I'm still somewhat optimistic about that, though I do, I do think Nietzsche was right about calling the West a cut flower civilization. I think that is accurate. And I think the question our friend Os Guinness raises is, will the West recover some of those roots, or will they move further away from the traditions, I think, that made the West as great as it's been?

Sean McDowell: That's a great way to frame it, the difference between liberalism... And I actually did pick up on that. There were some progressive ideas that were assumedly behind some of the worldview, or at least the attraction to Harry Potter for a generation. But then there's certain classically liberal ideas that I remember being in high school in the '90s [chuckles] it was like my dad wrote a book on tolerance, and everything was tolerate. Now it's kind of like tolerance is a passe virtue. We are very quick to judge. We are very quick to call out evil, in some ways tells me we are not even in a relativistic age at all.

Scott Rae: Absolutely not. We, we are-

Sean McDowell: We are quick to shame.

Scott Rae: That's a thing of the past.

Sean McDowell: I totally agree with that. Now, there's two things that jumped out with me. You know, some-- there are certainly... We all have stories that capture and define our generation, right? For me, it was more Star Wars, kinda came of age with Star Wars, and there's a worldview and a belief system behind Star Wars. Obviously, there's a lot of World War II and some of the Nazi [chuckles] ideas behind, you know, the resistance against that we see in Star Wars. But there's also certain transcendent things that I think will always appeal to a generation. So a part of this article is, gone is the idea at the end where children had the ability to identify and vanquish evil. I'm not quite as confident to say that maybe as universally as she does, because one of the popular shows that just finished, Stranger Things, was a very popular show with Gen Z. And it really was about kids [chuckles] who rose up, and there's a cop, of course, there's a mom, but it was really driven by kids who start at, like, 10 to 12 end up as high school students, saving the universe or at least the world from evil. You know, when I was a kid, that show was kind of like Goonies. Goonies can go out-

Scott Rae: Mm-hmm

Sean McDowell: ... And save the day and be the heroes. So I think there's just something transcendent about that. The one thing she did point out, though, with Zoomers in particular, that shapes some of their worldview, is the lack of a collective memory of certain experiences. So some of these, what are called Groypers, G-R-O-Y-P-E-R-S, and some of the... I think this has been labeled by Nick Fuentes, who identifies as Catholic, but he is an online, mega popular, really admittedly racist and anti-Semite, amongst other misogynist views that he holds. This term Groyper, is one that he has utilized specifically, and the question is, like, how prevalent is that within the generation? How widespread is that, and how many people hold those views? There's no memory of those in World War II. Like, my grandpa served in World War II. I had a conversation with him, and so there's not a memory with this generation, like a living memory or an experience with them that informs their worldview, and I think that's some of the draw. You and I have talked about socialism. There's no memory of just seeing what it was like in Russia under communism and socialism, and so these ideas come back because there's no collective memory of it, and we see them reflected in our stories. I think that's really kind of one of the couple key pieces that she's drawing out here.

Scott Rae: And we're-

Sean McDowell: Anything else from this one?

Scott Rae: Well, and we're, we're even losing memory of the Holocaust.

Sean McDowell: We are.

Scott Rae: God forbid. And, yeah, and Sean, just to show the age difference between you and me, my dad served in World War II. [chuckles]

Sean McDowell: Your dad? [laughing] Okay. Amazing.

Scott Rae: Yeah.

Sean McDowell: That's incredible. I love that. Well, this next one is actually a really big story that's going on, this week, and it's actually gonna be covered over the next six to eight weeks, because starting this week, it was actually on Tuesday, there's a series of trials testing a new legal strategy claiming that Meta, Facebook, of course, TikTok, Snapchat, and YouTube caused personal injury through their addictive products. Now, I read this in The New York Times, but this is covered in the BBC. Al Jazeera picked this up. This is a really big story from this week, and part of what's happening is, it's a question is: Are social media apps addictive like cigarettes? That's the heart of the question. So the claim is being made that it's an inherently defective product built to cause addiction, and responsibility rests at the social media creators. And so there-- this year, there's gonna be a series of trials where teenagers, school districts, and state laws have filed thousands of lawsuits accusing social media titans of designing platforms that encourage excessive use by millions of young Americans, that's the key, leading to personal injury and other harms. And again, Tuesday is the first one of somebody who's now 20-year-old Californian, going by the initials KGM, filed this lawsuit, and the case is supposed to take about six to eight-... Weeks. And some of the elements are, if there's a win here, could this open up the door for more lawsuits from millions of social media users, leading to massive monetary damage and changes to social media sites? Very interestingly, both TikTok and Snap, which owns Snapchat, settled with KGM, again, the individual who is leading this initial lawsuit, for an undisclosed amount. So already there seems to be some concession, that is being made by at least two of these major, social media platforms. This big tobacco comparison is really fascinating, Scott. In, in 1998, you know, some of these companies were accused in big tobacco of hiding information about the harms of cigarettes, and in 1998, the companies reached a two hundred and six billion major settlement with forty states that led to an agreement to stop underage marketing. Now, also, what happened from that is-- and I don't remember the timeline in this, but we started getting smoking out of the back of planes, out of restaurants, and there was a certain social taboo that began to develop around smoking. And so that raises the same questions. If these lawsuits go through, will we see the same kind of social taboo develop from this? And by the way, one key point that's fascinating here is KGM created a YouTube account at eight years old, joined Instagram at nine, and what-- and TikTok at ten years old, and Snapchat at eleven. So it also raises questions, where are parents? Where's the responsibility of parents? But ethically and biblically, what do you, what do you make sense of a trial like this?

Scott Rae: Well, Sean, we've been talking about product liability in business ethics. That's sort of a standard theme that we talk about all the time, and we have a couple class sessions in our, in our course on product liability, and what it involves. And there are, there are a handful of really classic cases in this. The... You mentioned one, tobacco, the Ford Pinto with the exploding gas tank-

Sean McDowell: Oh

Scott Rae: ... On rear end impact, and then the McDonald's coffee case-

Sean McDowell: Yeah

Scott Rae: ... Where the woman spilled hot coffee in her lap and had to have skin grafts and all kinds of things. And this, I think this will likely be the next landmark case in product- ... Liability, both ethics and law. And the charges that it's addictive, it causes tangible harms, and is a public nuisance. Now, that was, that last part wasn't a part of the tobacco suit, but the first two clearly were. You know, although the tangible harms are more mental health as opposed to physical health, such as anxiety, depression, body image issues, eating disorders, and even, you know, and even in some cases, it's been linked to s- to suicides. And you're right, some have settled. And regard... I think regardless of how, of how this is handled, the precedent will be set, and there will be a lot of other dominoes to fall in this. And of course, the whole product liability is based on a principle that actually comes out of the scriptures, out of the Mosaic law, the obligation of compensation to those whose injuries that you cause. Basically, almost all of Exodus twenty-one and twenty-two is about compensation for various types of injuries caused in various types of circumstances. Now, our law takes this a little bit further and also issues punitive damages to send a message to companies about the seriousness of what, of what they have done. Now, here, Sean, just, for our audience who may not be familiar with this area in general, for a product liability lawsuit to be successful, the plaintiffs have to show that the manufacturer was aware of or could be reasonably expected to be aware of the harms and proceeded anyway. However, in some states, it's a minority, but California is one of them, they operate under what's called a strict liability protocol, which means that companies are liable for the harm that their products bring, so period, end of story. Regardless of the intent, regardless of whether they could have foreseen it or not, whether they knew about it or not, whether it's foreseeable or not, whether the consumer misused the product or not, is all beside the point, which I think is significant that these lawsuits were filed in California, that adheres to that strict liability standard. Now, here in my mind, Sean, the key issue here is the platform the product, or does it only facilitate the product, which is the free speech of the participants? In the past, these companies appear to have separated these things by virtue of making what they call their free speech defense. The plaintiffs will argue is that they knew about the addictive element of the platform itself and the algorithms- ... That are inherent in it, and went ahead anyway, despite documented objections and pleadings from employees not to go forward with some of these. So that, I think that distinction, whether the platform is the product or not, I think will be one of the key things that the courts will have to decide.

Sean McDowell: Seems to me, in principle, if you don't pay for something, you are the product. [chuckles] On social media, we are the product. Our information, our time that we spend on it makes us the product, but of course, they're gonna have to, you know, articulate and make that case legally that it, that it's true.... W- I'm curious what you think is the best-case scenario here. Because there's part of me that wants to say, "Shut this down, end it, for the health of our kids." I think the link between using this and mental health is pretty clear. That's come out over the past few years, and of course, we're gonna have to show how much some of these platforms knew that and were aware of that and proceeded anyways. And I suspect memos are gonna come out and evidence that's very clear that they just ignored this. I'd kind of be shocked if it doesn't. So I don't wanna go too draconian because I believe in liberty and rights, and there are some positive things on social media. So it seems to me the last line of this individual, Ms. Arnold, says, she says, "These trials are now our hope for the world to see how dangerous these social media platforms are." That would be a huge win. Let's just get all the conversation behind the scene. Let's get the data out there, and let the world see how much this really affects the social image of young people. Let's see how much this creates eating disorders. Let's see the effects of it and have a public conversation about whether this is good or right or bad and what healthy boundaries are. You know, one positive thing we've seen in schools, now it's becoming the norm for schools to have cell phone-free spaces. That is a positive that has come out of this. I suspect that's just the beginning. So what do you see would be a big win, you know, six or eight weeks coming out on this?

Scott Rae: Well, Sean, I would, I would wanna look at it from a little bit longer-term perspective here-

Sean McDowell: Okay

Scott Rae: ... And take the tobacco analogy. Because w- I think what made the tobacco companies inclined to settle for this outrageous amount that they did, although I think it was appropriate, it was just a huge amount, was that education on the dangers of smoking had been going on for some time. And the ti- the tide of public opinion had been t- basically turned against tobacco use, and I think the companies had no choice but to settle for this. Otherwise, they were gonna be, they were gonna be out of business. And they put pretty significant restrictions on themselves as part of the settlement. They refused-- they stopped marketing to kids. You know, they ackno- they, you know, they acknowledged some of the dangers. I don't think they... I'm not clear-- I don't remember if they ever acknowledged that it was addictive, but I think for both for tobacco and for social media, that point, I think, is sort of beyond dispute, for both of them. So I think, well, I think in the longer term, I'm not anticipating anything significant in the next six to eight weeks. I think the trials are likely to go on for some time longer than that.

Sean McDowell: Yeah.

Scott Rae: But I think the education part on social media is just, you know, I think is just picking up momentum now, with Jonathan Haidt's publication of The Anxious Generation. That, I think, was what really jumpstarted the public education on this. And I think the education part has a bit longer ways to go before the social media companies will see some of the same things that the tobacco companies did.

Sean McDowell: The hard part, of course, is there's kind of a one-to-one correlation between tobacco, the effects on your lungs, and lung cancer. We can see it. It's purely a physical mechanism. But when we talk about anxiety and depression and loneliness, there's a whole bunch of other factors that contribute to this. Healthy relationships that you have, your self-image, maybe how you eat and you exercise. There's other factors that come into this, that it's harder and harder to show the direct effects of A to Z in social media as it is for cancer. It's almost closer to, like, second-hand smoke on some level. "Okay, how much does this affect me? How much does it take?" It feels that that's the trick in establishing this, that I think you're right, that they can show it, and the evidence is there. But the other piece for me is, like, I have to ask, why was this kid allowed to get a YouTube channel at eight years old? Why is this KGM who's suing these social media platforms at nine and ten and 11 years old just allowed to be on all of these social media platforms? I mean, what responsibility do they really have when the parents are not doing their job to parent? That's the other piece about this I don't really know exactly how to settle.

Scott Rae: Well, you-- what you raised, the first point you raised is, has to do with compensation, and the court will address how, what are the damages? What, what are the quantifiable damages that have been produced, and how will the companies compensate them for that if we have difficulty putting a quantifiable number on the damages that are produced? That was different. Lung cancer, you could, you could quantify it in terms of the treatment, life expectancy, you know, years of life lost, things like that. This is a little harder to do that with the, with the social media damages.

Sean McDowell: It is, yeah. I think that's right. You know, I think as Christians, and I think natural law, you can make this case, that parents have the first responsibility with their kids. We are the ones, so if it's ruled that there is some culpability here for these social media platforms, that doesn't get parents off the hook. You know, biblically, it's the family, it's the church, and then there are governing institutions that play a role, but family and church are primary.... And so, you know, we can't just [chuckles] blame social media companies, especially when a kid is allowed to get on this at eight, nine, and ten years old. I just wanna hear some of that backstory personally. All right, this last one, Scott, you sent this to me. I would not have probably seen this one-

Scott Rae: [chuckles]

Sean McDowell: -but absolutely fascinating, 'cause I think you're gonna come back to this, but you served on a case tied to this, which makes it really interesting. But this was in NPR Middle East, and it says, "About a quarter of Israeli soldiers killed in the war in Gaza had their sperm retrieved after death." and they're, they ask this individual, who heads one of the sperm banks, "How many sperm samples do you have in these four vats?" He said about 10,000. 10,000! Now, specifically tied to the soldiers, about a quarter of the soldiers killed, again, had sperm retrieved from their bodies. In total, that's around 250 soldiers and security officers. And this doctor in the article did many of the surgical procedures himself. One of the stories in here that was just jarring to me is, "The army became efficient in bringing us corpses very efficiently." They had s- they had several hours of time after death, I think they said about 72 hours after a man dies, where his sperm can be retrieved. So many families have retrieved the sperm to be able to birth children with it, and this practice was rare until October 7th. And so in some ways, they say, people started moving forward, as often happens with the practice, before the ethical reflection on it. And it raised the question that they cite in this article: Should a dead man be allowed to become a father? Now, one of the things driving this in Israel is you and I have talked a lot about the birth dearth, the crisis of enough babies. Israel is, like, close to three, which is way higher per woman than the norm, and so there's a built-in commitment and value, especially after the Holocaust, of childbirth, that sets it apart from many other, nations in the world. This one story, this individual says, "The same officer who read the terrible news about the death of their 19-year-old son also explained that the sperm can be retrieved from this individual." So you have somebody show up at your door, tell you that your son had died, and then also in the same conversation, you have to make the ethical decision whether you keep the sperm or not. So clearly, just the situation in itself is not one of, like, sober reflection [chuckles] and thought. You're filled with grief and emotion in that moment, doing anything presumably you can think of, you know, to keep that remembrance alive. All right, so much more can be said here, but jump in-

Scott Rae: Yeah, well, here's-

Sean McDowell: Give me your thoughts.

Scott Rae: I did consult on a case like this, not in Israel, but at a Catholic hospital in the area. And I have to admit, it was a circus. Uh- ... This was a former, a former NFL player. I don't know who, I don't know his name. Brain dead from a head injury in a car accident. His father authorized organ donation since he w- he was in his 30s when he died and had lots of healthy organs. But at the last minute, in the middle of the night, his estranged wife shows up and presses the father to authorise her to harvest his sperm, and he agreed to it. Now, I'm not sure what she did with it, and in the US, Sean, roughly half the people who authorise sperm retrieval end up not doing anything with it.

Sean McDowell: Okay.

Scott Rae: We specul- we speculated that she wanted to have his child to give her access to his considerable estate. And so why the father agreed to that, I don't have any idea. We ended up... To make a long story short, we ended up, you know, our ethics committee sent a letter to the legislature in California, urging them to restrict this practice unless the deceased person had given prior consent. And that we, in our view, he had the right not to become a father without his consent, and I think that principle should still hold today. Israeli soldiers who want to be able to give consent, sometimes they don't, and the reason they don't, the article points out, is that they wouldn't want their children to grow up without their biological father. And what troubles me about this, Sean, is that in one of these instances, I think the 19-year-old you described, they... He, he wanted- he was single and wanted, always wanted to have children, and authorised his to give- to donate his sperm to a single woman who would raise the child by herself. And what troubles me about this is the intentional creation of no-dad families. [lip smack] And I think it's-- this is not about the rights of the spouse or the grandparent, it's about the interests of the child first and foremost. And I think it might be a little bit different if the child grows up in a real tight, extended family, where they've got, you know, gr- lots of grandparents, aunts and uncles involved in their lives significantly. I'm willing to admit that might be a little different. But the int- you know, for the most part, I think the mom is gonna end up raising that child, for the most part, by herself, with the assistance of extended family. But those are not... I think you'd agree with me, those are not a substitute for a dad who's married to the mom, in the home all the time, and around the child. So that's the, that's the part that I think is really troubling about this, and I don't like the idea of, deceased people becoming fathers without their prior consent.

Sean McDowell: I agree with you on the idea of deceased, people becoming fathers without their consent, but I'd take it a little step further. I would say, in principle, I have an issue with some- with a child intentionally being brought into the world without a father. There's a big difference between losing a father or somebody who's already pregnant and how we navigate that, and intentionally using technology of somebody who's passed away, whether they want it or not, and bringing a child into the world without this biological father. That seems to me to just firmly violate God's creation account and norm, that kids are brought into the world by a mom and a dad. And so what's driving this? I think you see a number of times in this article, this individual says, "For the future, we must create the process which will take their desires into account." That's the desires ahead of time of these men who die, and then their sperm is retrieved. What I wanna say is, what about the desires of the child? [chuckles] We're thinking about what the parents want, and our friend Katie Foust, who we've had on the show, I think, a couple times, has a whole movement called Them Before Us, and she argues that so much of our policies, so much of our ethical positions, so much of our... The government positions we take are for the desires of adults. But if we shifted around and just say, "What is for the good of a child?" Is it good for a child to be cultivated outside the womb of a mom, intentionally brought into the world, knowing the father will never be present? I would just, in principle, take issue with that. And aside from this, with Take Us Aside, you and I, we've talked about this. [chuckles] We had a friendly debate maybe a year ago on IVF. Just the idea of using these technologies outside of God's design for sex itself, because I have more of a theology of embodiment. I have an in principle with the desire behind it, like I mentioned, but also the technology itself, I would have concern with. I could keep going, but I think I've expressed my reservation. Let's shift from the desires of what adults want to the desires of what kids want, and need, and deserve, and I think we would approach these questions very differently.

Scott Rae: Well, I, although we-- I certainly agree-- I agree with all of that. We have- ... We have a slight difference on some of the technological parts.

Sean McDowell: Sure.

Scott Rae: But, I do think children have a right to a mom and a dad, and the intentional creation of no-dad families, is really troubling to me about this.

Sean McDowell: I think that's the key that you and I 100% agree upon. So the compassion that we have for somebody who wanted to have kids, who sacrificed their life at 19 years old, defending Israel, cannot override what's morally right and objectively best for that child. It just can't do it, and it's hard in this case because our hearts are [chuckles] ripped out, and we're being driven by compassion, where in this case, I think that's a misguided compassion. But-

Scott Rae: Yeah, let me just-

Sean McDowell: That's how I see it.

Scott Rae: Yeah, just one little clarifying part. I don't have a problem with single women adopting kids- ... Especially from overseas. I think in a, you know, in a fallen world, s- we have-- sometimes we have to say that some options are just better than others, even though they might not be ideal. So I've got, I've got good friends who they've adopted from overseas as single women. And I think taking these kids out of these terrible situations that they were in overseas, in orphanages, where they were basically being ignored, and giving them one parent is better than giving them none. So I would, I would be supportive of that as a, you know, and as a less than ideal, but better than, better than the other options.

Sean McDowell: And of course, once a human being exists, we only have so many options to help this individual. That's different than creating a human being-

Scott Rae: Correct

Sean McDowell: ... With sperm from somebody who's died. That's the ethical distinction that's there, so I agree with your clause. I think that's, that's well said. All right, we got some great questions here, Scott. This individual says: "I'm 26, doubted Christianity significantly during college, but I'm still a Christian today, and my parents were a large part of that spiritual formation. They homeschooled me, ensured church participation, supported me going to Summit Ministries of our friend Jeff Myers. My mom was rocked during my season of doubt as my faith hung by a thread. But for the last six-plus years, my parents haven't been attending church. They attend it every so often, but they aren't committed. Though still practicing some spiritual disciplines, it feels like they are apathetic towards spiritual matters. Having many conversations about this and not seeing change over the years, I'm discouraged. Though I've been in active prayer for them, is there any advice that you can give?"

Scott Rae: Sean, my best advice would be to model taking your faith seriously yourself. Model that for your parents, and ultimately, at the end of the day, trust in God's Spirit to bring about their spiritual renewal. I do sort of wonder what the conversations might be like-

Sean McDowell: Me too

Scott Rae: ... If he's trying, if he's trying to understand and listen to what's changed, or if it comes across as more confrontational, more in your face. I've... Just my experience with kids and parents on that is that parents tend not to respond as well to a confrontational approach. So if, I think if he's genuinely trying to understand and to listen and to get a grip on, sort, really try to understand what's changed, then I think that those are-- those can be very fruitful conversations.

Sean McDowell: ... I'm glad you brought that last point in as well, because I want this individual to know that if his parents sent him to Summit and homeschooled him and took him to church, they know the gospel. They've heard it. This is not like somebody who hasn't heard the faith before. They're aware of it, and taught it, and seemingly valued it for a season. So it's hard to have these kinds of family conversations. I've had ones not identical to this, but similar difficult ones, and I think if you approach it in the right way, at the right time, it could be really fruitful. So I think for, you know, this individual, again, as far as what we know about the story, just seeing h- just having the, your own clear conscience that you've talked to your parents and put everything on the table, then I think you can move on and trust the Lord with it, and they are now living their journey before the Lord and are accountable to Him. You're not responsible for their spiritual journey. But how you do this conversation, and again, maybe this individual has tried this, but go to their parents and saying, "Hey, can we get coffee?" You find the right time, you find the right place, and just say something to the effect of, "Here's my sense of what's going on. I went through this season. I see where you are at. I- am I assessing this correctly? What am I missing? As somebody who went through a season of doubt and came out of it, can you understand why I would be concerned about you? Are my concerns valid? Help me understand maybe what I don't see, what's going on in your mind," and then express your concerns. If you've done that and stated respectfully and clearly, then you pray for them, then you model, then you just hope they'll come back and see it. But in some sense, you can give that over to the Lord and not have to carry that burden anymore. Thanks for your question.

Scott Rae: Sure.

Sean McDowell: I do hope... And if you do that, shoot us a private email. We'd love to know how that works out. All right, this is kind of a fun one, Scott. I love this. This is from somebody who says, "Hey, guys, my fiance and I have asked guests who RSVP'd to our upcoming wedding to give us marriage advice. We'd like to ask the two of you the same. It'd be so meaningful for us if you'd respond. What's one piece of fun advice you'd give and one piece of serious advice you'd give to a couple soon to be married?" I've got mine, but take it away, Scott.

Scott Rae: Yeah, I... Well, for one, I appreciate being asked about this.

Sean McDowell: I agree. [chuckles]

Scott Rae: I'm honored to be asked. My fun advice would be to have regular date nights and put them on the calendar. And make sure they're sacred. My serious advice would be to be on the same page about money, and to do that- ... I would encourage you to explore how your parents viewed money and learn how you've been shaped by their approach. It's not an accident that you have the views of money that you do. It's shaped, I say mainly, not exclusively, but mainly by how your parents handled money. And I- we do this, Sean, in our business ethics class every semester, we a- when we talk about money, and we ask the students to use a, what we call a continuum approach, to evaluate their parents, on how they approach money. One being Ebenezer Scrooge, and 10 being, "Let's buy it now and figure out how to pay for it later."

Sean McDowell: [laughing]

Scott Rae: Where do your parents fall in between on that?

Sean McDowell: [chuckles]

Scott Rae: And where are you on that scale? And we find that when couples talk about themselves that way, they discover that they're really far apart in how they approach money, and that they recognize that they're gonna have to have- they may have some bumpy roads that they're gonna have to navigate as they get, you know, get accustomed to living as, you know, as, you know, not yours and mine, but ours together. So that would be my suggestion, on the serious side.

Sean McDowell: Great advice, and by... For the record, that's over 40 years speaking. Now, to go to me, I've got about 25, 26 years coming up, speaking of marriage. And a while ago I sent out an X, and I said, "At what point in a marriage can somebody just say, 'We're safe. We've made it'? Is it 10 years, 25 years, 50 years?" So I did research and found this couple that got divorced in their 90s-

Scott Rae: Yikes

Sean McDowell: ... And he learned about an affair that she had decades earlier, and it really reminded me of a truth that my dad said to me when we first got married. He said, "Son, never stop working on your marriage, ever." My serious advice, and that's reflected in your example, have a date night, but my wife and I are regularly talking and remembering that, saying, "Okay, in this stage, what does it mean to work on our marriage?" Constantly improving, constantly getting better, constantly communicating. You will never arrive. And I'll tell you to this couple listening, when we hit our 30s, we had a number of friends of ours who I thought, "Oh, they love each other. They're happy," started getting divorced, quite a few.

Scott Rae: [chuckles]

Sean McDowell: And I remember thinking, "What happened?" Recently, the story of someone that shocked me, the story of Philip Yancey, in his 70s, eight years having been unfaithful to his wife, devastating. I think one of the ways to avoid that is to keep working on your marriage, period. As far as fun, some people might say, "That doesn't sound like too fun for me," but are you ready? Have a lot of kids. Have a lot of kids, because yes, it's work, yes, it's exhausting, but yesterday I coached my son, and we played this team that should have beat us by 30. We lost by one point. My son was in tears after the game. It was so much fun coaching him. We hit big shots, it was back and forth, and I thought, "You know what? What's more fun in life than time I have with my kids?" And I'm old enough now to know that I have a number of friends who said to me, they've said, "You know what? I try to control my life. I tried to wait. I wish I had more kids." I've never met somebody who said, "I wish I had [chuckles] one or two less." Maybe they're out there. So keep working on your relationship-... And then last, just have a lot of kids. I promise you will not regret that. Scott, this last one is somewhat serious, so we can't remotely weigh into the depth of it, but maybe you can give us one kind of biblical principle, and maybe this deserves a deeper dive. But just give us one biblical thought how to approach this. This is from someone who's listening for years and says, "I live in Minnesota. Our state feels like it's in an uproar with ICE and all the associated arrests and killings." This person is a registered nurse, "So the dex of out- death of Alex Pretti is hitting me hard. As someone whose life work is to help and advocate for others as a nurse," I understand how he was so upset by everything going on. "How can I view all this from a biblical standpoint?"

Scott Rae: I think there are three biblical principles, just really briefly. One is the right of conscience, which is extended into a right of free speech. Second, government's obligation to enforce its laws and protect our communities. Third, there's a right of civil disobedience. We- there are times when we must obey God rather than government, at times with the corresponding obligation to suffer the consequences of disobeying the law. It recognizes that some laws are unjust, and that civil disobedience can be justified, with the, with the willingness to take the consequences in order to make your point. But I would say civil disobedience is not normally considered a death sentence.

Sean McDowell: Fair enough. We could spend so much more time on this one. You know, another response to this is there's also a biblical place for lament. I mean, this... Wherever you land on this, it's just, it's heartbreaking to see Minnesota torn apart, to see our country torn apart, and one Christian's response is to show lament. So wherever you land politically, we should be torn up that lives have been lost. That's a terrible thing. And so reading through the Psalms and seeing people like David lament, and seeing the Book of Lamentations, is one emotionally healthy way of dealing with such tragedy like this, especially if you're a nurse [chuckles] and you're a caregiver, and you've committed your life to caring for people. This topic deserves a much bigger deep dive, but we got it in the Q&A period. Hopefully, there's some biblical principles that they can run with. Scott, as always, this is fun.

Scott Rae: Good stuff.

Sean McDowell: I'm looking forward to next week.

Scott Rae: Me too.

Sean McDowell: This has been an episode of the podcast Think Biblically: Conversations on Faith and Culture, brought to you by Talbot School of Theology at Biola University. We've got programs online and in person, a master's degree, Bible, theology, apologetics, philosophy, marriage and family, so many more, and numbers keep coming in. Scott, we are growing, which is exciting. Our dean is doing... Ed Stetzer's doing a wonderful job, getting students here, getting out the word. Please keep your comments and your questions coming. You can email us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu, and we'd really appreciate it if you'd take a moment and give us a rating on your podcast app. I'm serious, every rating helps us with the analytics to reach more people. We appreciate you listening, and we'll see you Tuesday, when we interview one of our very own psychology professors here at Biola, Liz Hall, on how to watch The Chosen biblically and thoughtfully. In the meantime, remember to think biblically about everything. [upbeat music]