Weekly Cultural Update: Democratic Socialism; Weed Consumption; PowerWash Simulator; The Great Romance Slump

Episode Transcript

Sean McDowell: [upbeat music] Democrats in Michigan choose a progressive socialist candidate in the primary. Is socialism making a comeback? Marijuana is apparently now everywhere, but things may be changing. 17 million [laughs] Americans now play a video game called PowerWash Simulator. What does this suggest about how we view work? And a piece in The Atlantic asks why so few young people are finding love. These are stories we'll discuss, and we'll address 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, it's been way too long doing this together. I am ready to get back in the saddle. Are you ready to rock and roll?

Scott Rae: I have missed this. The break was helpful, but I am ready to rock and roll here.

Sean McDowell: Well, there was a story this week, and one of my first thoughts was, what would Scott think about this?

Scott Rae: [laughs]

Sean McDowell: 'Cause [laughs] you have written so much on this. Everybody's been talking about how this 41-year-old, progressive, by the name... He's Muslim, by the name, in Michigan, of Abdul El-Sayed, has won kind of a hotly contested Democratic Senate primary. He beat out four-term, representative Haley Stevens to win the Democratic US Senate nomination in battleground Michigan. Now, it seems a lot of, like, far left candidates, El-Sayed supports Medicare for All, free childcare, wants to see the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency abolished. He calls for Israel's actions in Gaza, not only to stop, but genocide. Now, he said he's not a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, but he's gotten quite, let's just say, outspoken support from people like Senator Bernie Sanders and, also from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. He's also campaigned with Hasan Piker, an online influencer and critic of Israel, who is regularly accused of antisemitism. So he's quite a provocative candidate. We're not so much interested in the political component that here, that's at play, but we're seeing this crop up more and more candidates that are either Democratic socialist or Democratic socialist adjacent. For example, in Wisconsin, Francesca Hong is a Democrat, Democratic socialist and state assemblywoman representing the progressive hotbed of Madison. She's emerged as the primary frontrunner for governor in, that key ground battle state. So really, kind of the question people are asking is this kind of a sign and a bellwether of socialism coming back? And one last thing. This is from an article in The New York Times. They said, "Whatever comes next, Dr. El-Sayed's triumph was a watershed moment for the progressive movement, a statewide success in middle America that could not easily be dismissed. This was not Zohran Mamdani's win over Andrew Cuomo in New York or congressional primary win in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Philadelphia, or Denver." This is considered a potential breakthrough of democratic socialism to the masses. What are your thoughts from a biblical perspective in this cultural trend?

Scott Rae: Well, Sean, I think just, one note just to start with. I think the jury's still out on whether these candidates are gonna have traction in other than sort of resoundingly blue areas. That, I mean, you're right to point out. This one is different in Michigan, because this was, is a swing state, and this is not a reliable red or blue state, traditionally. So I think we'll just have to, we'll have to wait and see. And that's why this fall will be very interesting to see if other candidates of this ilk, come, you know, come to the fore. Now, I think before we... I got a couple things biblically to think about on this too, but, before we do that, Sean, I think it's really important that we define socialism correctly.

Sean McDowell: Good.

Scott Rae: And that we we recognize it, I think, for what it is. Socialism, what we mean by that, the the pure socialism is where government owns...

Scott Rae: It and government runs it. And choice, government makes the choices on what's produced and what's consumed as opposed to markets making those choices for us.

Scott Rae: So in reality, I think most, markets and socialism exist on a continuum. North Korea's the only pure socialist place in the world that I'm aware of. Cuba may be close. But most of them are a mix, and, the difference is between where on the continuum that they lie. And I say most of the places that we describe as socialist really are nothing of the sort. They're mixed economies that have a, that are further toward the socialist end of the continuum but a long way from what we see. You know, Scandinavia is not North Korea.

Sean McDowell: Yeah. Of course.

Scott Rae: Western Europe, thankfully, is not, is not North Korea. Now, they have, Europe, for example, has a higher tax burden, but more benefits flow from government to the average person. In the United States, we have a lower tax burden, but fewer benefits from government, and that trade-off, I think, is, I think a matter of personal preference. I'm not convinced that that's a totally, an entirely moral, choice to it. So the benefit, I think, of the balance that we have in the United States is that we enable people to keep more of what they earn, and it incentivizes initiative, creativity, innovation- ... Sacrifice. It also incentivizes greed and overconsumption. The higher tax burden disincentivizes risk-taking and entrepreneurship and innovation. We hear lots- ... Of people, you know, when the Europeans came to the United States for the World Cup, they loved the level of prosperity that they experienced. But there are a lot of folks who love the degree of public benefits that are available in Europe. So I think that's a bit of a trade-off. Now, I think the, what I think the scripture has to say is I think there is a moral case for I would call more market-based approaches. And this is based on the biblical principle that we are obligated to provide the best care for the poor, the needy, the marginalized among us that we can. And it's, Sean, it's, we've talked about this before here. It's been proven over the past 200 years that market-based economies are the best means to fulfill that biblical mandate. Since the, you know, the 1800s, roughly half of the world's population has emerged from $2-a-day poverty. That's not insignificant. Now, the, we still got a lot of people who are in that, in that state. But I think markets have been shown to be the best mechanism to pull that off. Now, I think the, you know, traditionally, places where more pure socialism has been tried, in the former Soviet Union, in North Korea, in China before they liberalized, they've essentially produced economic basket cases. And so I would suggest, Sean, just the contrast between North and South Korea. They have roughly the same resource allocation, the same natural resources, the same virtual location. The difference between those two with a market-based economy in the South and socialism in the North could not be more striking. And I think we do a disservice to the poor, and we do a disservice to that biblical mandate to care for the poor if we neglect the best proven means to do that. Now, the other part, I think the other moral case for markets is to, I think to recognize that greed and overconsumption and things like, those are human vices, not necessarily economic ones. They exist in every economic system because sinful, wretched, depraved, self-centered human beings exist in all those systems. And I think, you know, market systems, I think, give greater attention to, I think, really important biblical attributes like human dignity, human freedom, the capacity for flourishing, the capacity for shalom. All of those, I think, are best met by market-oriented systems. So that, I think that's a start at some of the biblical, you know, theological reflections on that. But it's, I think it's really important that we define clearly what we mean by socialism and market-based systems.

Sean McDowell: And I think we could also define what we mean by democratic socialism, because that's the, that's the term that we're hearing a lot here in the States. So it's less driven by revolution like Marxism traditionally is, or top-down authority, but it's trying to advance some socialist ideas, but through a capitalist system, for the most part.

Scott Rae: Yeah.

Sean McDowell: So on their site, the Democratic Socialists of America say, and this is loaded, we don't have to unpack this, but, "Capitalism is a system designed by the owning class to exploit the rest of us for their profit. We must replace it with democratic socialism, a system where ordinary people have a real voice in our workplaces, neighborhoods, and societies." And they talk about different ways to do this. So it's really socialism in principle, but using the means of democracy to turn us toward a socialist end, which results in the loss of some of the principles of democracy if it were ever really carried forward. Now-

Scott Rae: Yeah

Sean McDowell: ... One point, when you mention about greed, this is one of the common criticisms. I teach in my, in the Gospel Kingdom Culture class, we spend a day talking about economics and what does it mean to think biblically about economics. And we compare and contrast democracy and capitalism and, of course, you know, we're talking about today democratic socialism. And I make the point that Jay Richards writes in his book God, Greed, and Money, that we think that capitalism is this Darwinist, you know, just kind of survival of the fittest. But even to make a pencil requires an incredible amount of cooperation and actually builds in incentive for good customer service so people will come back and work with you again. So it's just too simplistic to say that democracy is rooted, capitalism is rooted in greed. Now, with that said, let me, let me step back, because tell me if you agree with this. Not all socialists are Marxists, but all Marxists are socialists.

Scott Rae: True.

Sean McDowell: True. So you could be a Christian socialist. You don't lose your salvation if you're a socialist. You and I would push back and just say, this doesn't line up with biblical principles about, say, private property or about actually advancing the good and welfare of society. Marxist by definition is materialist. You cannot be a Christian Marxist 'cause it denies the soul, denies the afterlife, makes the state itself almost function like God, and thus you lose individual value. That's the distinction that I wanted people to see. Now, it sounds like you wanna jump back with a couple things here

Scott Rae: Well, I think we, Sean, we should also recognize that we, you know, we have, we have socialist parts of our own economy here. You know, Medicare is the best example of that. Medicare is government-run healthcare, and the tagline for government-run healthcare is what the Democratic socialists describe as, health, Medicare for all. Free childcare is socialistic, but so is public transportation, so is public education. And we have, we have a few, not many, but a few pure market aspects of our economy, like the New York Stock Exchange. That, that's as pure a market-based, phenomena as you're gonna find. Now, but I think the part of the, part of the point of this is that,

Scott Rae: all of our economies are a mixed bag. And we're, you know, we don't... We're not suggesting that even though we are... This is in praise of market systems to be sure, that markets are not always self-correcting. And markets were not handed down from on high as the 11th Commandment. Now I happen to think they're a human creation, but I happen to think they're one of humanity's best creations. I'd put it right up there with antibiotics and anesthesia-

Sean McDowell: Wow

Scott Rae: ... Because of the prosperity that it has generated over the past, you know, 2 or 300 years.

Scott Rae: And we're not suggesting that markets don't have guardrails on them. There is a place for government to enforce the rule of law, to prevent fraud from taking place, to make sure that workers are not being exploited. Now, the Democratic socialists, I think, hold that all employment is by definition exploitation- ... Which is if you know, if that's the position you're gonna take, then it's hard, it's hard to see that there's any value in market-based systems. So I think, you know, there's a question about whether they're willing to live consistently with that, because if you're gonna, if you're gonna, tarnish the whole system, then you can't in good conscience cooperate with the system to reap some of its benefits while at the same time calling it intrinsically evil or intrinsically exploitive. That, that's not being consistent. The other thing that I think comes out of this, Sean, is that-

Sean McDowell: Yeah

Scott Rae: ... We don't often realize that market systems both require and nurture a real specific set of virtues. You mentioned one with cooperation.

Sean McDowell: Right.

Scott Rae: But there's, there are others. Trust is a huge one. You know, our, most market systems are premised on trust and transparency and openness. You know, things like patience, persistence, perseverance, hard work, things like that, those are, those both are both required and nurtured by our market system. Think about who would you rather hire, somebody characterized by the fruit of the spirit or by the deeds of the flesh?

Sean McDowell: Yeah, that's easy.

Scott Rae: That, that's not even, that's not even close. And I think we would rather, and most people would rather do business with people that they trust, and they would most certainly avoid doing business with people who they don't trust. So there's, I think there's a, there, the market systems presume a fairly high modicum of virtue and trust among the participants, and the evidence for that, Sean, is the millions of transactions that go through every day that are premised on trust. Every credit transaction is a a transaction based on trust.

Scott Rae: So I think there's just a, there's a lot of room, I think, for the nurturing of the virtuous life contrary to the way I think market systems have been described and portrayed.

Sean McDowell: Well said. There's a lot to this story. We'll keep tracking it, and it will be a fascinating fall to see what other candidates emerged, who gets elected, what this means for the Democratic Party, and even just the public as a whole. And in some ways, it's a separate question why people are open to socialism, but I think we have a, it's appealing to younger generations who are struggling economically, and many don't have a a visceral memory like you and I would of seeing what happened in Russia, seeing what happened in China and other places. But we'll track this. We'll stay on top of it. This next article you sent me is really fascinating. This is from The Free Press, and the title is Weed Is Everywhere For Now. And, it's super insightful. It starts off by saying, "For the first time on record, more Americans consume marijuana every day than smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol every day." Now, they're arguing in this article that marijuana is in many ways analogous not to alcohol, but to cigarettes. What they mean is that it's something mostly consumed by a small number of chronically dependent users rather than something widely consumed by infrequent recreational consumers. So alcohol might be more widely used, but there's infrequent recreational use. Marijuana tends to be used now by most smokers regularly and a heavy amount, so it's more like smoking in this, comparison than it would be like alcohol. Now, amazingly, what's shifted is the majority of Americans now live in a state with access to recreational pot, more than half 74%, three quarters, live in a state with either medical or recreational access, and almost 80% live in a county with at least one dispensary. When I drive around the country now traveling, I see it everywhere I go, in a way five and 10 years ago it wasn't. But the point they make that's so fascinating, Scott, is that, daily use, For example, they said over the period from first recreational legalization, 2012, through 2024, the share of people who identify as pot smokers rose only eight percentage points. So we haven't seen the numbers of people who identify as pot smokers go up. We're seeing people who smoked pot smoke more pot and smoke higher, amounts of THC in the pot that they smoke. Now, they say again, marijuana's not like alcohol, it's like cigarettes. There's not as wide variation in nicotine content in cigarettes as you would see in pot. This is really important. And there's also no mystery as to why marijuana is so potent. It's as potent as the user wants it to be, and the kind of potency that they buy. Now, at the end of this article, they go on to say there's now been some, I remember when people could smoke in restaurants and smoke on planes, and now because the public campaign, it's been pushed hard against it. Now we're seeing some legal rules push back of a majority of people who don't smoke saying, "You know what? We're okay with getting rid of smoking entirely," at least in certain public places. I would not have anticipated that, because there's this tension between public health and this libertarian strain of live and let live. And they're wondering if now there's the same backlash with marijuana, because not as much a percentage of the population smoke pot, and these studies are coming out now about the negative health effects of marijuana and crime tied to it. So they're anticipating there actually might be a backlash here. What's your take on this?

Scott Rae: Well, I think the analogy to cigarettes I find pretty compelling. That it's a better analogy than to alcohol, and what's been shown is that the number of chronic users for both cigarettes and pot has narrowed. And I think you're right to put it the way you did, that it, you know, that pot users are doing it more and more often and with more potent levels of pot. And, you know, the number of cigarette smokers today are the ones who just can't kick the habit.

Sean McDowell: Yep

Scott Rae: ... And so I, you know, you used the term chronic users who are dependent on it. I think that's almost a euphemism for what we might say is an addict- ... In both of those cases. Now, the difference is I think the harms of heavy pot use are still not as well-publicized as the harms to cigarettes have been in the past. But that may just be a factor of needing time to catch up to that. 'cause I think you're right. There is, there is more and more available out there, to show the the harms to one's health that come from heavy chronic use of marijuana. And I think, Sean, to think biblically about this, you know, the Bible doesn't prohibit alcohol. In fact, I think for a long time in the history of civilization, drinking beer and wine was actually safer than drinking from the water supply of medieval and early modern cities. But only drunkenness is prohibited, and alcohol doesn't necessarily make a person high or impaired. You know, somebody can have a beer with Mexican food or a glass of wine with dinner and not, you know, and have it not really affect them. Now, it's different, you know, for somebody like me, if I have a second or a third glass of wine, then sort of all bets are off.

Sean McDowell: [laughs]

Scott Rae: But, the and part of the difference with smoking, the big disanalogy with smoking is it doesn't make you high, but the harms of smoking I think are well documented. And I think smoking, actually, I think you can make a case, that violates the mandate to treat your body as a temple of the Holy Spirit. And I think the use of pot is, I mean, the benefit of it is that it makes you high and puts your, puts you under its influence, which I read at odds with Ephesians 5:17 and 18, which mandates us to be filled with the Spirit. And then the neary- very next verse says, "Do not be drunk with alcohol." And the point that Paul's making there is that if you are under the influence of alcohol, you cannot be under the influence of the Holy Spirit at the same time. And I think the same goes through, goes, is true with pot use, that you can't be under the influence of pot and be under the influence of God's Spirit all at the same time. And those, I think, are the fundamental reasons why we would have a problem with something that was intrinsically designed to cause you to be impaired. So, and alcohol, if it's used to abuse, can do that. In moderation, I'd say not nearly as much. And smoking, of course, does not make you high, but has other health risks that I think violate the notion of your body being a temple of the Holy Spirit.

Sean McDowell: Would you be comfortable with this distinction? So the marijuana plant itself is a part of God's good creation. So it's not bad within itself any more than grapes are bad. But it's how we use it and why we use it, and the use for marijuana ... Is different than the use for, say, alcohol or cigarettes is the distinction that you made. So God clearly made a world in which we would have marijuana plants, and we could all imagine different uses for that, which would be fine, maybe medicinal or something. But that's different than smoking it to get high. It's that misuse-

Scott Rae: Yeah

Sean McDowell: ... Of something that's intrinsically good that makes it sinful.

Scott Rae: Well, I, that's right, and I'm open to the idea that it can have medicinal uses. It's been shown to reduce nausea in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, for example. Although I, you know, the medical marijuana card I think has been widely abused.

Sean McDowell: Agreed.

Scott Rae: 'cause I know, I know more teenagers than I can count who had medical marijuana cards with no medical reason for having them.

Sean McDowell: [laughs]

Scott Rae: So,

Scott Rae: but I think in general, I think the, Bible's prohibition is on the things that impair your mind and make it less of a possibility to be under the influence of the Holy Spirit.

Sean McDowell: Yeah. My concerns as a whole are, like you said, spiritually being filled with the Spirit, being sober-minded, but there's also the testimony and witness to the world. I know it's different than '70s and '80s, but even this article kind of reflects the person who smokes is still perceived a certain way, and our witness does matter. That should be a piece of it. As well as the physical health. We've talked about this in the past, and even New York Times has covered the use of marijuana with consistency. They're seeing people showing up in hospitals with totally unexpected and anticipated issues, some being physically, some being matters of psychosis. So I'm not surprised by this. I mean, I saw it coming two decades ago. It felt like this was just a big experiment. So in some ways, the fact that people are surprised, I'm like, "Really? If you just-

Scott Rae: Yeah

Sean McDowell: ... Had been critical a while ago." But hopefully this is a sign of people kind of waking up and pulling away from this, just for the health of society [laughs] as a whole, would do well to observe this.

Scott Rae: Well, and

Sean McDowell: So we'll keep-

Scott Rae: And I'll show you how prevalent-

Sean McDowell: Yeah

Scott Rae: ... It's become in some areas. You know, I've got a kid that lives in New York, and every time my wife and I go to New York, the smell of pot on the streets is

Sean McDowell: Oh

Scott Rae: ... Many places stronger than the smell of diesel fuel-

Sean McDowell: Oh my goodness

Scott Rae: ... That's powering the trucks that go all, throughout the city. So it's it is much more noticeable than it's ever been before.

Sean McDowell: And that may have the backlash, unanticipated backlash of people being tired of it like they kind of were with smoking. Maybe we'll hit the point where it's like, you know, if somebody's smoking in a restaurant, that's unthinkable right now. In the back of a plane, unthinkable.

Scott Rae: Yeah.

Sean McDowell: I don't see why

Scott Rae: You get thrown off the plane for that.

Sean McDowell: Yeah, you [laughs] should get thrown off the plane. I don't see why we shouldn't get to that point with marijuana as well. All right, so this next one I sent to you, partly because it's about this new phenomena online. 17 million Americans playing these simulator-type video games of power washing. Now, my son, who's 13, bought an actual power washer, and he's been going around to his neighbors and has actually been cleaning their trash cans and their, you know, driveways and making money on. He's been a little entrepreneur. So when I saw this, I was like, wait a minute, people aren't doing it for real. They're playing video games. What does this tell us about culture and work? And so this is an article by John Ehret, I hope I said his name right, in Mere Orthodoxy, a Christian publication, really thoughtful, reflects on cultural trends. And it points out that for a while, video games were really, like when the world felt hostile, it was a way to escape into fantasy. And a lot of these video games were partnering with people, conquering evil, tasks, figuring out these journeys. But now this assumption is no longer true. Largely under the public radar, a shift has taken place where some of the most popular games on the market are the farthest thing from escape. Rather, they're simulations of real-world blue-collar labor, he says. So this [laughs] video game called PowerWash Simulator is the king of the genre. 17 million players. He says, to put that in perspective, that's about three times as many as the latest blockbuster Assassin's Creed release. Now, PowerWash Simulator is exactly what it sounds like. You're not wielding a gun or a plasma rifle. You wield a power washer, and you're not storming a castle or saving a princess. You're basically hosing things down. And other games are like Lawn Mowing Simulator, Bus Simulator, [laughs] Farming Simulator, Construction Simulator. And, he says, of course, simulation games are nothing new. Age of Empires famously thrust players in the role of military tech-titi-titians and economic planners such as SimCity. But what sets these apart is just their apparent lack of ambitiousness. You're not trying to plan economy or beat a bad guy. And so he asks the question, what exactly is going on here? Why spend one day, one's day simulating apparently mundane work? Now, he has his theory about this, and I could go in to explain and give my thoughts, but before I turn to it, I'd love to know what you make of this trend.

Scott Rae: Well, I thought this was hysterical.

Sean McDowell: [laughs] Hysterical.

Scott Rae: And I thought it was also encouraging.

Sean McDowell: Okay.

Scott Rae: Yeah. My subtitle to the article was In Praise of Mundane Work.

Sean McDowell: All right.

Scott Rae: And the reason for that is because Work, was ordained before the fall, and in the clearest passage in the entire Bible that is in praise of mundane work is addre- it's addressed to household servants in the first century. In Colossians 3 in verses 22 to 24, it says, "In whatever you do your work heartily as unto the Lord, not, and not to please men. For in whatever you do, it's the Lord Christ whom you are serving." And that was addressed specifically to household servants- ... Who did the most mundane, the most grunt work you can imagine in the first century. But Paul affirms, and the Old Testament does, too, in Genesis 1 and 2, by ordaining work before the fall, which suggests that work was

Scott Rae: that Well, let's put it this way. The work was not cursed by the fall. The ground was cursed.

Sean McDowell: That's right.

Scott Rae: Work was made more arduous. Those are two different things. Work retained its nobility after the general entrance of sin. But Sean, in my view, our our work is a big part of our ministry. It's the, it's... And I say it's the, it's the major place in which we love our neighbor, we make contributions to the common good of our, of our, of our communities, and it's the major crucible in which God shapes us spiritually simply by virtue of the number of hours we spend in the workplace. Now, this is, this is under the assumption that you're working. This, it's, I say for folks who are retired or out of work, there, we would say there's work for compensation, and then there's also work for contribution. So it, you don't have to be getting a paycheck to have work that has value. And I love the idea that the the attraction of these simulated video games is that people feel like they're actually making a difference in their communities by doing, even by, even by simulating the work, which suggests that they have this sort of intuitive notion that by doing those things in real life, they would also be contributing to their communities in valuable and noticeable ways. Now, I think the challenge, of course, is being able to make a living out of doing power washing, but there are lots of these things. You know, I I know people who are making a living as bus drivers, in the construction business. You know, power washing is definitely part of the, was part of the construction of the landscaping in our backyard. And in my view, that has, that is all part of the biblical mandate to create and sustain beauty. So, the idea that mundane work would also be meaningless, I think, is a, is an oxymoron, 'cause I think what these games are pointing out is the value to communities flourishing of these presumably mundane occupations.

Sean McDowell: That's a great take. I agree with everything that you said. Now, one of my questions was, okay, why if people wanna contribute to work are they not going out and actually gardening? Why are they not going out and actually working on an engine? Why are they not going out and doing these things? I don't have an answer to that, but I do suspect that we have such a society and a culture now built around being online and disconnected from relationships and taking the easiest route to get what we want that it discourages people from actually taking these steps. This is an easy way to get the fix that I want, like you described, of actually doing some kind of work without actually going out and doing it.

Scott Rae: Well, the

Sean McDowell: Go ahead

Scott Rae: ... I think the reason, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Finish what you were saying.

Sean McDowell: No no. You're good. Go.

Scott Rae: Well, I think the, part of the reason for that is that in the simulation, you know, you don't, you don't have struggles. You know, you don't have places where you know, you just get stuck and don't know what to do. I mean, I could see a, you know, a plumbing simulator where, you know, trying, me trying to do plumbing in real life, the only thing I'm gonna do is make it more expensive for when we actually call the plumber. And you know, there's certain things that, you know, and I did gardening. I did all the lawn care and gardening of our landscaping for 30 years, and I got great satisfaction out of that. But I think, Sean, in part, we view it, we view the service as different when we do it for somebody else than when we do it for ourselves. It's just a, it's, I don't know why we think that, but, you know, mowing my lawn and taking care of my landscaping is just as much contributing to my community as, you know, if I had a small business that was doing that for-

Sean McDowell: Yeah

Scott Rae: ... You know, for other people in the neighborhood. So, but I think in part of it, too, is just we, it's just, it's so challenging to make a living doing some of these occupations- ... That, you know, we we, you know, we're not, we don't go to school to learn this stuff. We go to school to learn other things. And, you know, I understand why, you know, white-collar work now seems like it's the more mundane, meaningless stuff where we're just pushing papers around and, you know, doing things to satisfy different regulators or authorities. So it's been a, I think, a bit of a reversal in how we view these different arenas of work. But the point of this is you know, good management in companies will help their employees see the contribution that their specific work is making- To the flourishing of individuals and families and communities. And if they don't do that's negligent management

Sean McDowell: It is interesting to think about behind this article is kind of the assumption that these new AI-generated tools that help people with white collar work are not satisfying them the way in the past that a lot of white collar work did. It felt meaningful. Now, I heard Rick Warren make a point that is so simple, but I think it's profound, is like if you work primarily with your mind, maybe you're doing research in a law firm, maybe you're a professor, et cetera, then you want physical work, like going out and mowing or exercise and working in your garden when you relax. If you have a physical job, like doing construction, maybe you want to read a book or watch a movie because you want to do something more so with your mind. But the problem here is he says these new optimized intellectual work mediated by AI tools is not even that satisfying anymore, that there's a ton of people that have, quote, "BS jobs" where they're just pushing paper and doing things that doesn't give the satisfaction that God has built into us to desire. The way he frames it I think is brilliant. He says, "These are precisely the sorts of jobs, plumbers, designers, firefighters, that today's labor simulation games largely depict. Roles in which physical matter is moved about and chaos turned into order. They are jobs that really matter in a tangible way to the health of the lived environment." And that's how God has made us, to feel good when we contribute to the world. That's how we're supposed to be other focused, and this AI has this unintended the tools, implications of maybe demeaning certain work of us feeling like we're contributing to these human tasks that we need to do as human beings. So in the end, he closes with this. He says, "In the popularity of PowerWash Simulator and the like, we now have empirical evidence that points in a rather unexpected direction. A world without work will not look like a Marxian paradise of art and music and philosophy, of joyous liberation from daily drudgery. Rather, it will look like the sad silence of individuals withdrawing into digital labor simulators, grasping towards some semblance of the meaningful work that really, reality denies them. After all, it's simply inefficient for them to do anything else," because like you said, the economic angle. "Nobody might starve. A universal basic income could see that, but few would truly flourish as human beings." And I think he nails it. We only flourish when we work and contribute to the community because that is what God has designed us to do.

Scott Rae: Yeah, he raises the question at the end of that piece that you cited. He said, where would we be if we did not have to work?"

Sean McDowell: That's exactly right.

Scott Rae: You know? And that's I think that's, at the end of the day, that's probably not a world that any of us want to live in.

Sean McDowell: That's right. Well said. Now, this last piece is like a mini book you sent me, Scott, from The Atlantic. It's 23 pages. [laughs] We won't remotely get through this, but a fascinating topic. It's called "The Great Romance Slump," and basically, the author of this is in her lower 30s, and she describes how her generation still wants love, Millennials down to Gen Z, but has more barriers and discouragement to find it, and as a result, many are giving up, and there's a great romance slump. So this stat, I mean, to me, the proportion of 25 to 34-year-olds in marriage or cohabiting partnerships has dropped significantly. The number of people going on dates has dropped significantly. Less are having sex, which is good insofar as it goes if they're not married, but it's also a symptom of less people spending time together and dating and doing the kind of things you need to do to find relationships. Now, she starts off telling this experience about this company that offers you to kind of meet people, and you have these physical encounters where you just kind of hold somebody for an extended period of time. It's meant to kind of fill in the gap of this loneliness that you have and make connections with people, but you're paying for this. It was really kind of a bizarre kind of experience. It just, it reminded me how affection starved so many people are, and some of the things here really gave me just compassion for young people. They're like, "Dating has always entailed hardship, but it used to be the norm to find love in everyday life, at a church, at a party. People don't need to choose what to step away from. Now many of the quirks of modern life have made meeting organically in person less likely. People are tucked away at home, working remotely, streaming TV, having food delivered to their home, approaching strangers when many of us are used to flirting via text with people who have already, quote, 'liked us.'" So you're almost kind of seeing the same phenomenon in dating that we just saw in work, that these technologies and modern life are discouraging us from the very things that make us human. And one of the other pieces of this she just points out is like it's so hard to navigate, especially for men, because men, you're supposed to flirt but not be creepy. Well, how exactly do you find that balance when people have different expectations? It's so much easier to just not engage, and so as a result, I had not heard of this, Scott. This started in 2011. Now there's this company that helps people- apparently find a partner, not romantic, to have a child with and raise a child apart from a marriage relationship. I have so many concerns about that, but tell me your thoughts on just this dating slump. We've seen it coming for a while, but it seems to be really building.

Scott Rae: Well, Sean, I think here the article points out that the irony is that we have today, with the, with dating apps and all of the opportunities to superficially meet people, we have a bounty of possibilities and a dearth of real romance.

Sean McDowell: That's right.

Scott Rae: And I think the, it's, I'm encouraged to hear, to hear the article point out that people still want long-term relationships, but they aren't finding them. And my question was, how come? And I've got a couple reasons that I think make some sense here. One is relationships are risky. And being rejected by someone that you've only met for two or three minutes is not nearly as devastating as being invested with someone that, or being rejected by someone who you've invested maybe months or years into. That is brutal. And as we've reported before, Sean, younger generation today are generally more risk-averse than your generation and mine. Now, second, I think due to devices, we may be less equipped for what I call the in real life relationships. And I think the, what the article points out here is really, very insightful. And regardless of whether it's dating on these apps that you know, you can just sort of scroll through or, you know, or dating in real life, that dating involves constant blows to one's self-confidence. And I think, particularly the way it's done today with, you know, you, 'cause you reject so many more people than you actually, you know, you actually try out, in real life. Now, one of the reasons, Sean, I think that

Scott Rae: people are not finding these long-term relationships is that our expectations are not realistic. The media portrayals of love and romance I think are overwhelmingly positive, and the, and the article points out, they quote people who have these expectations. One said our, "We were waiting for our Prince Charming, who's coming," and, "I wanna find someone who makes me giddy." I say sort of good luck with that. And I think it oversells the infatuation of that initial connection, where in my view, when that infatuation starts to wear off, that's a really good sign that you're in for a healthy relationship because that level of initial passion and excitement and enthusiasm is completely unsustainable. And I think we should probably, say full disclosure for both you and I that I've been married for 42 years, and you've been married for between 25 and 30 years. So we're aware of what it takes to make a relationship sustainable. But I think in in media, and I think in our churches too, we rarely see the the kinda gut-wrenching struggles that couples face, you know, the struggles that make couples wanna check it in and then move on to something else. And I think our, you know, our churches, the idea of finding the right person as sort of a baptized version of the secular soulmate, I think is particularly unhelpful because, you know, finding your soulmate, you know, I think it just puts expectations on that other person to be everything for you, and I think if taken to an extreme can actually be a form of idolatry. Now, let, I think let's, to be clear about this, the Bible doesn't teach that there's one right person for you.

Sean McDowell: That's right.

Scott Rae: Adam and Eve were right for each other, but they were right for each other in the sense that male and female correspond and are right for each other. Male and female of the species were right for each other, not necessarily individually. And to, and we've said this before, but it bears repeating, the Bible affirms singleness. You don't need a partner to complete you. That's a, that's a really dangerous thing to hold when you go into the realm of relationships because you are complete in Christ, Colossians 2 tells us, 7 tells us. And I say complete in Christ, end of story. You don't, you don't need another person to complete you. Now, I think it's helpful if you have another person that can help you flourish in some ways that you maybe can't do alone, but I think we need to, we need to be governed theologically by that notion that we are complete in Christ.

Sean McDowell: And that's part of the tension is that you're not on the varsity team if you're married and not single. You're not more whole in Christ. And yet the studies, they show and they point out in this, again back to Bradley Wilcox, that those who are married and have kids are far happier than those who don't. And it points towards something God has built inside of us. Parenting is one of the most significant ways that we find happiness and we find meaning, and we're not just out there, you know, with a a simulator of water. We're actually changing diapers [laughs] and parenting and physically caring. It brings happiness. And they did say in this article that nine out of 10 countries are seeing falling marriage rates. So we have to hold up, like what you said, the goodness and importance of singleness and the goodness and beauty and importance of marriage for the church, for society. And for individuals. So that tension is here. I've got something else, but jump in. I think you have something you want to say.

Scott Rae: Well, I think, Sean, it occurs to me that in our autonomy-based culture, where it's about, you know, my body, my life, my truth, the idea of relationships that involve sacrifice to make them work- ... That's a, that's a tough pill for a lot of people to swallow. And I think, you know, particularly for Christian couples, you know, the Bible's pretty clear that husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church, which means, I think, putting your self-interest lower on the priority list than your spouse's. And I know, I think you can attest to this too, with every child that my wife and I had, my self-interest went further down the priority list.

Sean McDowell: [laughs]

Scott Rae: And I think that's the way it's designed. Because for real relationships to work, they involve the recognition that this thing that I'm in is not all about me. It's all about what I can do to serve the other person and to contribute, how I can contribute to my wife's flourishing, and it's not about, it's not primarily about what I can get, but it's about what I can give in that.

Sean McDowell: Amen.

Scott Rae: And I think that strikes a lot of people in our current culture as being somewhat counterintuitive. But I think the Bible is right about how that works, that my own flourishing comes from what I, what I give, not necessarily what I'm getting in return.

Sean McDowell: One of the things this article points out is that men used to need women and women used to need men. Now, through modern culture, women are more educated, many women are self-sufficient, don't need a man in the way that they did in the past, and many men would commit to getting married. "Now she'll sleep with me and be a mom, and I'll commit to her for life." The thing that was left out of this article is that many men now are like, "I don't need to get married to have my sexual desires met and commit to a woman." Pornography wasn't even mentioned in this article, which is kind of the elephant in the room to me, because they talk about, this one person says right here, a man from Queens, "I feel like I'm being rejected by 4 million women at once online when they're just swiping away, swiping away, swiping away." And they talk about a dearth of men who are really good husbands. And I go, well, yeah, a lot of men are hooked on porn, and they don't want to be denied 4 million times, so they just go to pornography online. And so it's almost like we have this tension where women don't need men the way they did [laughs] in the past, men don't need women in the way in the past. Well, we still have this yearning for relationships, but are we really willing to do what it takes to have a meaningful, lasting relationship? That's your point, and that's not what I'm seeing happening here. Now, I would say, to give a little advice, people want to find a spouse, actually go to church. That's not the reason you should go. Go [laughs] because you want to grow and be a part of it. But a church, a place like Biola, still happens to be a place where you're surrounded by people who have similar values, see the world as you do, value the things that you do. Again, I'm not saying that's our recruiting call. People have always said that. They used to call it the, you know, bridal institute of LA. Not my point, but go somewhere physical where you see people and meet people and interact with people naturally. That's really the formula, I think, to get yourself in a position to be more likely to find a spouse, but also become the kind of person first that's worth marrying, is something- ... My dad always said to me. All right. Anything else on this one, Scott, or are you good?

Scott Rae: I'm all good. Let's go to questions.

Sean McDowell: All right. We got a couple ones here that we'll jump on, and they're directed towards me. I'll give my two cents, but I want to know what you think. These are both related to bonus episodes that we had in July when we were not doing the weekly cultural update. This person says, "In response to how, progressive pastor Brandon Robertson uses scripture to support LGBTQ+ ideology, I'm curious what your thoughts are on someone in the LGBTQ community who has a genuine heart for bringing the lost to Jesus while maintaining the truth of scripture, aside from the they call it the sexual perversion passages, but I would just say the sexual immorality passages. "Do you believe that kind of work can still be noble in the eyes of Jesus, or do you feel like it far, it goes too far away?" Here's what I would say. I think scripture is very clear that God's design for sex and marriage is one man and one woman who become one flesh for one lifetime. That's Genesis, it's through the Old Testament, it's in Romans 1, it's in Matthew 19, it's in 1 Corinthians Chapter 6. And sexual sin is taken very seriously in 1 Corinthians 7 about a sin against your own body. Now, all of us have sin. I'm not saying we don't. But to just say, "Well, I love Jesus, and I want to see people come to faith, but I can be affirming," I say timeout. This is an issue the Bible is very clear about. So I would say to the individual who says, "Hey, I'm LGBTQ+ in terms of ideology. I want to see people come to Jesus," my answer would be, "First repent and get your theology and life in line, and then go out and call other people to Jesus." Now, that's not my unique... I'm not saying I would only say that to people on this issue. I'd say that to people in other issues that are clearly contradicting the teaching of scripture. But this is the specific question the person asked about Now, can God use somebody who's blatantly living in a way that rejects what scripture teaches to draw people to Christ? Of course. God can draw people to His kingdom any way He wants to. But my encouragement to that person would be get your life in order first and your theology in order first. This is a major issue, namely marriage, which is the primary illustration God uses for His love to the church. Agree, disagree, add anything to that, Scott?

Scott Rae: Well, here, Sean, I'd be open to somebody who is same-sex attracted, but who is committed to sexual purity being used by God to bring lost people to Jesus.

Sean McDowell: For sure.

Scott Rae: I would, you know... That's the twist I would put on it. I think those, I think people who are committed to sexual purity can be faithful to Christ, while they, while they wrestle with the same-sex attraction. So that, yeah, I, suspect you don't disagree with that.

Sean McDowell: I agree 100% with that, and this person said twice in the question following Jesus and yet holds into LGBTQ-

Scott Rae: Yeah

Sean McDowell: ... Affirming. So I'm with you. That's a great-

Scott Rae: Yeah

Sean McDowell: ... Addition to add to this. But I think in this case when they say LGBTQ, they don't mean somebody who just- ... Has same-sex attraction, or even there's debates in the larger Christian community, if you're following Jesus' teaching, do you identify as gay and be a part of that community even if you are not practicing same-sex sexual behavior? That's not who this question is talking about, but I would agree with that caveat. All right, this, last question here, it says, "In reference to the Todd McFarlane podcast." So this is Todd McFarlane in case you missed it. It was a two-and-a-half-hour conversation. Todd McFarlane is an outspoken atheist, at least in that dialogue. He's the creator of Spawn, co-creator of Venom, iconically drew Spider-Man in the '90s, and to this day is one of my all-time [laughs] favorite interviews. I loved that one. It was fun, and it was a bonus we put on July 17th. He clearly believes that each person should determine right and wrong for themselves. What I don't understand about that mindset is that if everyone determines right and wrong for themselves, inevitably someone's right is gonna bump up against someone else's wrong. This leads to chaos, which is perhaps one of the reasons our culture is so divided. Why can't people like Todd either see or admit this? Well, here's the difficulty. I'm not inside his head. I'm not inside his mind. There could be a lot of reasons. There could be intellectual reasons that he sees it differently. There could be, maybe he hasn't made these connections and seen that. There could be spiritual reasons. I don't know exactly what's in his mind. I won't presume to say that. But one of the things I tried to point out to him was his two objections to God were really hell and the problem of evil. And I wish in that interview, I thought about this afterwards, I should have said, "You know, Todd, you're actually contradicting yourself," because the problem with hell is you see bad in the world and God has judged too much. The problem with evil is you see suffering in the world and God has not done enough. You're actually saying at the same time God has done too much and not enough at the same time. You can't have it both ways. I suspect he hasn't thought about that, but his main objection is, hell and evil, is there's a moral objection with the way God is running the universe. But early in the interview, he clearly adopted a subjective relativistic morality. I spent a lot of the interview trying to point that out to him, and he didn't see it. Why he didn't see it, that's between him [laughs] and between God and anybody else. My job is just to try to proclaim truth and hope that people see it. Anything you wanna throw in there on that one, Scott?

Scott Rae: No, just one sentence. People who have a, this subjective view of morality determining right and wrong for themselves usually give it up when they're the victim of injustice.

Sean McDowell: Exactly. That's a great point. Great point. Well said. All right, Scott, this was fun, man.

Scott Rae: Thanks, Sean.

Sean McDowell: Four fascinating stories from, you know, dating and democratic socialism to power washing video games.

Scott Rae: [laughs]

Sean McDowell: I am already looking forward to next week. This is gonna be awesome. This has been an episode of the podcast Think Biblically: Conversations on Faith and Culture, brought to you by Talbot School of Theology, Biola University. We have master's programs in theology, Bible, apologetics, spiritual formation online, in person in California and in Phoenix. Please send your questions and comments to thinkbiblically@biola.edu, and we'd be honored if you'd take a moment and give us a quick rating on your podcast app. It really makes a big difference. We'll see you Tuesday when we interview Adam Lloyd about a recent book in which he debates Dan Barker, an atheist, and the book is called Debating God's Existence. Wonderful interview you won't wanna miss on Tuesday. In the meantime, remember to think biblically about everything. [upbeat music]