Weekly Cultural Update: Is Scripture Obsolete; The Rise of Polyamory; Worldview and AI Safety: UK's Assisted Dying

Episode Transcript

Sean McDowell: [upbeat music] According to a new study, half of younger churchgoers are more likely to say that cultural change makes certain biblical truths obsolete. Polyamory is exploding in the cultural conversation. Is the church ready philosophically, biblically, and practically to address it? Because of its communist worldview, AI safety means something very different in China than the West. And Christians helped defeat UK's Assisted Dying Bill. These are the stories we'll discuss, and we'll also address some of your questions. I'm your host, Sean McDowell.

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

Sean McDowell: This is the Think Biblically weekly cultural update brought to you by Talbot School of Theology, Biola University. Scott, we regularly wanna take stories in the news and help people think biblically about it. But occasionally, studies come out the week we're preparing this about how Christians view the Bible. And so I thought we'd pause and look at this study that does raise some fla-- red flags and concerns for me. And I saw, basically the title was, it was from The Christian Post, "Half of younger churchgoers say culture change makes some biblical truths obsolete." So these are Protestant churchgoers in the US. They seem increasingly willing to reject some biblical truths, with young atten- adults under 30 more likely to say some of these truths are becoming obsolete. Now, this is rooted in a Lifeway Research, study. Now, a few things that they pointed out. More than a quarter of respondents, 28%, agreed with the statement that as culture changes, some biblical truths become obsolete. Now, that's up about 4% from 2019. About a third of churchgoers said they accept some truths from the Bible, but others do not fit what they believe, which is up another 4% from 2019. But it's younger churchgoers that marked the most significant increase, you would say. So younger adult churchgoers, again according to the article, were the most likely to agree that the truth of God's word can mean different things to different people. 87% is pretty significant. Now, there's some other things in this study. For example, 56% of Protestant churchgoers find it challenging to make sense of the Bible when they read it on their own, which is roughly the same from the past, so that hasn't really changed. But increasingly with this, US adults, are increasingly reading the Bible more, especially men, but fewer Americans believe the Bible is 100% accurate. I'd love your reaction to this, Scott.

Scott Rae: Well, Sean, there are a couple things that stood out to me on this. The first thing I I must admit is I think some of the reason for this is because us in the older generations have failed to help younger generations make sense of the parts of the Bible that they think is outdated. Now, the article doesn't say which biblical teachings they think are outdated, but I think you and I can make a pretty good guess at which ones they might be.

Sean McDowell: That's right.

Scott Rae: Monogamous marriage, sex outside marriage, gender binary, male headship in the home and the church. I, and I think the question is, have we adequately explained why these are there for our flourishing? You know, God's commands are, they're not arbitrary. As you have pointed out many times before, you know, God's commands are there for our good, and I think we have, we have failed in persuading younger generations how this is the case and why this is true. Now, the other, the other thing that stood out to me, Sean, is to the first century of the early Church. They were immersed in a Greco-Roman culture, and virtually everything that the Church, early Church stood for was incredibly countercultural. And their role was they brought good into a harsh world. How they viewed sexuality, infanticide, wealth and possessions, the dignity of work, taking care of the poor, opposing the gladiators, and many other Roman traditions that they refused to participate in or took care of, because of the neglect of the Roman culture. And for many of these things, refusing to participate in these Roman traditions, many of which involved idolatrous oaths to Caesar, those were viewed as treasonous. But they turned the, they turned the ancient world upside down in how they viewed sexuality, for example. How they've, how they view... They basically stopped the practice of infanticide by essentially adopting and taking into their care... I mean, this was, this was sort of the foster system before the foster system was a thing. And I'd say it was, it was the initial foster system on steroids, where the common practice in the Roman Empire was if families couldn't support additional children, they would leave them by the roadside and to die of exposure. And the Church came and rescued these kids and brought them up in the community of God's people. And it it just, it turned upside down the way the ancient view, world viewed infanticide. Not because they were out protesting this, but they were out there solving the problem that was created by this cultural tradition. How-- the poor, for example, in the Greco-Roman world were basically left to fend for themselves. There was no safety net, and they were left essentially to, you know, park themselves by the side of the road and appeal to people who, to give them alms. And the Church was the first institution in the Greco-Roman world to actually have something systematized to, and a value on taking care of the poor.

Scott Rae: You know, they held their wealth and possessions loosely. They, you know, they just did, they did so many other things, that that introduced notions of freedom and equality and dignity that have just become part of the culture, cultural air that we breathe today in most of the Western world. And I, and sometimes I think we just, we've, we have failed to remind younger generations how out of step with the first-century culture the early church was. And that there is, there is nothing, there's nothing morally problematic necessarily with being out of step with cultural trends and traditions. So the, I think there's there's a lot of room, I think, for, just encouraging younger generations and helping them make sense out of these parts of the Bible that they wrestle with. And I understand why they wrestle with them. That's-

Sean McDowell: Sure

Scott Rae: ... That's fair. You know, Sean, it reminds me of a conversation I had with my youngest son several years ago, where I asked him sort of just tell me a little bit about sort of where are you at with your faith? And I said, I said, "This is a no judgment question. I just want to know kind of where you are." And he, and he affirmed that it was still a real thing, that he still took it somewhat seriously. But he said, "Dad, I got some parts of the Bible that I really have trouble with." And he said... So I said, "Well, tell me what they are." And he said, "Well, the one about wives being in submission to their husbands."

Scott Rae: he said, "That sounds like a prescription for abuse." And so, and so I said, "Well, let me, let me just explain to you what I think is meant by that. First, look at the verse right before that, which counsels mutual submission in the body of Christ." and I said, as a, as a result of this, you gotta look at the whole passage that affirms the main thing for men, which was not to claim any right, to have spouses submit to them, but it was instead-"

Sean McDowell: That's right

Scott Rae: ..."to love them as Christ loved the church." And I said, "That, that's a really tall order when you think about it." and the burden is really on the guy to love his wife like Christ loved the church. And if that happens, I think that the issue of submission will never, probably never be, will never emerge as a topic of conversation. And he says, "So, oh," he said, "well, that makes a lot more sense."

Sean McDowell: [laughs] Well, good.

Scott Rae: And so, you know, but I think what we just took some time to explain the sort of the full context in which that biblical text occurs, and I think it, I think it was helpful to him to get a sense of what was intended.

Sean McDowell: Scott, you're not only explaining this to us, you're modeling what it looks like with the next generation to non-judgmentally have a conversation, bring back to what the scriptures mean, and remove some of these barriers that this article is talking about. My quick take is submission comes from two words. Sub means under, like submarine, and mission is a mission. Well, what's the mission of the husband? To love Christ as Christ loves the church. Will you join me in my mission in loving you as Christ loves the church? When it's framed that way in practice, I find the vast majority, if not all women I've ever talked to would say, "Oh my goodness, that reframes things for me, and I understand." Now, I think, and one of the things that you're doing here, one of the differences between today and in the past is many of the people, especially younger generations that I speak with, will think that certain things make the Bible obsolete because they find the biblical teaching restrictive. It was actually in the first culture and first generation that people found the Bible liberating and freeing from the licentious sexual ethic of the culture. They said, "Oh my goodness, these boundaries actually protect us." So ironically, we've lost that. So I love that you brought that up. I just have a couple observations from this article that might help. One of the studies said more than a quarter of respondents agree to the statement that as culture changes, some biblical truths become obsolete. Now, in some ways, when I see one study like this with 1,000 people, I've got to qualify it. My dad always taught me you need multiple studies really to establish something definitively. I could see somebody reading this go, look, the truth that you can't have a tattoo because it's listed in Leviticus, does that still apply? I could see somebody arguing that that commandment, because it's under the Mosaic law, is now obsolete. If that's what they meant by it, I wouldn't in principle have an issue with that, but it's the next one that gives me concern. It says a third of churchgoers said that they accept some truths from the Bible, but others do not fit what they believe. So there's a difference between certain laws that were given under a theocratic system of the Old Testament, and they don't apply in the same way. That's obvious. Read the Book of Hebrews. We don't need the sacrificial system anymore because Jesus laid down his life once for all as the perfect sacrifice. That's different than saying, "Oh, stuff the Bible actually teaches doesn't align with my beliefs." That's where I say, wait a minute, that gives us concern. And I wonder, just to add to your point, if it's not us not just explaining why these teachings are good, but really getting to the heart of what kind of book is the Bible. What is it? Why do we embrace sola scriptura? The reason we embrace sola scriptura is because the words of the Bible are actually God-breathed. This is 2 Timothy chapter 3. And of course, Peter tells us that the writers were carried along by the Holy Spirit, meaning the Bible has a human component to it, but the writers were inspired by God. And so I have to think that if anybody looks at the Bible and thinks their beliefs super intend what it actually says, on some level, they don't understand and deeply believe that these are really the words of God. So, A, we gotta explain, like you just modeled for us, what the Bible actually says and why it's good. But B, what kind of book is the Bible? And make sure people understand and have reasons for that. I wonder if that could challenge some of this as well. Anything before we move on to the story on polyamory? [laughs]

Scott Rae: No, 'cause we got a lot to say about that one. [sighs]

Sean McDowell: Yes, we do. And in fact, these relate directly together because I would say one thing that we've seen over the past few years is increased deviant marital and sexual behaviors being accepted and justified in our culture, amongst other ways by people pointing towards the scriptures. Now, this was sent to me by a mutual friend of ours, and on one level it surprised me, on the other level, it didn't. But basically, in... Here's a few backstories part. In March, the Portland City Council passed an ordinance prohibiting discrimination against individuals due to, quote, "family or relationship structure." They, this Oregon city ranks second in the US for its percentage of LGBTQ residents, many who live in unconventional polyamorous arrangements. These individuals, according to the article, face structures, family structures such as housing, healthcare, education, and so they need to be given certain rights to live out their polyamorous unions. We've seen this in Somerville, Massachusetts, similarly in Hollywood, California. This trend is coming up. Now, we saw almost 12 years ago now, 11 and a half years ago, the Supreme Court's Obergefell versus Hodges, and Chief Justice Roberts wrote a stinging dissent, and he said, "What's next?" basically. People find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships. But it appears that the COVID-19 pandemic really brought polyamory into the public consciousness. Apparently, a lot of people used the opportunity to explore different kinds of relationships from before. And the article gives all these books and these articles we don't need to go into. They even make the argument that in the past, polyamory was considered those who are kind of elite, white, privileged people, and the article argues that that may not be as much the case as assumed. And of course, there's a difference between polyamory and polygamy. Polygamy is typically multiple wives. Polyamory means multiple loves. You could have a throuple or four people who are married and, according to the definition, love one another. What's interesting to me here is now there's theological and biblical arguments being put forth, and they're the same kind of arguments that we've heard for same-sex unions. Now, I might circle back to these, but one of the arguments, this is a new one for me, Scott, [laughs] although the others are not, that in Acts chapter 2, the model of holding all things together not only conclu- includes private property, but monogamous marriage. Now, I'm gonna circle back to this. I'm not gonna mock a lot of arguments, but that argument literally deserves to be mocked, it's so bad. But there's other arguments that are being put forward that I find super interesting. There's evolutionary arguments being put forward. There's one, if Christ's relationship to the church is a model for marriage, then it might as well be a plural marriage, 'cause it's not just one bride, it's many of us. You see the kind of arguments that are emerging here, and of course, it concerns me biblically, especially because we just saw there's not the level of biblical authority and understanding with this generation. Does this concern you, or do you think it's still kind of on the fringes of society?

Scott Rae: Well, Sean, first of all, I think this was 100% predictable.

Sean McDowell: That's right.

Scott Rae: Once the Obergefell decision was ruled on by the Supreme Court in 2015 that legalized same-sex marriage,

Scott Rae: that establi- essentially established the autonomy basis for same-sex marriage, that you should be able to marry and love whoever you wish, regardless of sex. Then restricting marriage to one person was the next domino to fall. Now, to be, to be clear, we're not talking

Scott Rae: about polygamy here. I think you rightly pointed out that polygamy means multiple spouses, where polyamory means multiple loves. And as far as I'm, as far as I know, polygamy is still illegal in every state. Now, the question is, I think you you rightly pointed out that the city of Portland's decision to protect the rights of these polyamorous structures sort of parallels the LGBTQ framework for the eventual approval of same-sex marriage. Because it started out, I think, correctly protecting the rights of, sort of rights basically not to be discriminated against for same-sex couples when it came to housing and employment and things like that, which I think was right to protect those. But that was the first step toward the eventual approval and sanction for same-sex marriage. And it would not surprise me to see maybe the state of Oregon or some other state where this is, this is, widely practiced to recognize these as legal marriages next. So I think that, for our listeners, keep your eyes open for that because it's- ... Following a a well-worn, track record. Now, they also-- You know, you, I think, correctly distinguished between polygamy and polyamory. They also use the term, which I find really a puzzling term, as ethical non-monogamy.

Sean McDowell: Right.

Scott Rae: Which is, they still, they say is still different from that, where you're committed to one person, but allows for other sexual partners. So usually, I think committed to one person, usually in marriage, but not always, but allows for other sexual partners. Which, Sean, I think raises questions about the level of commitment. It also raises questions about whether the term ethical non-monogamy is an oxymoron. I'm sort of inclined to think that it is.

Sean McDowell: I agree.

Scott Rae: Now, they, the article also points out that there are both hierarchical and non-hierarchical forms of polygamy. The hierarchical one meaning that one partner is privileged over the others, which I think is part of what makes these, I think in-in-inherently unstable arrangements. Now, in my view, Sean, when a married couple engages in polyamory, we should call it what it actually is, which is adultery. I would say it's still adultery, whether it's consensual or not.

Sean McDowell: Amen.

Scott Rae: What makes adultery a problem is twofold. You know, one is that violation of one's marriage covenant, and usually in adulterous situations, there's some sort of deception or concealment that's involved. But the other thing that makes adultery a problem is that you are establishing a one-flesh union with someone who is not your spouse. So, I mean, we can call it what we want, but I think when a married couple engages in this, we ought to call it maybe what it actually is. Now, the part of the article that struck me was the, when they said pro-poly arguments are grounded in the practice of plural marriage in the Bible, in the Old Testament in particular. Now, I think we ought to, for one, hermeneutically, we just, we ought to be skeptical about taking as authoritative something that was practiced in biblical times. We say not necessarily so, because there are lots of things that were practiced, as you mentioned in the Mosaic law, that are not intended for us today- ... Because we're not under the law today. There are lots of things that Israel did in the Mosaic law, which we probably should not be doing today.

Sean McDowell: [chuckles]

Scott Rae: Now, in particular, I think polygamy was allowed. To say it was a a practice that was condoned by the law, I think is a way too big a stretch. I say it was allowed because, I think largely as a safety net for women, since there were no other safety nets. And I think we ought to be, we ought to be clear too that, it was very rare that this was done, since there, the number of men who had the financial recess- resource to afford multiple wives with the vast majority of the population being, you know, subsistence level poor, that that was very small. And the only record we have of this really in the Old Testament, Sean, is some of the early patriarchs who had, you know, who I think were, well off. They'd been blessed by God. Agriculturally, they were well off. And the kings, later kings. So David, Solomon, for example.

Sean McDowell: Yeah.

Scott Rae: But these were rare exceptions to the general rule. And to say it was a widespread practice, I think is way overstating the case. The other one that I think is a little trickier is in the case of levirate marriage. That's a tradition in the Old Testament, which is again, was a safety net for women whose husbands died before they had children. And the law commanded that the closest next of kin actually marry the woman, raise up a child to carry on the lineage of her deceased husband. Okay? Now, here's the tricky part, and we get an example of this in the case of Boaz and Ruth in the Book of Ruth. The tricky part, Sean, and I'm not quite sure how to deal with this, is that the law nowhere restricts the eligibility to perform the function of the kinsman redeemer in levirate marriage to single guys. Right? Now, Boaz, of course, I think we, it's pretty clear from the Book of Ruth was a single guy. So I, it's, I think it's in the realm of possibility that we did have multiple marriages in these kind of exceptional cases to provide a safety net for childless widows when there was really no other option except for prostitution. But, you know, things that happen in rare cases as you know, in these kind of exceptional instances should not be taken as norms for practice today. Certainly does not give biblical support for something like polyamory. And then I think Ephesians five, you mentioned with the, what we just talked about, with, you know, with marriage being seen as a, as an image of the relationship of Christ and the church. That is hardly an argument for po-polyamory, since there is no sexual union involved in the marriage of Christ and the church.

Sean McDowell: Good obvious point.

Scott Rae: Among other, among other issues with that. Now, I fi... The article also points out that there, you know, some people make an argument that monogamy is natural, making a natural law argument for that. I find that somewhat less persuasive. And even if, even if it is natural, I think we can ask the question, is it natural due to being a function of the created order, or is it natural due to the pervasiveness of sin? In the world. You know, death and dying is natural too, but that was not part of the created order. It was part of the general entrance of sin into the world. So I think we have to... There's additional questions we have to ask before, I think naively assuming that just because a practice occurred in the biblical text, it's allowed or a moral norm for us today.

Sean McDowell: Exactly. That last point is key. Now, there's a whole book coming out on this apparently in spring on polyamory theology. We will come back and do a deep dive on this since it's coming. I... Just a couple observations that jump out for me on this is the you know, opening paragraph describes that these alternative family structures face obstacles, housing, healthcare, education, and so they need to adapt the law to these family structures. I'm gonna ask what should be an obvious question. Are these laws being framed to benefit adults, or are these laws being framed for the best of children? And I think the answer to that is obvious. This is where sexual desires really have become one of the key driving forces in law and all of society, that we need to make sure we have in place laws that don't, quote, "discriminate against" really whatever chosen lifestyle we want within thinner and thinner boundaries and restraints. If we started with the question, what's best for kids? How would they flourish the most? How would they become citizens in the future generations that will help society thrive and flourish and grow? I'm sorry, but we would never start with [laughs] ... We would never even conclude with coming up with these laws to protect adults. This is where our friend Katie Foust has talked about them before us. So in some ways, part of me wants to say, you know, shame on these people who put these laws in Hollywood, who put them in Massachusetts, who put them in Oregon. I'd invite them to think about what is best for kids first. And on one small level, we know all the data shows that kids with a mom and a dad in the home survive and thrive the best, period. It's alternative adults in the household not biologically tied to the kids that are more likely, to give one example, to not treat the kids well physically and sexually. It's a dangerous institution for kids, period. So as I look at it through that lens, this kind of enrages me. I'm not gonna respond to all of the theological arguments here, but it's interesting that... I'll just give a couple. One of them talks about evolutionary psychologists kinda show that animals are not wired towards monogamy 'cause they need one spouse to maybe go get food and another one to help. Spouse is the wrong term, but you get the point. One to get food, the other to stay back with the mother to protect. So here's the question. Can we look towards animals in nature and how they behave to conclude what we think is moral and good for how we ought to behave? And why is it that we tend to pick the examples that support our views but don't pick those examples that don't? Obviously in nature we have all sorts of things like cannibalism that obviously we wouldn't say, "Oh, it's natural in nature, therefore cannibalism is okay." Not pointing to nature as the example is what we should do because we are qualitatively different as human beings. Animals are not moral beings. We uniquely are moral beings. They're not hosting podcasts. They're not writing articles. They're not even thinking about this stuff. They act on instinct. So I think the evolutionary arguments are just, at most, they can say, "Here's what we observe in nature," but they can't tell us as human beings how we ought to behave. I think they're somewhat desperate. Now, one other philosopher says she proposes viewing relationships like a choose-your-own-adventure novel or a buffet dinner. "We pick the form of love that best reflects our values and interests," she argues, "without insisting everyone else conform to the same model." If that's not a recipe for subjectivism and individualism and relativism, I don't know what is. We choose our own moral values, and we don't judge others? I mean, on that, you cannot now condemn things like incestual relationships. If somebody decides sex with kids is better, I mean, if that's their value based on the ethics she's given here, how do we condemn that? So I think these arguments are really bad. Part of me says, "Bring them on. Let's have this conversation." But sadly, I don't think it's the clarity of thought that's driving this. I think these arguments are downstream. Somebody saying, "I want to be in a polyamorous relationship, so I'm gonna find Ephesians 5 and Acts 2 to justify it." This is clearly the train that's driving the caboose, which is the opposite of how Bible-believing Christians or really any wise culture should approach the text. I could keep preaching. I won't... Anything else you want to add on this one, Scott?

Scott Rae: No, I think, I think we've, I think we've done okay with this one.

Sean McDowell: All right. So one of the stories I felt like we need to talk about this week was AI because of course, President Xi from China came over, to visit, and we're talking about the race of AI with China and the US, and I heard this morning that maybe China is roughly six months behind where we are. That's kind of a consistent estimate I hear. But this article was totally intriguing to me from kind of a biblical perspective. It's a guest post in New York Times, and it talks about how AI safety means something different in China. So AI safety to us, we talk about concern that AI would steal all our passwords. AI might steal all of our funds because they can create these hugging face type of swarms that can get through protective firewalls. Well- According to President Xi Jinping of China, AI safety is bound to one overriding concern, sec- the security of the Chinese Communist Party regime. This article says correctly, "While the debate in Western capitals has centered on the danger AI poses to society, the animating concern in China is the threat it poses to the state." Chinese models are well known for avoiding politically, filtering or avoiding politically sensitive information and shaping it in a way that reflects state censorship. Key developers are working to embed Communist Party orthodoxy deeply within the models. Now, why is that concerning? Because these models are now available worldwide, and people are starting to use them, and they quietly, according to the article, carry the Communist Party worldview far beyond Chinese shores. According to Xi, he was quoted as saying that, quote, "China lays great emphasis on safety and security in AI and is committed to keep it safe, secure," and here's the key word, "controllable." Controllable. Now, what they mean by controllable is different than what you and I would mean by controllable. Now, the article goes through, we don't need to go into this, how at least apparently, and we could have this debate, that things like Anthropic and Google DeepMind, we're told, are built on liberal democratic values. Whether that's true or not, for the sake of this conversation, [chuckles] let's just assume that it is. But Mr. Xi's minister for state security, they mention literally no existential threat of AI turning against its masters, the fear that dominates conversations here, but rather it'd be used as a direct assault on our political security, institutional security, and ideological security. There is a very different worldview driving the second largest, most powerful developer of AI in the world. What's your take on this, Scott?

Scott Rae: Well, I think this piece, I think, exposes how the biases that we've been talking about bias in AI systems, large language models since their inception.

Sean McDowell: That's right.

Scott Rae: And I think it's, you know, it's naive to think that the AI that you're using is neutral because it's value-laden. It's got built-in biases. And it's just these, the ones built into the Chinese systems are intentionally built into them, but with an entirely different goal. And it's very clear the goal is the preservation of the power of the Chinese Communist Party, as opposed to what you mentioned, the liberal democratic values of some of the Western models. And I think the article summarizes this, I think, really nicely. It says the race over AI is no longer only about technological superiority. It's a contest over whose concepts of freedom, security, and the role of the state become embedded in the powerful systems that are increasingly shaping how societies think, make decisions, and wield power. And Sean, this is, I think, another example, and here it's just more overt here in China than it is in other AI systems. But it's a classic example here of how the technology shapes us and has the potential to shape us morally in our moral views and decisions. And we've become a bit desensitized to these biases due to what another article calls AI's tendency to encourage cognitive offloading. I love that term. This is another piece-

Sean McDowell: Me too

Scott Rae: ... That you sent me from The New York Times, that talks about this sort of, it's sort of asking the question, who says about the moral code that's embedded in a lot of AI systems? I this cognitive offloading, I think, is a great term for this, and what they mean by that is that as AI solves more of our problems and manages our lives, conducts our research, our own intellectual abilities atrophy.

Scott Rae: And this, I think, is magnified by what this other article calls AI's growing authority over research, that we tend to read summaries increasingly instead of actually digging deep into the sources themselves. And I think that, you know, Sean, this whole thing is a classic example of what I would call the says who question as applied to morality. Now, the the folks in the West who are developing these, they claim that they're working off values that have a moral consensus to them, and I think as a result of the law written on our hearts and the moral sense that's built into all of us, though it's been skewed by sin and self-interest, no doubt, but I think that reservoir of shared moral values is probably deeper than most scholars would like to admit. And that approach, I think, is reasonable in a, in a pluralistic culture. But I think at the end of the day, the answer to the question says who from a Christian worldview is that God is the one who says for morality based on His character and revealed in His commands and general biblical principles. And if, you know, as much as I want to make morality accessible to people who don't share a Christian worldview, at the end of the day, I think we have to come back to that says who question, Sean. And I don't know any other way to answer that that's not arbitrary except to say that it's God who says. Both in His character and in His Word. And in, and I think in as far as natural law is concerned, how He reveals some of those things, in His world as well as in His world, which I think accounts for some of the moral consensus that some of these AI developers sense about some of the values of freedom and equality And consent, things like that. As we've, as we mentioned, I think a couple stories ago, was part of what the early church instituted that's become part of the air that we breathe today.

Sean McDowell: Well said. I think one of the points you made that really jumps out to me is that AI and these systems are not neutral. It's impossible for them to be neutral. So the title of this other article I sent you that you cited, here's the title: "Who Gets to Decide AI's Moral Code?" The question is not does AI have a moral code, the question is who gets to decide it? So you can't build an AI code without certain morals and values built into it. Are they going to be communist China's values about the collective and protecting the state over the rights of the individual? Or are they going to be a more libertarian Western view that says, "Actually, the government is supposed to exist to protect the rights of the individual"? Decisions about this have to be made. It's not possible for these systems to be neutral. So this article says, I think really interesting, "How can humans get automated machines to behave as intended? All these decades later, much of the AI debate focuses on misalignment. How can we ensure the technology creates a utopia, not a dystopia?" So the question they're rescuing-- wrestling with is how do we get people to believe rightly? How do we get people to behave rightly? But that assumes that there's such a thing [chuckles] as behaving rightly, what humans are, and how we're supposed to operate. So either this is what you said, a who says like a biblical worldview built into it, or maybe a Muslim worldview built into it, or maybe a communist materialist worldview built into it. It's inescapable. Now, the one thing I think we're gonna see more as these models develop is early on there were some very clear hallucinations. You and I did a show, I don't remember, a year and a half ago, on the new, notebook kind of AI technology where you could, you could actually drop a PDF in there, and it would create [chuckles] a podcast with the content in the PDF. It's really remarkable. So I threw a PDF of Galatians in there, and one of the results when, 'cause it's a book about freedom, the solution is all like freedom from a total critical theory perspective. Somehow these other ideas filtered into Galatians, and it was not analyzing Galatians. It was so obviously imported from another worldview. My concern is these things are gonna be more subtle, is that they won't be as obvious, and we won't be on the alert for them, and they'll be affecting us in ways that we don't realize. That's my concern. So the article goes more and says, for example, certain models, tend to show a preference for values like fairness and consent over authority, loyalty, and sanctity. So a Chinese model might have more focus on, say, authority and loyalty, or an American model might emphasize more on fairness. But a decision has to be made. And they point out how many early models were built, models were built on utilitarian ideas are woven into it. So whatever's considered the best for the most is going to shape it. Now, how does this get practical is this article I thought was fascinating, Scott. It says, "These kinds of values are already affecting your life." They said, "Many hospitals, AI writes the messages that doctors are sending patients." My wife has gotten AI messages [chuckles] specifically related to medical issues. They said, "On religious apps, tens of millions of people are confessing their deepest secret to chatbots. More than a quarter of Americans say they have personal or emotional discussions with chatbots, and nearly one in five young people use them for mental health advice." It says, "The AI value shapes the guidance that it gives." And I think that's exactly right. So I just wanna put on the radar of people that it's not a question of do these AI systems have a moral code, because they're imitating human beings, and they're giving advice rooted in the way the world works, what we should value, how we should think. There are undoubtedly ideas woven into every single AI system, and that's why we need to know scripture, and we need to use them with real discernment and care.

Scott Rae: Yeah. A couple things just to add to this. I did a similar experiment that you did. I put a sample prompt in and had them base it on my own work.

Sean McDowell: Oh.

Scott Rae: And I, came out to be a raving utilitarian.

Sean McDowell: Are you? You did? [laughs]

Scott Rae: Yeah. Which was quite-

Sean McDowell: I suspected it all along, Scott, just for the record. [laughs]

Scott Rae: Which which was quite a surprise, actually.

Sean McDowell: My word.

Scott Rae: And I wonder, Sean, I wonder if for some of our listeners, this might, this might be news to them that AI actually has a moral code. They, I mean, you know, that's not, that's not obvious to me that a large language model would have that built into it. But I think it's, you know, be aware that there are moral biases, some of which I think are consistent with a Christian worldview, but others clearly are not. So, yeah, I did not wanna, I did not wanna be known as a raving utilitarian, in the, in the spirit of John Stuart Mill, but that's that's how I turned out, at least, at least with this one example.

Sean McDowell: I couldn't think of an ethic-- Well, I guess I could think of one that's more off than that, but I've read your books, talked with you for a decade doing this, had you as a prof. If that's what the AI system you use concluded, it just could not be more off base, which is a caution. I wonder if this is a way to think about it. If you imagine like a system with all these different levers, and you push up on, say, the fairness metric. I lean into fairness. Well, let's lower the loyalty. I wonder if this is kind of the way that you have to build a system and its responses. I don't know if it's that strategic, but I think it has to be. And a lot of it is 'cause this is built by human beings, and this is not like we're building a car that is morally neutral, not in terms of how we use it, but in terms of its system. AI reflects and imitates humans' behavior. So by definition, it can't be neutral. So I think there's probably people building AI systems intentionally with a worldview behind it, and some that don't even realize it, but it reflects their worldview because they're shaping it in a certain way. Either way, like you said, there's a moral ethic built into it. All right. Let's shift to a story. You sent me this piece. Those last two are from The New York Times. This is from Christianity Today. I would not have seen this one, although this story cropped up, and so I think it's important we talk about it. And the title says, "Christians came together to defend or to help defeat UK's Assisted Dying Bill." Now, there's a few things that there was a vote that was just within recent times, and it was a close vote, two hundred and eighty-six to two hundred and seventy, so no's as opposed to ayes. And the article says, "The vote followed nearly two years of passionate debate over assisted dying in England. Kim Leadbeater, a Labor Party MP from north of England, first introduced the bill in October 2024," so two years ago. "The bill would have allowed adults to request assistance from doctors to end their own lives, provided they had mental capacity, were terminally ill, and were in their final six months of life." Now, the article points out a few things. It said, "For more than a decade ago, supporters of assisted suicide presented a similar bill to M-MPs, and it was easily defeated." So it makes me wonder if this is good news with an asterisk about where the trend might be going within another five or ten years, but we can circle back to that. There's an evangelical alliance which represents thirty thousand individuals and three thousand churches, lets the organization's leadership know early in the bill's journey that they were concerned. And actually, one of the key individuals here said it's, it was not difficult to mobilize them, this is evangelicals, to campaign against the bill's passage. So it sounds like they were very-- had convictions about assisted dying and willing to get engaged in the political process to stop it. So they formed a letter, published it in The Daily Telegraph in November 2024, and they described the assisted billing as a dangerous threat to our society and talk about how it reduces the value of human life to physical and mental capacity and, some of the other problems with it. A thousand members of the clergy, signed it, which is pretty significant. So I thought this was a great example of the church stepping up on a life and death issue, working together across differences, and making a collective case together for the common good, rooted in biblical ideas, but even more broadly in human rights ideas. I'd love your take on this since you've studied this in depth. Even if you're a utilitarian, Scott, I still wanna know what you think about this one [chuckles] .

Scott Rae: Well, even on utilitarian grounds, I think this should be opposed.

Sean McDowell: Oh, okay

Scott Rae: ... But that's a another story for another day.

Sean McDowell: Step it out here.

Scott Rae: I think this is, I think, overwhelmingly good news- ... For the elderly and the chronically ill, that they do not have to fear,

Scott Rae: having assisted suicide or euthanasia performed on them, having been coerced either by physicians or family members into making a decision not because they're tired of living, but because their loved ones are tired of them living. And I think that to to recognize that this is, this is a what I, what we call a logical slippery slope that moves from the voluntary, which the law requires that it be fully voluntary. But in my view, Sean, that's impossible to enforce because there's no way that government has access to private conversations between patients and physicians or patients and family members who may be trying to subtly or not so subtly twist their arm to sign an assisted suicide declaration, again, not because the patient's tired of living, but because they become a burden to their loved ones. And remember, too, I think the important thing is that the context is really different in the UK than here because they have a, they have a national health service, essentially a, what we, what we're calling Medicare for All, and they have huge concerns about resource allocation with their aging population. And remember, this is, you know, I get this, probably more so than you do because I'm one of the baby boomers- ... Who are becoming what have, what would have been called the geezer boomers, who are, you know, who are rapidly aging. We have the highest percentage of people in the population over the age of sixty-five in almost every Western country in the world. And, the other thing to remember is that on average, people will spend roughly half of their lifetime healthcare expenditures in the last year of their lives. When it will, I, when it will arguably do them the least amount of good. And in the UK, different, I think, than the US, legalizing assisted suicide is, I think, seen as one of the ways, it's it's tough public relations to do it like this, but the, nevertheless, it's been emphasized as an important way to control healthcare expenses for this still growing part of the population. For example, Dame Mary Warnock, who is, who was, is very influential in bioethics in the UK, has said in the past, and I quote, "If you are seriously demented, you are wasting the resources of the National Health Service." And they, and I think the solution, since as a, as a colleague of mine said many years ago, there's nothing cheaper than dead. And it is much more expensive to care for someone at the end of life than it is to have them exercise assisted suicide. Now, the, so I think this has the, this has the potential, I think, to protect the elderly from a slide down that slope from voluntary to non-voluntary assistance or some sort of coercion that the this, the law being completely voluntary, I would argue is impossible to enforce- ... On a widespread scale without intolerable invasions of privacy. But the other thing that's encouraging, and this is the point that you had mentioned, is the impact of the Christian community on this. They unified around the cause. They also made a big difference, and the reason I think is twofold. One is they were clear and unapologetic about the importance of their theological convictions. Now, they also appealed to other arguments in addition to their theological ones, but they did not try to hide the religious basis for their position, even though some members of Parliament wanted to rule those perspectives off the table. And Sean, I remember a conversation I had with, the he's retired now, but the theologian Gilbert Meilaender, who had-

Sean McDowell: Yeah

Scott Rae: ... Served for, served for eight years.

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm.

Scott Rae: He's a Lutheran theologian, taught at Valparaiso for many years. One of the, one of the most insightful theologians I know, and he has served, as a sort of evangelical representative on President George W. Bush's National Bioethics Advisory Commission, and a number of us sat around the lunch table with him at a conference, after he had, after he was, he was getting ready to go off the commission 'cause the Bush administration was winding down. And I remember him saying, he said, "You know, I think in the future I'm gonna be unabashedly Christian and let the chips fall where they will about how persuasive that is."

Sean McDowell: Wow.

Scott Rae: And I thought that was really a remarkable admission for someone who had spent a good bit of his career trying to make arguments from a Christian worldview, make them publicly accessible for a pluralistic group on the Bioethics Commission and for the general public who reflects that. But he, but he said, "I think I'm, I think I'm done with that." I think, I think the time is right to be unapologetically and unreservedly Christian about this. Show my theological cards, and if people don't find them persuasive, then sort of, I, he never, didn't say it like this, but sort of shake the dust off my feet and move on. Now I think that, I think that's an important, I think, balance to the need to have reasons that are publicly accessible if we really want to be persuasive in terms of public policy. He was, I think, at the end of his career in terms of that kind of influence.

Sean McDowell: Yeah.

Scott Rae: But it was, I think a remarkable statement, I think, that this organization that you describe has adopted and actually found it to be pretty effective.

Sean McDowell: That is powerful. When somebody's towards the end of their career and they have reflections like that, it's really worth listening to and weighing. And of course, there's a difference between convincing my neighbor or making a case maybe from natural law or from history or psychology or the harms of something, and just publicly saying with 1,000 clergy members who are citizens of the UK and have a voice, "Here's our concern," and stating it out very clearly with a biblical justification. I think there is some power in that. I like this example. You and I have talked endlessly about how Christians engage politics, how they don't. Obviously, things are different in the UK. I'm not even gonna pretend that I understand the dynamics there and how it maps on and is similar or different than here, but on an issue as serious as this, and by serious, I mean it's dealing with life and death. Because as you've pointed out, this is, this is not a slippery slope fallacy. We've seen these laws go from voluntary to involuntary, from adults to children, from physical health and dying to mental health. We see these things happening, and so for the church to come together and say, "We stand against people, being treated this way, even in the name of compassion, because every life has value," I think there's something powerful in core issues like this that are clearly gospel related, broadly speaking, in terms of humans made in God's image and how we treat people and our witness to the society. I love this example, seeing the church come together in this way. Anything else on this one that jump out to you? I know this is an issue you've really studied in some depth, and you've-

Scott Rae: Well, no, 'cause I think-

Sean McDowell: Yeah

Scott Rae: ... We've talked about it quite a bit, but, you know, I I guess to our listeners, keep watch in case, this is resubmitted- ... In the House of Commons. I suspect it's going to be in the next two or three years. We'll try to keep you apprised of that.

Sean McDowell: Love it. Here's a question for you, Scott. I'm gonna ask you to weigh in on this one, 'cause this is not an issue I've studied. I want people to know that you and I spend a good amount of time reading the news and trying to think about it biblically, but sometimes stories crop up and I'm like, "I don't have time to read that story. There's too many today." But this one, I've seen a lot of conversation about the ethics of flock cameras, and most of the conversations according to this question apparently focus on the legality of it, kind of from a consequentialist view of ethics, giving up rights to keep us safe. But is there a way to think about this biblically? Like, is this good for society? How ethically should we think about flock cameras?

Scott Rae: Well, Sean, here's the thing.

Scott Rae: I'm not, I'm not convinced that we have rights of privacy when we're in public. That strikes me as a bit of an oxymoron. If you want, if you want rights of privacy, stay private. Now the surveillance can't invade our homes, it can't invade our cars.

Scott Rae: But I guess just because you know, the public is not a private sphere. Now to be fair, I do worry a bit about these used to prosecute people for things other than criminal activity. And you know, if I I might have a different view of this if I lived in totalitarian countries. So you can, you can be prosecuted for opposing the state, for free exercise of religion, things like that. But I think in general, if you, in a, in a liberal democratic society, if you have nothing to hide, then I'm not, I'm not totally sure what the buzz is about- ... On this. Now I know these can be misused, but, I think, you know, the Bible calls us to be people of integrity, whether in public or in private. And I think part of the reason for that is because you sleep well at night with a person, of integrity. You don't have to worry about people catching you in gotcha moments if you're always telling the truth.

Sean McDowell: Amen.

Scott Rae: So I guess I'm not, I'm not, I'm not losing a lot of sleep over public surveillance, because I don't, I don't, I don't think I have a lot to hide. And I'm trying my best to be a person of integrity. So I think that, I think that's the Bible's emphasis on this. And I suspect you have something to add to this too.

Sean McDowell: You know what? I don't have a ton to add to that. I just think the concern is more you've made an in principle argument. The concern a lot of people raise would be the abuse of that, again, like we're seeing in China-

Scott Rae: Right

Sean McDowell: ... Where that data is being used against people. So does their existence lead to that? Not necessarily, but we'd wanna make sure certain safeguards are in place. But in principle, I think you make, you make a great point. I don't have a problem with that. Well said. All right, here's a question. One of the most actually common questions I get. In fact, I recently, Scott, was in a prison and I took 100, about 200 prisoners were asking me apologetic questions, and it was really fun.

Scott Rae: Awesome. Awesome.

Sean McDowell: Posted it on YouTube, interacted with them, and this was one of the questions that they asked me that I've been emailed about here as well, and it's basically a question, will we still be able to choose evil in heaven? If so, like, or, you know, will we still be ourselves if we can't choose evil? If we do, can we get kicked out of heaven? And my quick take is some people argue that we actually lose free will when we get to heaven. We're kind of sired in the choice that we made. I think we have free will, but we understand the depths of our sin and there's no longer any sin in our hearts, there's no longer any sin in the environment, and there's no longer any tempter who's tempting us. So I would no more sin in heaven 'cause I see through a glass clearly. Then I would just, you know, take my son and go drop him off a freeway to see if he would bounce on the 5. Like, that is not even remotely tempting to

Scott Rae: [laughs]

Sean McDowell: ... 'cause I love my son. I think we have that level of clarity and we're transformed by Christ, that it's logically possible, but guaranteed we wouldn't. And the difference with the garden is we've chosen to be there. We've repented of our sins, invited Christ in to transform us in a way that Adam and Eve didn't. Anything you wanna throw in on that one?

Scott Rae: Well, it's just that, you know, the two different sides of eternity are completely different worlds. As part of our humanity on this side of eternity, it, freedom means the prospect of sin. But on the other side of eternity, we have transformed bodies and characters, unlike on this side.

Sean McDowell: Amen.

Scott Rae: So I think the prospect of, the prospect of sin I think is sort of off the table because of that.

Sean McDowell: I love it. Our colleague Clint Arnold talks about how there's the sin of the world and of the flesh and of the devil. That's where temptation comes from. Well, we're now in a transformed world. Our flesh is transformed and the devil is gone. [laughs] So the means or motivation, we're in God's presence and we've been completely redeemed. It's guaranteed we won't. All right, good stuff. Again, there's other questions that have come through, but we just simply cannot get to all of them. But Scott, good stuff, man. Looking forward to next week.

Scott Rae: Yeah. I agree. Enjoyed it, as usual.

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, Biola University, where both Scott and I teach. We'd love to have you join us in person. We have campuses in Phoenix and Southern California or online in our programs on apologetics, philosophy, marriage and family, Old Testament, New Testament, spiritual formation. Please keep sending your comments and questions. You can email us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu. Please take a moment to just pause right now, dude, if you're still listening, give us a rating on your podcast app. I'm not kidding, every single rating helps. Thank you so much for listening, and we'll see you Tuesday when I sit down with one of my all-time heroes and now colleagues, J.P. Moreland, to talk about his life, what he's learned through suffering, and what he considers the best argument for the existence of God. Don't miss that Tuesday. In the meantime, remember to think biblically about everything. [upbeat music]