Weekly Cultural Update: Peter Singer critiques the Pope; The Neurobiology of Fatherhood; Gene Editing; Gen Z Men Resisting Temptation

Episode Transcript

Scott Rae: [upbeat music] Princeton philosopher Peter Singer criticizes the Pope for his view of human exceptionalism, the impact of fatherhood on a man's brain, gene editing and medical inequality, and an encouraging trend about Zen- Gen Z young men. These are the stories we'll cover, and we'll address some of your questions. I'm your host, Scott Rae, and sitting in for Sean, who's speaking somewhere in Sub-Sahara Africa this week, is my Talbot colleague in theology, Dr. Erik Thoennes. This is the Think Biblically weekly cultural update coming to you from Talbot School of Theology at Biola University. Erik, always really good to have you with us, so appreciate your insights, and looking forward to this conversation.

Erik Thoennes: Thanks, Scott, so am I.

Scott Rae: All right. In the most recent encyclical on artificial intelligence, entitled Magnifica Humanitas, which Sean and I have discussed at length when it came out, the Pope grounded his views on AI and other important issues such as the just war concept on the doctrine of intrinsic human dignity by virtue of humanity being made in the image of God. This, in the Pope's view, is what sets human beings apart from the rest of the animal world and makes human beings exceptional. However, critics of the Pope, such as noted Princeton philosopher Peter Singer, took exception to the notion of human exceptionalism. And now to be fair, the... Singer had a lot of very positive things to say about the encyclical. For example, he praised the Pope for his critique of what he calls techno-utopianism, but he contri- critiques the Pope's view of the human person as having intrinsic worth by virtue of being human, calling it anthropocentrism. His views on human personhood are well-known, and he distinguishes routinely between a human being and a human person based on particular capacities needed to be a full person, which some categories of human beings do not have, and some classes of animals do. He enjoins the Pope to consider the interest of all sentient beings, not just human beings, in his assessment of the implications of AI and its impact on human beings. Now, Erik, I have all of our grad students read Peter Singer-

Erik Thoennes: Mm-hmm

Scott Rae: ... Because of his influence in the broader culture, and this is... I think this is one of those examples of an academic who's had really broad cultural impact on the world of bioethics and how we, how we understand what human beings and human persons are. So you're... I'd be interested to hear your take on this, particularly as a theologian.

Erik Thoennes: Well, I also, even in my undergrad theology classes, bring Singer up. I don't think a broad swath of people agree with him, but I honestly almost wonder why because they often share the same presuppositions he does, and I think he's so helpful because he follows his presuppositions about humanity to their logical conclusion in a way that, quite frankly, I think a lot of thinkers don't have the guts to do. And so I think he does a great service to Christian theology in showing us someone who is willing... I compare him to Nietzsche, who's willing to follow his presuppositions to their logical conclusion in a way that forces people who share those presuppositions to deal with where they're heading invariably if you're consistent. And so I so appreciate that consistency, even though I am appalled by his conclusions and his presuppositions. And so I think, I think he does a service to us in that way. The other thing I immediately thought of when I read this article was the common anthropology we share with Roman Catholics. Even though I have some significant disagreements, especially in ultimate authority and in how we're saved with Roman Catholic theology, this is one of those areas where we have such wonderful agreement with a Roman Catholic perspective as the Pope writes about here. And so I appreciated what he wrote about AI, and I think even some of the cautions Singer raises are legitimate if you don't have a consistent Christian view of the superiority of humanity, not as a way of dominating the rest of creation, but stewarding it for its good and the glory of God. And so he just lacks a significant understanding of Christian theology in this regard, where we are not animal abusers because we are superior to the animal world in this way or creation at all. We're stewards of it for its good. And so I think Singer actually raises some good concerns, but they're based on an insufficient understanding of the creation mandate to rule over and subdue, be fruitful and multiply, and steward the creation for its good and for the glory of God.

Scott Rae: Yeah, I I appreciate that take on this, Erik. And I too, I credit Singer for his consistency with his worldview, and in fact, it brings up, I would say, some troubling conclusions. Others, I would call terrifying conclusions.

Erik Thoennes: Yes

Scott Rae: And I think you're absolutely right that, the... I think the average, the average scholar who shares these worldviews doesn't have the stomach to go all the way with it. I've seen this in the bioethics literature repeatedly, throughout the years. Now I... It's also... His view, I think, is not surprising given his worldview as a what we call a philosophical naturalist, who believes that what we can measure with our senses, what we can apprehend with our five senses, is all there is to reality.

Erik Thoennes: Mm-hmm.

Scott Rae: And if human beings are not in made in God's image, then it seems pretty clear to me that there's nothing exceptional about us.And there's no reason to make a moral distinction between human beings and animals. I say in addition, there's no adequate grounding for fundamental human rights and no reason to necessarily favor human interests over those of animals if the view of naturalism is correct. Now, I think this in part explains his strong advocacy for animal rights, though I would suggest, and I, and I think you would agree with this, that you can have strong animal protections and human exceptionalism at the same time. And I think the reason we do is not so much because animals have rights, but because it it... Human beings have a virtue component that makes us ask the question, what kind of people are we that we would abuse animals? And I think that's a, that could actually be a very powerful, b-basis for something like the significant protection of the interests of animals. Now, I think, for Singer, I think what makes, what makes a human being a person is the capacity of sentience. And that is, it's the, that's the technical term for the ability to experience sensations, namely pain, but it's, it... In reality, it's the ability to have an interest in your interests. That's really what they mean by that. And there are... So obviously there are, you know, the unborn, the seriously ill, the people who are in irreversible comas and vegetative states would not be able to have an interest in their interest. And some forms of animals, he would say, do have that sentience. But Eric, I, every time I hear this argument, I remember times when I was consulting in a hospital setting, and I would see patients who have lost their sentience temporarily. They're in reversible comas. Sometimes they are in medically induced comas, and the design is for them to lack all sentience so that their brain has a chance to heal. Or even patients who are under general anesthesia, if it's done correctly, don't have any sentience for which, you know, God help them if they do have sentience under general anesthesia, 'cause that would be a, that would be a, an episode of anesthesia gone way off the rails. But it seems like people in those conditions, we would say, certainly have full human rights because those, the loss of sentience is temporary. But so is the case for the unborn. You know, they temporarily don't have sentience because it's appropriate for their developmental stage. And so I think the the idea that sentience is the thing that makes a human being a person, I think runs up against some counter examples, I think, that are pretty intuitive in my view, that you can't, you can't, define a human person just based on that particular ability.

Erik Thoennes: Right. And I think the bottom line is just functional ways of defining human value or value in general, rather than ones that come from the assessment of a creator about the value of someone or something. And when you start with only functional ways of defining humans, by that I mean sentience, for instance, or IQ or self-awareness-

Scott Rae: Yeah

Erik Thoennes: ... This human to human-

Scott Rae: Ra-ra-rationality

Erik Thoennes: Rationality. Even happiness i, is one of the criteria that social scientists have used for attributing value, which leads to the kinds of conclusions that Singer's been coming to for decades like this, where, I... One of the quotes I'll read in class from Singer is, "I've argued that life of a fetus is of no greater value than life of a non-human a-animal at a similar level of rationality, self-consciousness, awareness, capacity to feel, et cetera. And since no fetus is a person, no fetus has the s-same claim to life as a person." And then he says, here's the consistency we're talking about. "Now, it must be admitted that these arguments apply to the newborn baby as much as to the fetus. If the fetus does not have the same claim to life as a person, it appears the newborn baby does not either, and the life of a newborn baby is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee." And that's consistent and, like you say, terrifying and horrifying. The implications are tremendous. But then he points out, well, and Dawkins does as well, they're very similar in the way they talk about things like this, that they get chastised for following these things to their conclusion when maybe th-they estimate about 90% of, for instance, babies who are known to have Down syndrome are bor-aborted before they're born. And then he and Dawkins will point out that, okay, so we're just saying out loud what actually-

Scott Rae: Right

Erik Thoennes: ... People must believe based on the statistics of the way people abort a baby with less functional capacity than they were expecting. And so it it is a just a terrifying way of thinking, but consistent and, I think, helpful for those of us who have theological transcendent understanding of humans that don't get reduced to just functional capacity, so that we have the basis for valuing human beings regardless of functional limitations. That leads to the kind of virtues and values that I think most people have. They just often don't have the undergirding for it in a foundational theological way.

Scott Rae: You know, I appreciate you framing human value the way you do, as not dependent upon functional abilities or functional capacities. I think that's a really important thing to recognize, and I think this relates to our understanding of the image of God, to make sure we understand it correctly. And I I think, I think you'll agree with me on this, that the, that the image of God is a statusNot connected to any particular function that human beings have. Now, we have these functions because we are the product of a creator God who has those functions. But I think those are not really what is meant by the image of God. And the reason for that is that those functions are what we call degreed properties, that they are, they are more or less properties, not all or nothing properties.

Erik Thoennes: Right.

Scott Rae: And the image of God is not a degreed property. You don't have more or less of that. You either are made in the image of God or you are not. And so I think understanding that it is a status and not dependent upon those particular functions that people like to say are critical for being human, I think is an important clarification on maybe some ways that we've misunderstood or misapplied the image of God in the past. Do you agree with that or are you taking-

Erik Thoennes: Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. And what I, what I hope people realize is that if you don't start with the kind of perspective on where value comes from, especially with humans the way we're talking, then the criteria is so subjective that it's amazing the things that social scientists like Singer will choose because of his worldview, and that's what needs to be realized. It's subjective. It's relatively expressed. It can change throughout your life. It's... And centrally, it stresses the quality of life based on function rather than the sanctity of life based on God's perspective. And if you adopt this, where does it end? If I can demonstrate-

Scott Rae: Great question

Erik Thoennes: ... If I can demonstrate that there are people groups, for instance, that are contributing less to the gross domestic product of the world or contributing more disease to the world than other people groups, can I then now start to build a justification for genocide? I think so. And if it's just evolutionary development, it just makes human dignity just a relative category and totally subjective, and not something you can actually build something like the civil rights movement on. That's why when you read a Martin Luther King sermon, it's grounded in, Christian anthropology-

Scott Rae: Right

Erik Thoennes: ... You know, undeniably and explicitly. Because how else do you get to the kinds of conclusions I actually think most people hold to, even atheists, if you don't have that starting point?

Scott Rae: Well, they certainly live like they are holding them whether they do or not.

Erik Thoennes: Right. I have, I have a family member, and he's a social Darwinist, he's an atheist, and he has an amazing Christian ethic in the way he runs his business and treats people, and I call him a hypocrite all the time because I say [laughs]

Scott Rae: [laughs]

Erik Thoennes: "Look, you are not living consistently with your presuppositions. Man, if it's about survival of the fittest and climbing to the top of the gene pool, why are you helping the poor? Why are you [laughs] helping the downtrodden? Why are you living like a Christian when you don't have the starting point for that? [laughs] So come on, man, be consistent." [laughs]

Scott Rae: [laughs] Touché.

Erik Thoennes: Yeah. [laughs]

Scott Rae: All right, let's... Here's a second story. I love the title of this. This is from The New York Times editorial page over the weekend, and it's entitled Every Dad Bod Is a Healthy Dad Brain. [laughs] And I love this from psychologist Darby Saxbe, the author of Dad Brain: The New Science of Fatherhood and How It Shapes Men's Lives. And I think this is appro- pretty particularly appropriate with Father's Day on the horizon that we talk about this. Now, Eric, we already know, and there's this well documented, that the children of engaged fathers have lots of advantages across a whole variety of domains. We also know that hands-on dads are better for moms. They relieve stress on mothers, they improve their partner's relationship satisfaction, and they can even help temper the risk of postpartum depression in moms. But here's what he, here's what the author describes when he was researching his new book. He said, "As I discovered when doing the work for my new book, becoming a committed father also directly men- benefits men. Men who prioritize fatherhood may lose some sleep, gain some extra weight," hence the dad bod, "enjoy less free time, but they can also discover a richer life with greater meaning, purpose, and connection." And here's the the conclusion he draws: "When it comes to brain health and mental fitness, becoming a father is one of the best things that you can do." Now, he goes on to describe an emerging body of research is discovering that fatherhood can protect men's brains as they get older. He cites the research of a neuroscientist in the UK, that they used data from what's called the UK Biobank, which is a repository of brain scans of thousands of participants across the UK to test whether parents show different trajectories of brain age in middle age and beyond. What they found is that the brains of the participants with children looked younger, a relationship that emerged with both fathers and mothers. Now, the article concludes like this. I love the point he makes with this, and I'm quoting here. "In learning how to care for children, fathers develop their empathy, build their brains, and cultivate skills that can enhance their organizations and communities. Ultimately, the traits of a good dad are also the traits of a good man. Strength coupled with the willingness to look out for the young and vulnerable, to teach but also to listen, to lead by example, to tackle daunting challenges, and to persevere with grit." Now, I know, Eric, you've thought a lot about fatherhood and, you know, what it does for men, particularly for younger men. This has a, this has a, some interesting conclusions for what it does for men over the, over the trajectory of their lives. So I'm curious to hear your take on this other than to say a hearty amen.To what this study suggests

Erik Thoennes: Well, foundationally, I just loved this article. Foundationally, it was highlighting for me, I don't, know about this author, but there is so much that highlights a Christian view of masculinity, a Christian view of manhood, of fatherhood, of... And again, Scott, I, every time I've done this with you, I I believe the Spirit weaves together a theme in these articles that you and I land on, sometimes somewhat seemingly randomly. But the one, the theme that I see through all these articles is God's ways are the right ways. And when you are consistent with God's ways, beautiful things happen, even to your brain. And in spite of the worldly values not being highlighted with a dad bod, actually, it's an indicator of something very good going on. And so especially in light of the looks maxing movement among especially young men who are doing bizarre things just to get a jawline that's more attractive, [chuckles] it's just so Corinthian in its shallowness. And this article highlighted far more important priorities and values than the superficiality so many men are oriented around. And when we commit to family and to being fathers and having children and being present, it's best, and it's actually good for you physically, spiritually, emotionally, psychologically, [chuckles] in your health, and and obviously, hopefully for the children as well, and your wife. And so I just really appreciated this article, and even at the end, highlighting, you know, you stopped reading, and let me just read the last couple sentences. "When we celebrate these traits, not only do we build a healthier brain and a more satisfying old age, but we also elevate a positive pro-social version of masculinity that provides an alternative to the lone wolf, the secular monk, and the darker, crueler visions of manhood that the manosphere is serving our boys." And I do, I love this idea that there is a version of manhood and masculinity that deep down, even people who don't think those categories exist, they long for those things and know it's good for our society and for children.

Scott Rae: You know, Eric, I remember a conversation I had with one of my sons. I, you know, we have, we have three sons. They're all in their 30s. And who was at one point in his life was having significant doubts about whether he wanted to have a family. And now thankfully, that has since been resolved. But I remember a conversation I had with him, and I said, "I've got to be completely straight with you about this." I said there is... I told him, "There's nothing in my life," you know, all the, all the books I've done, the professional success, all that. Nothing in my life that was more satisfying than being his dad, and nothing else is even close. Now, I also told him it was one of the hardest thing I've ever done, too. You know, and I didn't, I didn't start out with my kids being at, you know, at a very active age like you when you adopted yours. And but being a dad, I think it makes getting a PhD look like a walk in the park-

Erik Thoennes: Absolutely

Scott Rae: ... Comparatively speaking.

Erik Thoennes: Absolutely.

Scott Rae: And the the joy that I get out of looking back on being an engaged parent and being there, you know... And I took, I, when my kids were playing sports, and I was coaching their teams, I probably, I went probably 10 years without attending academic conferences. I turned down almost every speaking engagement that involved overnight travel. I just, and I just told, I told my wife, I said, "I do not want to be in my, in my 60s and look back on my kids' growing up years and say, 'Shoot, I missed it.'" That is, that, I can't imagine too many regrets that would be more significant than having missed those. And I remember my, you know, my seminary mentor saying, he said, "You know, I know lots of people who they, you know, they strive really hard to get to the top of the ladder, only to realize that it's been leaning on the wrong wall all along."

Erik Thoennes: Oof. Wow.

Scott Rae: And, you know, he's talking about the folks who they're at the top of their profession, but they're at the bottom of their personal life. And they may be at the top of their field, but, you know, they may be on their third marriage and are alienated from their kids. You know, my former teaching colleague told me about a law partner that he had many years ago who, was a huge success in the field. But when he had a, when he had a massive heart attack, the only family member, the he couldn't talk any of his family members into coming to take him home from the hospital.

Erik Thoennes: Yeah.

Scott Rae: You know, who took him, who took him home from the hospital after a heart attack was his secretary. And I, you know, I think, yikes, that is so sad. You know, and I had a, I had one of the people I studied with my doctoral program, very well-respected professor who shared with his class, I was a TA for his course. He shared with his class on the last day of class how many regrets he had about the nights that he spent in his study working on articles and books that are now out of print or that only a handful of people were reading, and he lamented how he had become alienated from his kids because of the neglect, that had happened. It was just, it was heartbreaking to hear him just go back and say, "You know, I wish, I wish I could do this over again." and this, I think this is one of those, one of those articlesThat says, look, you know, being a dad, there's, you know, there's... It's not, it's great, it's not for everybody, and singleness, you know, the Bible affirms singleness as well. But there's just, there's something, I think, in how we're wired that being a parent brings out, like not too many other things do.

Erik Thoennes: So true. I often will say to my wife that I think adopting our four kids was the hardest and best thing we've ever done as a couple. And like you say, it's profoundly sanctifying. I've never felt the need for wisdom as much as I have-

Scott Rae: [laughs]

Erik Thoennes: ... When I became a dad. And I've had some wonderful mentors in my life, but professionally, you and Mike Wilkins have been the primary mentors for me. And-

Scott Rae: I appreciate that

Erik Thoennes: ... I will never forget when we were in the thick of, I think it was our third adoption, and you and I had lunch. And, I mean, it, one of your roles in my life was to make sure I'm growing as a scholar and publishing, and I can't tell you how freeing it was when you said to me at that lunch, "I think when I was in the thick of raising my boys, I didn't publish anything for years." And that was so freeing to me, Scott, because you were helping me prioritize at that time in my life what mattered most at that time in my life, and it was so important to hear that. And this idea of a present father, some people think is unmasculine, and I think that's because of the Industrial Revolution that brought fathers out of the-

Scott Rae: That's right

Erik Thoennes: ... Home unlike ever-

Scott Rae: That's right

Erik Thoennes: ... Before in human history, really. When agrarian cultures, the dad was there all the time, and the kids were out in the field with him, working with him, and coming home for breakfast and lunch after he got things going in the morning. And so a present father is anything but unmasculine. My goodness. It it's something that cultivates a maturity and a growth that's profound. And like you say, this, I don't think fatherhood should ever be seen for Christians as something limited to having children in your home, either biologically or adopted, because Paul calls Timothy his son in the faith. I think we should be looking for father figures in the church, and we should be looking to be father figures as men and sisters and mothers as well. But I think there's a particular need for men to step up and say, "I want to be a father figure to younger men in my life," because that's the foundational discipleship model the Bible gives. I just went to a great church last Sunday back in Connecticut, and I was so thankful for the worship and for the preaching of this solid church in a very spiritually dry area. But I was grieved during the sung corporate worship that most of the men and fathers I could see were just standing there with their hands in their pockets during the worship-

Scott Rae: Interesting

Erik Thoennes: ... Time not singing. And I was watching their 13-year-old sons following Dad's lead on that.

Scott Rae: Mm-hmm.

Erik Thoennes: And so to take that in the opposite direction, in both in our families but also in the church family, take seriously the wonderful privilege and challenging, sanctifying effect that seeing ourselves as father figures, even to those who aren't in our home, we, that we have, that's a great privilege.

Scott Rae: Yeah. And we will, put a link to this particular article. I hope you get a chance to read this. I'm challenged to read the book, that the author has described called Dad Brain: The New Science of Fatherhood and How It Shapes Men's Lives.

Erik Thoennes: Mm-hmm.

Scott Rae: I wonder if you're looking for something to give a dad for a Father's Day gift, that might actually be a winner, for that. Now, I say that not having read the book as a whole-

Erik Thoennes: Right

Scott Rae: ... But based on the article that we've seen.

Erik Thoennes: Let me just finish with these-

Scott Rae: Yeah, go ahead

Erik Thoennes: ... These couple sentences that were also in the article. "In the hands of hustle culture and wellness influencers, the ideal male lifestyle depends on careful control. While focused on crafting the best possible self, these men may miss the mark on this goal, given the evidence of fatherhood's benefits for longevity and brain health. You can perfect your body fat percentage and your prot- productivity at work, but you can't optimize your way into caretaking, a caretaking bond with a young child." Just beautiful.

Scott Rae: Amen. I think one of the, one of the most important things I've learned as being a dad is not all about me.

Erik Thoennes: Yes.

Scott Rae: And, you know, with every, with every child we had, you know, my self-interests were dropped down a notch further on the list of things that are really important. [laughs]

Erik Thoennes: Absolutely.

Scott Rae: And-

Erik Thoennes: Right. And the great thing about being a dad, I mean, think about dad jokes. Being cool and being a dad don't go together, and they don't need to, and they shouldn't. And what I love about this article is this dad bod idea that... Do you know, I had a friend who did a PhD in what women found attractive about male appearance, and it went through a radical shift in the '60s and '70s. But from her research, she found that what was attractive to a man in women for most of human history was an appearance of competence, not sort of virile Brad Pitt abs-

Scott Rae: Mm-hmm

Erik Thoennes: ... And almost a prepubescent, hairless, you know, appearance, but somebody who looked like he could help a family survive, [laughs] right?

Scott Rae: Yeah. Yeah.

Erik Thoennes: And hold down a job, and that changed. But deep down, women still find competence very attractive.

Scott Rae: Here

Erik Thoennes: [laughs]

Scott Rae: All right. We commend this article to you and commend the book as well. All right. Here's story number three. You sent this to me from World Magazine, and it makes reference to a previous piece a week ago in The New York Times that reflects some of the current concerns about genetic technologies. Now, Erik, in the past decade or so, the ability to, for us to edit our genes in early-stage embryos and in sex cells has transformed our ability to cure diseases at their source.Now, what originally, the original technology for this was called CRISPR, essentially a pair of genetic scissors that enables us to cut and splice genes, replacing defective genes with properly functioning ones. But a newer technology that I didn't know about until just reading this piece in The New York Times called base editing does the same thing but does it much more precisely and with much less collateral damage to the rest of the particular chromosome that it's working on. It has also given us the specter of using this for human enhancement, doing more than just curing disease, but other enhancing otherwise normal traits. Now, the article points out, I think rightly so, that this could create what the author calls a genetic caste system, increasing the disparity between the medical haves and have-nots, in which designer babies, should they, should that come to fruition. In fact, Jerica, I used to tell my students that we will not have designer babies in my lifetime, and boy was I wrong about that.

Erik Thoennes: You were. [laughs]

Scott Rae: But in which, in which these kind of designer babies are given genetic advantages that could be cemented into their gene pool and give them the possibility of passing those on to succeeding generations. Now, the concern about increasing inequality is well-placed, in my view, as is the concern about designer babies and not knowing exactly what's gonna be passed on to the next generation, because there's still so much we don't know about the genetic code. Now, the article concludes, I love this, that we are to welcome children, not to engineer them, sort of reflecting back on some of the New Testament accounts of how Jesus welcomed children for who they are. All right. I'm interested, you're, you sent this to me. This obviously got your attention. It did mine too 'cause it's in my field, but I'm curious for your take on this.

Erik Thoennes: Well, I wanted to discuss this because you are one of the world's leading experts on this kind of issue, so I really wanted to mostly give you the floor and hear from you, but I'll just say this. On one hand, it, for me, just theologically speaking, this hits right at the issue of the sovereignty of God over not just the good creation, very good creation, but also over the curse, also over the fallenness of this world that has a built-in difficulty to it and sovereignty over the fall that has produced disease and sickness and pain and suffering that we look forward to being gone. And so I I wanted to hear your take on how we balance the goodness of medical technology and advancement scientifically in alleviating suffering, but at the same time not overstepping it either with fertility treatments or genetic engineering in this way related to the Down syndrome issue we were just talking about. Scott, one of the most moving experiences of my life was when I went, I've gone several times, to Washington to visit the Smithsonian, and with all the amazing things in the Smithsonian, do you know what got me more than anything else? There's a little, a test tube, a vial in the Smithsonian where Jonas Salk discovered the cure for polio.

Scott Rae: Oh, interesting.

Erik Thoennes: I started to, I started to weep when I saw that vial in the Smithsonian because I thought of all the suffering it had alleviated. And I'm sure people could view that as, well, you're messing with, you know, things that... No, it's an incredible value. But then we go too far with things, and I would love to hear your thoughts on where is the line between seeking the kinds of cures humans have been able to come up with God's sovereignty, and at the same time, where does it go too far? And that's the question I had with this. Now, this thing is still in the beginning stages, but man, it has incredible potential, not just to keep things from happening, but in a positive direction as well. So where is that line, Scott, as Christians for us in submitting to the sovereignty of God and the way things are but still seeking wonderful advancements in these ways?

Scott Rae: I can see the fifth edition of my book, Moral Choices, where I actually address that. [laughs] And but here's I think the answer to that, and you're gonna love the way I'm framing this too, because the line between treatment and enhancement I say is not always clear. I'd say now at at the edges it is. But take something... Well, and here's, this is where our theology really helps us, because it gives us a resource that the secularist doesn't have, and I'd put it like this. I say those things that are the result of the Fall can be the domain of medicine. So disease, decay, you know, you know, medicine can't, you know, they can't do anything about death except delay it. But I say the things that are the result of the Fall are, in general, things that we can treat, okay? But the things that are not the result of the Fall, I would say are, those are the givens of life that we are called to accept and to live with and to sort of muddle our way through. I'll give you a good example of this. We've, for probably the last decade, we've had the ability to select the sex of your child.In ways that don't involve abortion and don't involve screening and throwing away embryos. It's a sperm-separating technology that's done... It's a preconception way to do that where you separate out the technology that's more likely to give you the desired sex. Now, in general, I think the sex of our child is one of the givens of life. I remember a conversation I had during part of a debate with a scientist at UC Irvine, and he had told me how that he and his wife had just had one child that was a boy, and they really wanted a girl, and they were thinking about using this technology. But he said, "You know, there's something I'm just sort of uneasy about." And I said, and I said, "Well, I think part of the reason for that is because that, you know, you may, you may not be able to express it, but you have sort of this sense that, you know, selecting your child is really not your choice." And even though he couldn't acknowledge the one whose choice it was, that had an intuitive resonance with him. Now, an exception to this, I say, where it doesn't cross the line might be if you wanna do an end run around a genetic diseases that is specifically sex-linked, and there are a couple hundred of those. And I think doing that, I think, is a form of preventing a a result of the fall that I think is perfectly appropriate. But choosing the sex of your child for, you know, for matters of preference, or because you have expectations about what kind of boy or girl you're going, you're going to want. You know, I have a good friend who's, you know, he thought about, seriously thought about doing this when it first came out. He had two boys. They desperately wanted a girl. They ended up having two girls naturally. They decided not to do it, but the two girls ended up being these stud athletes who were not really... I don't think they were quite what the mom had in mind-

Erik Thoennes: [chuckles]

Scott Rae: ... With a couple of girls. So I think there are other, there are other areas where I think the line's a little fuzzy, Eric. For example, beta blockers are used to treat social anxiety disorder to to calm people's nerves as they're in social settings. What they found is that there's some off-label uses for that for other people who like having their nerves calmed. You know who uses them? You know, concert musicians, for one, and neurosurgeons- ... Tend to use them. And I'll be honest, I sort of like the idea of my neurosurgeon having his nerves-

Erik Thoennes: [laughs]

Scott Rae: ... Calmed a bit.

Erik Thoennes: Or my pilot. [laughs]

Scott Rae: Yeah. Somebody like that. And you know, in fact, I heard one scholar suggest that these technologies ought to be limited actually to those who are from disadvantaged communities to help level the playing field, which I thought, this is an interesting thought. I'm not sure I'm I don't think I'm buying that. But, I think the idea that you would use genetic technologies to give your child the most, sort of, the most advantages that don't have anything to do with their own effort and, hard work and achievement, I think it does... You know, when it's like the athlete who's, you know, gives credit to his chemist for being able to hit, you know, you know, 60 home runs in a season. You know, I don't, I don't wanna be giving credit to my chemist for my accomplishments, and so I do think it it cheapens legitimate achievement. And I think the part of the point of the article is this too, that, you know, you... The temptation for parents to build in these advantages will be irresistible, but the big caveat is if you have the means to do it. And it will cement in the, that, disparity between the medical haves and have-nots, and that's, I think, a huge problem with this. That doesn't help you... That doesn't help draw the specific line. But, you know, I think sometimes I think the line is a little more challenging to draw. For example, I don't think there's anything wrong with orthodontics, though I'm not entirely persuaded that crooked teeth are necessarily the result of the fall.

Erik Thoennes: [chuckles]

Scott Rae: You know, if they cause, you know, jaw problem, maybe. I'm not convinced that, you know, male pattern baldness is the result of the fall.

Scott Rae: You know, I'm open to argument about that. But I don't think problems, you know, treatments to minimize the risk of that, I think are... I don't think those are problematic, though those are clearly enhancements. You know, vaccines are enhancements to the immune system, which I think is fine. So it's just, it's not always clear, but I think the way, the way bringing our theology into this, I think makes those lines a little bit clearer to draw.

Erik Thoennes: Yeah, that's really helpful, and it seems to be connected pretty significantly to our previous conversation we were just having about functional capacities relative to ontological essential realities, and now we're talking about certain functional abilities that we want to enhance, help, preserve. But then which ones do we get to do that with as Christians becomes the question. So clearly what you're saying is doing things to affect height or hair color or, the color of your eyes or your, athletic ability seems to be going too far. But-

Scott Rae: Those are givens.

Erik Thoennes: Yeah, those are givens, right. That's a good way to put it. But other ones that could legitimately be the effect of the fall, so hair color, height. Although, I mean, I could see somebody arguing socially that being really short in our society-... Is enough of a problem that they could consider an effect of the fall. I You should see my students' faces when I tell them-

Scott Rae: Yeah

Erik Thoennes: ... That it's likely Jesus was about 5'3", 5'2", and definitely missing teeth. They just have a hard time with that. [laughs]

Scott Rae: [laughs]

Erik Thoennes: And he's a Jewish man with nothing, you know, nothing much to look at is all the Bible really says about his appearance, right?

Scott Rae: Yeah.

Erik Thoennes: And so we have the perfect ideal human with some aspects of who he is that at best are unimpressive, and we've got to have a theology that is able to see beyond those superficial things to what really matters about humans, where we're not so concerned about enhancing ourselves. You know, related to the last discussion we were having about having a dad bod but a good brain and what really matters here.

Scott Rae: Hear All right, here's story number four, Eric. I find it a pretty encouraging trend for young men. This comes from World Magazine. You sent this to me, and it highlights a trend among Gen Z men that also applies to women, though it, I think it may come a little more naturally for women than it would-

Erik Thoennes: Mm-hmm

Scott Rae: ... For men. The article starts out like this. The, these, this, the author's a prof at a Christian college in the South, and he, and he's telling a story of... It goes like this: "I recently had lunch with a new college graduate who went to my school and now attends my church. He's a great dude, but his generation is much maligned for producing shiftless, jobless, relationship-less, directionless, phone-addled zombies." Okay, that, which may be a bit of an overstatement, but, "During the lunch, he said something that shocked and challenged me with his simplicity, but it also made me proud. He talked about technology and the omnipresent temptation to sexual sin that it enables. I asked him how he and his friends fight against that. He said, 'We do a lot of hanging out. We do cookouts, bonfires, game nights, get together to watch the NBA playoffs, pretty much anything not to be alone and bored.'" And the prof comments, "This is the last guy in the world who would of his own volition watch the NBA playoffs."

Erik Thoennes: [laughs]

Scott Rae: Okay? Now, he's saying basically, "I'm proud of these folks because they are, they are finding contentment in real community as we were created to," but they're sort of, bonding together and recognizing that they need each other to avoid the, some of the temptations that afflict young men at this particular age. So I love... What got your attention on this? I love the point that the author's making here. I'd love to know how widespread this is, but hear your take on this.

Erik Thoennes: Yeah, one of the things I talk about at our church where I'm one of the pastors often is this idea of mere presence as something that's powerful and incredibly valuable, that simply showing up for a men's breakfast, for a worship service, for a workday, showing up and being present with other people to the point where the actual activity isn't nearly as important as we tend to think it is as being together. And I think where we live in Southern California, it's amazing. I lived in the Midwest for seven years. I lived in New England for 28, and I was in more homes present with people in those places by far than I was in homes here with people present. Some of that is screens. Some of that is,

Scott Rae: Mm-hmm

Erik Thoennes: ... Isolation that's happened because of screens, but some of it is cultural as well. I moved here in '99, and one of my best friends from high school is actually in the music industry here, and I got together with him and I said gently, "Who do you hang out with?" And he laughed at me.

Scott Rae: Really?

Erik Thoennes: And he said, "People don't hang out in LA, and we're always onto the next thing." And I I was struck by this article that one of the ways we can go to war with sin is being with people, just being with people. And the way Ted Kluck pooks it, puts it in this article is, "Gen Z guys are fasting from sin but feasting on the joy of being together." And I was even thinking about our relationship. When I got here, we were both much younger, and some of our athleticism still was hanging around, and you and I played basketball together.

Scott Rae: Not very much.

Erik Thoennes: No. [laughs] No, come on, man. You were a good player, basketball player. But you and I early on when I got here played basketball together, and I've done that with a lot of the faculty here early on when I got here, and who I've done that with here on campus has a significant impact on my relationship. Even people I don't fully agree with on everything and different issues, if I had gotten rebounds for somebody, it's a different relationship. [laughs] And I just use that as an example of recreating, hanging out with people, playing together. The things we do at our faculty forums as Talbot faculty, where it's not business. It's, "What'd you do on your sabbatical? Let's pray for each other." that to me has a hangout element to it that brings a depth and equality to our faculty here at Talbot that the students benefit from even though they don't realize that. The retreats we do as faculty that aren't all business, have a power because there's a hanging out element to it, where we're getting beyond business and just professional things to a human element where we're really going deeper together in our relationship with God. I read a book on pastoral ministry years ago, and one of the, one of the chapters was called Smell Like Sheep, that leaders need to smell like sheep because we are sheep.And one of the things he says in that chapter is, he says, "If you're a pastor, the people in your church should see your legs at least several times a year." [laughs] And what he meant, what he meant by that was-

Scott Rae: That's great

Erik Thoennes: ... Go to the church picnic, play softball, let them see your legs. It's even better if you're not very good, and be a human with other people-

Scott Rae: Yeah

Erik Thoennes: ... And get off a pedestal they may have put you on. And so I just love this mere presence idea that he highlights in this.

Scott Rae: Yeah, I got one more comment on this from me. It's what struck me on this is that the idea that the moral life and the spiritual life is a team sport-

Erik Thoennes: Yes

Scott Rae: ... Not an individual one.

Erik Thoennes: Yes.

Scott Rae: And it, and to, you know, it takes a village or a church-

Erik Thoennes: Yes

Scott Rae: ... To foster virtue.

Erik Thoennes: Amen.

Scott Rae: All right. Before we get to questions, we'd love to have you come join us at Talbot to study with us, to study with folks like Erik Thoennes, who's teaching at the undergraduate level, and with Sean and me, who are at the graduate level. We've got programs in Bible, theology, Old and New Testament, pastoral ministry, marriage and family therapy, spiritual formation, philosophy, apologetics. I may be missing a few, but if you, if you'd like to find out more about that, visit biola.edu/talbot. All right, Erik, we've got some really good questions today. Here's one that has to do with AI. "I enjoy and benefit from listening to old hymns and recently found some newly recorded versions of them. One of the versions I discovered uses AI voices and music. I'm generally skeptical of listening to AI-generated worship music, but since these are old hymns written entirely pro- by humans, just performed by AI, this feels somewhat different. From a Christian and ethical theological perspective, do you see an issue with AI-generated worship music in general, and do you see any problem with listening to an AI recording of a hymn or worship song that was written by a human?" You're involved in public worship every week. What do you make of this?

Erik Thoennes: Nothing will replace, again, related to the the discussion we were just having, nothing will replace human beings, body and soul, singing from their hearts together to God, and having a relational spiritual experience in that. No machine can ever do that, and I think it's so important to realize that. However, the ability to create the means of those experiences, to me, is somewhat of a different issue. I really wanna be careful here, but I was just even thinking about the way,

Erik Thoennes: AI in many ways has been, for a very long time, creating music that sounds better than it would if the singer's voice wasn't being enhanced by a microphone or an auto-tuner. I often wonder how many professional musicians are as good as they sound on recordings. And

Scott Rae: That's why, concerts sound really different than recordings

Erik Thoennes: [laughs] Sometimes. But people in the industry know the people who have the chops to pull it off live as well as in the studio and the ones who don't, the ones who are a creation primarily of technology rather than of God. [laughs] So so that, to me, is a big issue, that we've been enhancing, a worship experience ever since we started using technology in any way to do that. And so there... I think there is a place for it, and you... And musicians can sort of get a leg up on the creative process, as long as we don't let it take over and rob us of that actual human experience from human hearts in a relationship with God.

Scott Rae: Yeah. I appreciate that answer. It's good nuance in that. That's my overall view of AI and spirituality. If it moves you toward the real thing-

Erik Thoennes: Yes

Scott Rae: ... It can, it can be okay, but if it substitutes for it, then we have a problem.

Erik Thoennes: Right.

Scott Rae: All right, here's a second one. Interested to hear your take on this as well. In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul says not even to eat with someone claiming to be a believer who is sexually immoral. My wife, children, and I currently live in my mother's house out of necessity. My brother also lives with us because he has fallen on hard times. He was previously in a same-sex relationship but has broken up with his boyfriend and now professes faith in Christ. He currently holds a, quote, "Side B position," which we'll outline in a minute, but thinks that same-sex sexuality is an agree to disagree issue. I think scripture is clear that it is not. For the record, he's not a member of our church, and I do not own the home. How should Christians think about passages like 1 Corinthians 5 in situations like this without either watering down Paul's command or extending it beyond his intent?

Scott Rae: I suspect you might have had to deal with something like this as a pastor.

Erik Thoennes: Certainly have. And I think the first thing to realize is that this is talking about a local church context. It's talking about a professed believer. So in some ways this is a very, a different situation than Jesus' exhortations and the biblical commands to move toward unbelievers in loving, nonjudgmental ways. Jesus got accused of eating with sinners all the time, so this is not a separatist teaching. This is a church discipline teaching and a way of dealing with a professed believer who is living in unrepentant sin. And we should not shy away from how strong this is. Some people think this is a flat-out contradiction to-... Teaching of Jesus in the Gospels, but it isn't. It's an implication of a pursuit of holiness among the people of God, that it's not just not eating with them, it's excluding them, turning them over to Satan. I mean, if you read the whole chapter, it's not just not having table fellowship. It's basically carrying out church discipline. And so we need to take that much more seriously than we often do in the American Church, at least. But at the same time, not think it's some judgmental teaching that leads to a separatism, but a taking sin seriously and not... And weeding out the old, the leaven that can have a detrimental effect on the people of God and a dishonoring effect on the name of Christ.

Scott Rae: Yeah, it seems to me that here in First Corinthians 5, Paul is addressing those who sort of high-handedly boast in their way outside the box sexuality-

Erik Thoennes: Mm-hmm. Right

Scott Rae: ... And who are completely unrepentant about it. And it is a, it is a church discipline to sort of to recognize that a person like that is a cancer in the body of Christ.

Erik Thoennes: Right.

Scott Rae: And to take appropriate measures. So I appreciate the pastoral sensitivity. And so you are not encouraging this person to, you know, throw the family member out of the home.

Erik Thoennes: Right.

Scott Rae: All right.

Erik Thoennes: Right.

Scott Rae: Here's... This is a third one. I'm really interested to hear what you think about this too. I love, I love this question. It says, "Scott, you're a trained, experienced, published Christian ethicist. Eric, you're a trained, experienced, and published systematic theologian. You are both excellent at what you do." I feel like we could just close in prayer and end right there. But the question is this: "If you could wind the clock back and do it all again, yet couldn't take the same path, what academic discipline or other type of profession would you pursue and why?" I'll let you start with that.

Erik Thoennes: Well, the fact that I'm doing what I'm doing is a divinely orchestrated comedy. If you knew my background-

Scott Rae: [laughs]

Erik Thoennes: ... And the, and the limitations I have intellectually and otherwise, God, I'm convinced-

Scott Rae: Mm-hmm

Erik Thoennes: ... Is clearly wants me doing what I'm doing in spite of me, and so I'm so grateful for it. The only profession sometimes I wonder if I would've been more fruitful perhaps is coaching football. I loved when I did that.

Scott Rae: Mm-hmm.

Erik Thoennes: There's an immediacy to the results of that [laughs] and the character development. It's like a laboratory practice and in games every day, where I often don't get to see the results of my investment in my students. And so I... That's the one thing, but I'm so grateful that God has me doing what I'm doing. I The only other thing I'd say is I don't think we should put too much emphasis on the details of the way we serve God as ministers of the Gospel. I think I could go back to working construction tomorrow and be just as fruitful and God-glorifying in what I'm doing. I happen to be doing what I'm doing, I think, in part because God knows how thick I am, and I need daily reminders-

Scott Rae: [laughs]

Erik Thoennes: ... Of these truths that I have to teach every day, so I don't forget them, but I'm grateful for what I get to do every day.

Scott Rae: Yeah, I appreciate that framing of it. God calls people to the workplace just like He calls people to the pastorate or the mission field, and that there's no, there's no hierarchy of callings, although some may be a better fit for who you are than others. I, you know, I could, I could've seen myself, you know, going back into my our family business. And I commend my dad. He never said one word to me about how my expectations changed and my direct trajectory changed once I started... You know, I took, I took a year of seminary to try to get a little bit better training, and the plan was to go back to the family business. But God-

Erik Thoennes: Which was what?

Scott Rae: It was a silk screen printing graphics-

Erik Thoennes: Oh, wow

Scott Rae: ... Company.

Erik Thoennes: Yeah.

Scott Rae: But, you know, God had other ideas, and I've got some of those same providential things that entered into my ending up where I am, too. I will say, you know, I did... You know, when I was a kid, I dreamed about being a sportscaster. And I had my,

Erik Thoennes: You would've been great at that.

Scott Rae: Well, thank you. My best friend growing up and I used to watch sporting events on TV, turn the sound off, and record on our reel-to-reel tape recorder the play-by-play of the game. And, we called it, we called it the... We were, we were on radio station KNOT, The Station That Is Not On Your Dial. [laughs]

Erik Thoennes: [laughs]

Scott Rae: And, but so that's, that... I could... That would've been a... Well, that would've been a lot of fun. But-

Erik Thoennes: [laughs]

Scott Rae: Hey, Eric, thanks so much for joining us today. This is such good stuff, so appreciate your insight. Always great-

Erik Thoennes: Yeah, Scott

Scott Rae: ... To have you with us.

Erik Thoennes: Thank you, brother.

Scott Rae: [upbeat music] This has been an episode of the podcast Think Biblically, our weekly cultural update. If you wanna submit comments, ask questions, or make suggestions, email us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu. If you enjoyed today's conversation, please give us a rating on your podcast app, share with a friend, and join us on Tuesday for a fascinating conversation that Sean had with the woman whose mom was the partial inspiration for the iconic Michael Jackson hit song Billie Jean. So thanks for listening. In the meantime, remember, think biblically about everything.