Biola UniversityThis week, Sean & Scott discuss:
- : Potentially draconian free speech restrictions and the debate on its implications for political activism and public discourse.
- : Addressing the moral dilemma of excess embryos through a controversial medical procedure aimed at unsuccessful pregnancies.
- : Exploring the cultural impact of toxic masculinity on boys, including gender disappointment and the need for meaningful human connections.
- Listener Questions: Insightful discussions on the ethical considerations of contraception in Christian marriages and the age of the Earth debate among Christians.
- Upcoming Book: Sean McDowell and Tim Muehlhoff's new book, "," focusing on building bridges and understanding in a polarized culture.
Episode Transcript
Scott: Canada introduces a bill that some are calling draconian restrictions on free speech and criminal consequences for violating it. A new medical procedure to help couples with excess embryos from in vitro fertilization deal with the moral dilemma that they feel. And the impact on boys and men of the widespread cultural notion of toxic masculinity. These are the stories we'll address, and we'll answer some of your excellent questions that you all keep sending in. I'm your host, Scott Rae.
Sean: And I'm your co-host, Sean McDowell.
Scott: And this is the Think Biblically Weekly Cultural Update brought to you by Talbot School of Theology at Biola University. Sean, this first story comes from way up north in Canada. It's in The Atlantic this week from one of my favorite commentators, Conor Friedersdorf, who was alarmed at the threat to free speech contained in the bill. I read most of the bill actually, which is good medicine for sleepless nights.
Sean: [laughs]
Scott: And it does have some really positive things in it. Protections against child pornography, stronger requirements for internet platforms to report child pornography. But here's what is alarming about the bill. It's called the Online Harms Act. And it states that any person who advocates for or promotes genocide is quote, âliable to imprisonment for life,â end quote. It defines âlesser,â quote, âhate crimes as including online speechâ that is, quote, âlikely to foment detestation or vilification on the basis of race, religion, gender, or other protected categories.â And, according to the piece, if someone fears that they may become a victim of a hate crime, they can go before a judge who may summon the preemptively accused person for a sort of pre-crime trial. If the judge finds reasonable grounds for the fear, then the defendant must enter into what is called a, quote, ârecognizance.â Now, what is that? It is no mere promise to refrain from committing a hate crime, but the judge may put the defendant or alleged defendant under house arrest or electronic surveillance, and order them to abstain from alcohol and drugs. Refusal to enter the recognizance for one year results in 12 months in prison. Now think about what this might do to free speech, to debate on issues on college campuses, for example. To be fair, this is just being introduced into the political process in Canada. It has several more opportunities to be amended or even to be defeated, but the law in its present form does have the support of the prime minister and the attorney general. The Canadian version of the ACLU has, let's just say, significant reservations. They put their concern like this, and I quote, "The broad criminal prohibitions on speech in the bill risks stifling public discourse and criminalizing political activism." Then the author gets his own shot in there at the end, so nobody's unclear about his own view. He puts it like this, "No one who favors allowing the state to imprison people for mere speech or severely constraining a person's liberty in anticipation of alleged hate speech they have yet to utter is fit for leadership in a liberal democracy." So, his views are pretty clear on this. Sean, your thoughts on what could be a game-changing bill for free speech in our neighbors to the north.
Sean: Yeah, first off, I have no idea whether this is likely to pass or be amended or not. The fact that it's been introduced to Parliament and supported by Trudeau shows that it's not just a complete wild card, but has a decent chance. And we've seen some other bills passed in Canada that are far more progressive than in the U.S. So I think there's real concern here. For me, in principle, if somebody says something like, very explicitly, wanting to wipe out a people group and threatening to do so, that borders on where we should have concern and potentially locking somebody up if they make it explicit, and say they wanna do it, and threaten it, because there's a limit to free speech. And we, of course, could talk about that. But this bill seems to be going a little bit further. And so when the billâagain, which you said is called the Online Harms Actâstates that any person who advocates for or promotes genocide is liable to imprisonment for life, my question is, what is meant by genocide, and what is meant by advocating for it? I mean, we all knowâat least I think it's clearâthat Hamas has been committing and in favor of genocide towards Israel. It's a part of their policy that Israel does not have a right to exist and should be eradicated from the river to the sea. But on the other hand, Israelis, at least the government, has been criticized also of genocide, even in acts like freeing hostages and defending a terrorist attack blatantly committed against them. So if you support Israel, are you gonna be considered an advocate of genocide? Now, I don't know the answer to that, but those are very interesting questions. And then it says in the article right below that, it defines lesser hate crimes. So it's still a hate crime that could be deemed punishable, are ones on the basis of, and they say, âonline speechâ that is, quote, âlikely to foment detestation, hatred, or vilification,â race, religion, gender, et cetera. Well, you and I know that certain ideas on marriage and on sexuality fall into that category and are considered vilification. So if it's online, is this on a YouTube channel where a church puts up a biblical lecture on sexuality and marriage and gets targeted for this? That's my concern, the vagueness, and the way culturally progressives have defined hate speech, I think should be very concerning.
Scott: Yeah, and I think there is a difference between speech that causes offense and speech that is threatening. 'Cause we already have laws that prevent people from engaging in speech that threatens violence or threatens harm to people. That, I mean, that's a problem already, and free speech does not extend to that. But simply to have the free exchange of ideas, some of which may cause offenseâŚand, I mean, in our cancel culture today, offense and hatred are almost seen as synonymous. And in fact, disagreement and hatred are sometimes seen as synonymous. And I think what the law would intend to doâŚand you're right, it may not pass. It may not pass in its current form. It's likely to be amended, but it's definitely worth watching to see where this is gonna go. And I think this puts into law what cancel culture has more informally enforced. We talked about this a couple of weeks ago on our regular podcast on the impact of cancel culture. And I think this law smacks of what people who lived under communism previously during the Cold War have said about how thought and speech were policed in those totalitarian regimes. Now, obviously not the same thing. Canada is still a liberal democracy, but it's a reminder of where some of these authoritarian tendencies could take us in the realm of free speech.
Sean: I think that's exactly fair. Look, if somebody speaks up and says, I hate a particular ethnic group, or I hate Muslims or Buddhists, or I hate the LGBTQ community, we as Christians should say, hey, don't speak that way. That's not loving, that's not kind, that's not helpful. But we should think somebody should have the right to do so. That's different from saying wipe out this group, punish this group, I wanna harm this group. That's where your free speech could be limited. And I think some of these bills come up from the fact that we've seen some terrible acts take place, and then we're able to find this online footprint of people and say, wait a minute, we should have connected the dots. So I understand that, but to go back to anybody who shares similar thoughts that you and I might think are racist, or we might think are sexist, doesnât mean that person is going to commit an actual crime against somebody, and doesn't mean we can use the language against them. So that's really what concerns me at the heart of this.
Scott: Yeah, I think this will definitely be worth watching. I encourage our listeners to watch the news on this and see where this goes over theâŚit'll be several months before this will be either enacted into law, or seriously amended or even defeated. So Sean, any other thoughts on this?
Sean: No. I think good stuff, fascinating trend, let's track it.
Scott: All right, story number two, what to do with excess embryos that normally result from in vitro fertilization? Often a big question for couples who have succeeded having children through IVF, but have embryos left over. Now, this happens because the process of IVF normally includes harvesting as many eggs as possible, fertilizing as many as possible, only implanting a few, and putting the rest in storage. And so if you hit the jackpot on the first try of implanting two or three embryos, then youâve got this huge conundrum about what to do with the remaining embryos. So another option is now on the table for these couples. It's what's called compassionate transfer. And we'll talk about what exactly that means in just a moment. But the couple basically implants embryos during the woman's menstrual cycle when she is the most unlikely to get pregnant. And they don't provide the hormones necessary, which are usually done with IVF, to do what I call colloquial in feathering the nest, to prepare the uterus so that it can receive the implanted embryo. Now, you would never do this if you wanted a successful pregnancy. You would only do this if you wanted an unsuccessful pregnancy to result from the implantation. The article in The Atlantic that describes this calls this a form of âmedical make-believe,â which I think is a really interesting term to describe it. Here's what they suggest. The demand for compassionate transfer speaks to something like this: âthe intense relationship some patients have with leftover embryos and the length they will go to make peace with their disposal. A peace that, for many IVF patients, can be elusive.â So what they're suggesting here is that the couple implant these, as many as they have left, but implant them during a time in the cycle when a successful pregnancy is at its most unlikely to result. So Sean, what do you think of this? Is the term âmedical make-believeâ appropriate? Or is this something that sort of just mimics the natural process and is okay to do? Your thoughts.
Sean: I have three general thoughts on this. When they describe âcompassionate transferâ and âmedical make-believe,â they said specifically in which clinicians place a spare embryo in a patient's body at a time in her menstrual cycle when she's unlikely to get pregnant, but it's designed to fail 'cause the embryo will flush out. I think this is for parents, obviously not for the unborn. So they're not thinking about what is best for this unborn, whether it's human or not, whether it has a right to life or not. They're trying to, just, help the parent deal with the situation they find themselves in. So this is parent-focused, not unborn-focused. Second, I think it's interesting. The article goes on to say, the demand for compassionate transfer speaks to something different. âThe intense relationship some patients have with leftover embryos and the lengths they will go to to make peace,â interesting word, âwith their disposal, a peace that for many IVF patients can be elusive.â I gotta ask the question, why do we need to make peace with this? If this is not a human being, if it doesn't have the right to life, it's no different than a bunch of cells, why is there an inborn sense that we need to make peace with it? And I think it's because of all the language that we use, embryo, and it's because of all the pro-choice rhetoric, but we still deep in our hearts know that this isn't a sperm, this isn't an egg, this is a living human being. And so I think this is a way of trying to absolve the guilt of somebody who feels bad producing these extra living human beings and is not sure what to do with it. I think that's what's going on. Now, third, and you and I might differ on this third one, Scott, I'm not sure, but towards the end of the article says, "What many seem to desire and struggle to find is a way to relinquish their embryos that reflects their significance." I thought, that's exactly right. We know there's more significance here. âTo fill this gap,â it says, "some have created their own makeshift rights." And according to this study in the article, of 703 clinical embryologistsâso that's not an insignificant study around the worldâalmost one in five said they'd had patients who wanted some kind of ceremony for the disposal of their embryos, including reading a prayer, placing a prayer book near the incubator, blessing the embryos, allowing patients to have a moment with them, singing a song to the embryos, even allowing the embryos to be released to the couple for burial. One in five. Scott, my heart goes out to these men and these women who've been told that the unborn doesn't mean anything. It's just a procedure, and that IVF is entirely pro-life. And then one in five, one in five. I mean, if 2% of babies now are being born through IVF, and one in five feel this way, this is tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of people in the States, maybe more, who feel this way. And yet I think they've been lied to by so many different voices that this is just a procedure, a medical procedure to get pregnant. So I think the fact that so many women and men, of course, feel this way, and they're just, they have a sense of guilt, and they want peace, I think this is on the IVF industry. I think this is a kind of collateral damage they didn't anticipate, because we stepped outside of God's creative design. And frankly, I think the church has jumped on this without being very critical at all, and maybe also has some blame to bear here. Now that might be a little harsh. Tell me what you think.
Scott: Well, I'm not willing, to use a bad pun, to throw the baby out with the bathwater on this, 'cause I do think it indicts the IVF industry for wanting to do everything possible to achieve the highest success rate of live birth that they can. Not only for the couple's sake, but for their own bottom line, and for their own statistics. And I think my takeaway from this is that a lot of the couples who do IVF have this intuitive notion that embryos are not just clumps of cells. They're not just a bag of marbles, as some would put it. But they are people too. And these are particularly from parents who have personal experience with the continuity between the embryos in the lab and the children that they're holding in their arms today. 'Cause they know that those children who they're holding in their arms were once embryos. In fact, the article points out that couples who undergo IVF often don't see embryos in the same way that they see other byproducts of IVF, such as sperm, unfertilized eggs. They share photos of the embryos. They refer to them, I'd never heard this term before, they refer to them as âembabies,â embryo babies.
Sean: Yeah.
Scott: They get tattoos of their embryos, they hang watercolor paintings of them in their nursery. Now, these are all families who are hoping that these embryos will become successful pregnancies. But it can morph into grief when the pregnancy ends in a miscarriage, and when they have to determine how to part with these leftover embryos. And I thought the rites that they are describing to have a prayer or a hymn or some sort of memorial for their embryos, I mean, how can you say that these are just clumps of cells and have these kinds of intuitions that we need these kinds of rites to help commemorate their departure? Now, these are normally rites that we do when people, not when bags of marbles or clumps of cells are reabsorbed into the bodyâit's when people die. When people with whom we have a connection or a potential relationship, they die. I consulted with a couple who wanted to do this, I think before this idea of compassionate transfer became more public. This was several years ago, where they were offered the option of implanting, not just one, but several embryos, but specifically not doing the kinds of things that are normal in an IVF procedure to get the uterus as prepared as it can be to welcome the embryos to implant. And they were wondering if that was acceptable to do. And I said, no, I didn't think that was right because the obligation that a couple takes on when they undergo IVF is that every embryo created in the lab deserves the best opportunity they can give them at flourishing, at developing, at maturing into a newborn, into a toddler, an adolescent. And I think this is the same way. I think to call this a sort of medical sleight of hand, I think is probably accurate on this. And it'd be interesting to see what this does for couples who actually use some of these rites or do this kind of procedure if it really works. Because I think a rite or a procedure like this is not a good thing. I think a rite or a procedure like this is not strong enough to overcome their intuition that this is a person. This is a person that is not a potential person. You need to get this philosophically right. It's a person with the potential to mature into a newborn, a toddler, an adolescent. And so the idea of a potential person, philosophically, is an oxymoron. You are a person with the potential to mature into what you already are. Embryos don't become newborns. They don't become fetuses, they don't become newborns. They mature into what they already are. So that's, I think, an important distinction that will help us think biblically about what kind of a thing are these embryos? And I think to refer to them as âembabies,â I think it's right to say that, not that we have embryos in storage, but these are our children that are in storage. Now, the idea of putting your children in storage, I realize that creates some things that we have to talk about.
Sean: [laughs] Right.
Scott: But I think the idea that you would put up for adoption, these children who are in embryonic form, I think is entirely appropriate. Now, it's different, emotionally it's different, because you're not putting up one child, you might put up multiple children for adoption, most likely. The pro-choice movement has pushed back really hard on talking about embryo adoption, using the term adoption to describe those because it has so much person language that's associated with it. So, but what I think this reflects is this intuitive notion that there is continuity between embryos in the lab and the newborns that these parents are holding in their arms. And they've experienced that, most likely. If they have an issue with leftover embryos, they have most likely experienced a successful birth or two or even three that they've, you know, they've had personal experience with this continuity.
Sean: Hmm. Couple other points jump out to me before I move on. You mentioned in the beginning, not throwing out the baby with the bath water. There's a discussion or a debate that can be had about the ethics of IVF itself. And I think the Catholic Church would, because of God's design for where procreation is to take place, be against IVF in principle. I lean towards that. At some point you and I are gonna unpack this in details, but there's a difference in what you're saying, is that if you engage in IVF, not just destroying embryos, but giving every embryo a chance at life, minimally that's aâ
Scott: The best chance at life.
Sean: Best chance, well, okay, well said, good. That is, minimally, a huge step in the right direction. So making that distinction might be helpful for folks. I think one other thing going on here is we also do rites that are not different from this maybe when an animal dies, right? So I could hear somebody saying, well, we have these rights for an animal, but it doesn't necessarily prove that it's human. And I don't have any data on this, but animals die and that's sad, and people move on. They feel like they're a part of the family. When it comes to IVF, there's also a sense of, like, this embryo wouldn't be dying if it were not for me choosing to do this procedure that is different from the death of an animal. And I wonder if that's also a level of the lack of peace that many people feel. I can't prove that, but oh, go ahead.
Scott: Yeah, I think the difference is that, you know, our emotional reaction does not determine what is metaphysically true. Right? The reason we have emotional reactions when our pets die is because we have a connection or, you know, a relationship with them. For example, I get much more grieved if my dog was run over in the street than I would be over the death of a child halfway around the world that I've never had, that I don't even know about, and don't have any connection to. But there's nothing in terms of what kind of a thing a dog and a person are, nothing necessarily follows from that. That's all dependent onâŚmy emotional reaction doesn't determine what is ontologically true about both dogs and human beings. So I'd wanna make sure we don't confuse categories philosophically, 'cause that's actually one of the strongest pro-choice arguments against the embryos being persons.
Sean: That's right.
Scott: Itâs that, you know, that scene where you walk into the infertility clinic, holding the hand of your two-year-old, a fire breaks out, and you can only save your two-year-old or your embryos, what are you gonna choose? Most people would choose the two-year-old because of the emotional connection that you have, not because my two-year-old is ontologically any superior to the embryos that are in the lab. But if I'm walking in there with, say, a serial rapist or my embryos, and that's my choice, you know, I might have a different choice.
Sean: Sure.
Scott: But it has nothing to do with ontology, it has everything to do with my emotional connection.
Sean: That makes sense, good stuff.
Scott: The reason I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater with IVF is 'cause I think that infertility is a result of the general entrance of sin into the world. And I think there are medically appropriate things that you can do to impact and to alleviate the effects of the general entrance of sin that has caused functions that God has designed to work one way, not to work. And I think IVF doesn't fix anything, it doesn't end run around a diseased system, much like kidney dialysis doesn't end run around diseased kidneys. So we will talk more about this, 'cause I'm not sure that either of what we shared about IVF in principle has been sufficient to convince the other at this point.
Sean: I'm chomping at the bits of the response, but I'll let it go for another time. Excellent clarification, good points.
Scott: All right, here's story number three. This one, two different articles, both came out this week, with slightly different things to say about this, but they both address the effect of the cultural phenomena of toxic masculinity on boys. The first piece is from a publication called The Hill, which is basically news on Capitol Hill, and it connects with our previous story about in vitro fertilization. It's about the growing use of IVF for sex selection. In the two thirds world, for example, the overwhelming preference is still for boys, but in the West, it's just the reverse. Statistically, I can't cite this off the top of my head, but roughly 80% of couples who use some sort of biotech means to conceive and select for sex, select for girls. And yes, for our listeners, you can use biotechnology to select for sex. It is fairly reliable. There are a couple of different ways you can do this. If you do IVF, it's almost 100% reliable that you will get the sex that you choose. And so, what this first article points out, I think is a really interesting phenomena, 'cause they raise, I think, a fascinating question. It says, "Are culturesâ trashing of boys and men having toxic consequences?" And one of the ways this is done is by the overwhelming selection in the West for girls when biotech is used to select for sex. Now, the question is raisedâthe phenomenon is more popularly called gender disappointment. And they say this is most common in women who unabashedly want daughters and not sons. And it raised the question, what is it about having boys that seems so repellent? Some refer to this idea of toxic masculinity. They also speak to some of the advantages that they think girls have. They find that girls are more caring toward their parents, which is, I think, very interesting, a little bit of self-interest there for what happens when parents grow older. And I think part of the reasonâŚthey point out there's a dearth of empathy for men who have been wounded by this branding of toxic masculinity. And men are afraid to speak up because they fear backlash, they fear being labeled as extremists for men's rights. And sometimes they don't do this in a productive way. Now, The New York Times piece I think a little bit more addresses the why question on this. And they talk about the way that men and boys are in this really tough double bind. And here's the way they put it. âFor every tough guy urging his crying son to man up, there's another voice telling him that to express his concerns is to take airtime away from a woman or someone who is more marginalized. The two are not morally equivalent, but to boys, the impact can often feel similar. In many cases, the same people who are urging boys and men to become more emotionally expressive are also taking a moral stand against hearing how they actually feel. For many boys, it can seem as though their emotions get dismissed by both sides.â As one 20-year-old put it, "If a man voices any concern, they get deflected with all their so-called privileges. They'd be like, âWhatever, women have suffered "more than you, so you have no right to complain.ââ What they discoveredâŚand by the way, the author of The New York Times piece is a fascinating person who's written a book called Boy Mom: Reimagining Boyhood in the Age of Impossible Masculinity. She's the mother of three boys. And she's describing this thing, she puts it like this, with men, there's a huge thing about mental health and shame, because you're not supposed to be weak, you're not supposed to be broken. And she concludes like this, "I've come to believe that the conditions of modern boyhood amount to a perfect storm for loneliness." And that men and boys have lots of privileges, lots of things that they are advantaged with, but the one thing that they need the most is the thing that is toughest to come by, which are meaningful human connections. Sean, I'm really interested to hear your thoughts on this. You've got two boys, I've raised three that are grown and flown at present. What do you make of this?
Sean: Yeah, this article totally intrigued me in The New York Times, and I'm gonna read the conclusion where it says, "Under patriarchy, boys and men get everything except the thing that's most worth having, human connection." There seems to be a certain assumption in this article that it rightly points to things like, boys with a free time are looking at pornography, they're spending countless hours playing video games. And by me citing this, I'm not saying it's bad to play video games. I think there often can be community and meaning found through that, but she's just citing people spending so much of their time apart from having real human interaction. That's her concern. And then she says, "I've come to believe the conditions of modern boyhood amount to a perfect storm for loneliness. The same mass failure to teach boys relational skills and emotional intelligence, the same rigid masculinity norms and social prohibitions that push them away from intimacy and emotionality.â It seems to me that the response, "what boys need most is emotionality and connection." I think that's some of it, but I think a little bit of that might be coming from the more progressive side. I think what boys need is meaning, and they need purpose, and they need identity. Now, their relationships are a huge piece of that, but with my sons, they wanna feel like they have a purpose. They wanna feel like they're doing something that matters. I mean, why are boys playing video games? Well, what kind of video games are they playing? They're not just playing video games that are about building relationships and emotional intimacy and closeness. I mean, maybe someâ
Scott: They're not? I'm shocked to hear that.
Sean: [laughs] Of course. Now, probably most girls aren't, but we all know if one of the sexes were more likely to play those games, probably would be more girls. And I don't mean to stereotype, but they play with dolls, and boys are playing with soldiers and fightingâas a whole, not in every circumstance. So I think what's missed here is that our culture has just really demasculated men and said you have no purpose, you have no meaning. There's nothing of what it distinctly means to be a man, and there's nothing to live for. And if you lack that and still have great human relationships, you're not gonna fix the problem for boys. So she is onto the fact. My boys, they wanna have relationships, they wanna be close. Intimacy and closeness is important. But for boys, I'm telling you, they want meaning, they want identity, they want purpose. A part of why boys play video games so much is, it's like, we're battling, and we're fighting, and we're part of a team, and I can find my identity in this. So I think she's moving the needle in the right direction by criticizing certainâŚboth sides have areas they can make corrections to, but to move back and just say they need emotional closeness and just need people to listen to them, I'm going, I don't think that's the root of what boys need most.
Scott: Yeah. I mean, I do think boys need people to listen to them and to take them seriously. And I think that, you know, 'cause culture at large has been so far largely dismissive of the mental health issues that boys face. But I think you're absolutely right that this is the beginning, this heads in the right direction. But I think toxic masculinity has to do with a lot more than just being critical of men for being emotionally cut off. There's a lot more to that phenomenon that I think has taught boys to question their masculinity, and young men to question who they are and their identity. That's why I think your point about needing an identity as a man, and as a young man, is so important. And that's something I think is more caught than taught. And they've got to see this from role models that they have at home, and in their schools and their neighborhoods. And I think that, you know, the fact that we have so many fathers who are not living with their children in the home doesn't help for this. I would have added that to the perfect storm that the author describes here. And I think just, you know, young men and boys today are being conditioned to question who they are as men. And some of those masculine traits that I think we have rightly praised are being looked upon with skepticism today. And I think some of those are a cultural thing, but I think there's some of those that are rooted in the scriptures too. The idea of that role of protectors, not necessarily sole providers, but protectors. You know, some of the times I've been most proud of my kids is when I saw them stand up for their friends, or stand up for girls who were being abused by boyfriends. I had a couple of instances where my boys stood up for girls that were being abused, I mean, literally on the spot, and just sort of instinctively, didn't think about it, stood up for them and paid a cost for it. But eventually, you know, the girls were, sort of, rescued from bad situations. I told my boys, I've never been more proud of you in some of those situations. So I do think there's a difference. Parenting boys is different than parenting girls. I know you know that firsthand in a way that I don't. But I think it is different. Boys and girls, they need different things. And I think in our sort of one-size-fits-allâŚthat's the problem, I think, with this label of toxic masculinity, is it's been associated with the brand of boys and men. And I think that's a huge, huge problem. And to our author's credit in The New York Times piece, she acknowledges that it has become a brand and that it doesn't fit, and has become painting with way too broad a brush. And I think that's right. I think we need to recognize that there are a lot of good men out there. Yeah, there are men who have toxic personalities and exhibit toxic traits. But I think to label masculinity itself as inherently toxic is an issue. It's a way of an overreaction. Now, I wanna be the first one to condemn guys who hit their significant others, who don't treat them with dignity and respect. You know, the Me Too movement has brought a lot of attention to the prevalence of sexual harassment in various different social situations. But I'm reluctant to say that every expression of masculinity is necessarily toxic.
Sean: Amen to that. I think this is somewhat of an indictment of, in critical theory, we just see the world through oppressed and oppressors. And so if you're rich, if you are white, if you are Christian, if you are able-bodied, if you are heterosexual, and if you are male, you are an oppressor. And you need to be silent because you have victimized others. That's how the narrative often goes.
Scott: And you can't be a victim yourself.
Sean: And you can't be a victim. Exactly, at best you can be an advocate. And in most circumstances, you're supposed to just be quiet. Well, you look at the data, and girls and women as a whole are doing educationally, and in so many areas, relationallyâshe points out in this articleâbetter than men. And so, I think she's pointing out that deep inconsistency that men feel like, wait a minute, we're actually not oppressing here. We have real difficulties, and people are telling us to shut up and not attending to those challenges. So I appreciate in the article that she's bringing up that inconsistency, but it's not just human connection, it's purpose, it's identity, it's meaning. And above all else, like you said, where does that come from? Fathers. How can you write an article on the most important thing that kids need and not highlight fathers? Oh my goodness, all the data shows that that is the definingâŚit doesn't matter race, doesn't matter socioeconomic status, doesn't matter where you're from. All those things are secondary. You want a boy to flourish, get a father in the home. Now, it's important that that father is emotionally connected to that child. That is really, really important. That's what I think she gets right in this article. But it's not just any relationship where kids feel heard and listened to. It's a father who is present in the lives of their boys.
Scott: There's a big difference between fathers and friends.
Sean: A huge difference.
Scott: And fathers and other types of mentors. Now, my heart goes out to people who are in single-parent families with the moms, who I think are heroes for doing the best they can on their own. But the fathers in the home are different than mentors. And mentors sometimes are terrific. And I'm totally for those. And even for people who have good dads in the home, they need mentors. They need people outside of the home too, to reinforce some of those same things that they're getting at home.
Sean: And you know, I just had to say really fast, it's interesting, the person says, you know, they're watching porn. Well, where do boys learn how to treat women and learn how to be in relationships? From their parents, but boys specifically from seeing their father do this. Where do they learn how to spend their time? It's the father. Bradley Wilcox's data is clear about self image, about staying out of prison, about graduating from high school, about being mentally healthy. It's connected to the father. That's what boys need more than anything else.
Scott: And stay tuned for our podcast with Brad Wilcox, which we're gonna be posting in a couple of weeks on this. Great stuff on that one. All right, Sean, you ready to take some questions?
Sean: Let's do it.
Scott: All right, here's the first one. And this one, you and I may differ on this one too.
Sean: Yeah.
Scott: So, âI'm getting married soon and wrestling with the question of birth control. I know that Catholics have a magisterial stance against birth control, but Protestants are divided. Pro-conception Protestants taking their stand on wisdom, prayer, and marital choice. I find myself leaning toward the Catholic arguments from Scripture and tradition, but I'm not sure. I also struggle with just trusting God's financial provision if we end up having many children.â I appreciate your candor about that. âI know that if His Word teaches me to reject contraceptives and trust Him, I have to follow and trust Him, but I am finding it all quite difficult.â And understandably so. âHere's my question, is using contraception of any kind, not just abortifacients, wrong and unacceptable for a Christian marriage?â Sean?
Sean: Well, I'm actually like this individual. I lean towards a Catholic position more broadly, but I'm not sure I'm at the place where I think contraception is always wrong, unmitigated, so to speak. But let me just raise a few questions for this individual to think about. And by the way, nobody got me to think about these questions when I was younger. We're not even having this conversation in the church. This should be a part of premarital counseling. And I'll tell you conversations that I've had recently. I had a woman say to me that for years, they were using birth control, and she felt like, in a sense, her husband was just using her as a sexual outlet, because he didn't wanna have kids yet, wasn't ready, and birth control could prevent her from getting pregnant. Well, my goodness, if birth control can affect you in that way where your spouse is not being lovedâŚminimally, that is something to think about. How does this technology potentially change the way I treat my spouse? That's a big question. I also have had a number of women say to me, they were told birth control is fine, and then as they get older and realize they can't have kids anymore, start to realize and deeply mourn and regret that they didn't have more kids, and didn't have more children. So I'm not gonna tell you that birth control is always wrong, and obviously you'll weigh in here, Scott, but I would invite this couple to talk together about how could birth control shape the way they interact with one another in the bedroom. How many kids do they want? And do they want to look 10, 15 years later and go, oh, we wish we had moreâmake sure they do their best to think these things through and talk to a lot of older couples ahead of time. Your thoughts?
Scott: Yeah, great question, Sean. To get at, I think, more than just the moral issue of whether contraception is intrinsically okay or not. That's really helpful stuff. I think our listener here is right to distinguish between contraception and abortifacients. Contraception prevents conception. Abortifacients, either prevent implantation of an embryo, or like in the case of RU-486, actually expel an implanted embryo from the womb. We would call that the chemical abortion. In my view, the contraception is okay. As long as these other things like you described are not being violent. There's nothing, I would say, that's intrinsically wrong with contraception. Using abortifacients, I think, is always wrong, and intrinsically so. So I would not have a problem with using contraception if it's done responsibly. And I think even the Catholic view is a form of contraception. It's just not an artificial one. It's a natural form of contraception. Now, I appreciate this particular listener's candor in the struggle with God's provision for them if they end up having a lot of children. But I especially appreciate that if the Scripture, whatever the Scripture teaches, that's what I have to follow and to trust Him. And so, I appreciate that. That, I think, is the bottom line on this. My own view, I don't think that contraception itself is intrinsically problematic, but abortifacients are always and intrinsically a problem. Anything else you wanna add to that?
Sean: No, good stuff.
Scott: Okay, second one. And I appreciate this. I'll take all the praise and kudos that we can get. âI appreciate all your work for the kingdom.â I say, well, let's end, and next question.
Sean: [laughs]
Scott: No. âI was recently listening to a talk from,â our friend, âWilliam Lane Craig in his site, A Reasonable Faith, where he made the comment, âThe belief in a young earth is indefensible.â I know this topic is not essential for salvation, but it's a significant point of belief. Sean, I think I heard you say some time ago, in past years you have changed your position on some of these, including the age of the earth and creation. Could you guys tackle this on an episode of Think Biblically or question and answer section of the Cultural Update? I have many students and adults who would really like to hear your viewpoints on this.â And Sean, since you've been invoked already, I will kick it to you to start with.
Sean: Yes, in some sense, we should cover this in a full episode in some depth. This was a huge issue 10, 20 years ago, in some ways dividing the church. It's less of an issue today, but it's still important, because it intersects with how we understand science. It intersects with how we read the Scriptures. It's a question about the intersection of science and faith. So it's vital. Now, William Lane Craig has written books specifically on, like, big bang cosmology, on the historical Adam. He's talked about the intersection of science and faith. And he thinks both biblically and scientifically that young earth creationism is indefensible. And he's been very strong about that. I tend to approach it a little bit differently. I tend to have just as big of a camp as I can, and that this is one view Christians can hold, but they're gonna have to give a case biblically, and have to give a case scientifically. And there's been some history within the church of young-earthers. And there's some really smart young-earthers trying to do good work today. So I tend to approach it a little bit more with a big camp approach, but I understand where our friend Bill is coming from on this one as well. Bottom line, when people ask me publicly my viewpoint on it, I typically don't tell them, because people will divide over this issue. I don't often tell people my view of Calvinism and Arminianism and other topics. Maybe it's the teacher in me that just wants people to go back to the text themselves and not be tempted to believe or not believe a position on this based on what I hold. We could come back to this in the future. But the bottom line is it's an important one. I don't think it's a hill that Christians should die on. But it matters in the sense of how we talk about faith. Now one, I guess one other point I would say is sometimes, when I do speak with people, they wanna make the age of the earth an issue before they get to Jesus. Practically, I think that's a huge mistake. Now, some young-earthers would disagree with me, but the reality is, if you say to somebody in our culture, you think the universe is 10 or 12, you know, 1,000 years old, they're gonna write you off, and you might as well say the world is flat. I would not start there. I would start with, who is Jesus? Is there evidence for a creator? And get to that and make your case downhill. That's just more of a practical case in conversations with non-believers that I personally take.
Scott: Yeah, my own view of this is that this is not a hill to die on. 'Cause there are only so many hills you can die on and still come back from it.
Sean: [laughs] Like, maybe one. But I think it's importantâI think that, regardless of your view of the age of the earth, you can still affirm what I think is the important stuff to affirm, that God is the creator, that we worship the creator, not the creation. And that human beings are the special creation of God, made in his image. And I know when Dr. Craig talks about the teleological argument for the existence of God, the argument from design, he doesn't typically talk about the human body, because he just doesn't wanna get into discussions about evolution. Instead, he talks about what he calls the privileged planet, the place that the planet earth has in the solar system and how just a few variations one way or another on the tilt and the position of the earth in the solar system, and it would be inhospitable for human life. That, I think, is a much better way to approach that argument from teleology. But I think I wanna make sure that we understand that the universe had a beginning and a beginning implies a beginner. And how long ago that was is less important to me than that you can affirm that the universe had a specific beginning, which implies that there was someone who shot the starting gun and said, "Go." And I think that's where Bill's stuff has been super helpfulâhis cosmological argument essentially makes that case. And he has been so good, and for so long holding that view in a variety of very hostile contexts. So I would say, there's some things on origins that you and I would probably differ with Bill on. But I think some of the foundational stuff we certainly would agree with him on.
Sean: Amen.
Scott: Anything else on that?
Sean: No, good stuff.
Scott: Okay, one final one. And this is from a listener from last week. âI agree with your comments on last weekâs episode about sports gambling.â All right, let's close in prayer and knock off.
Sean: [laughs]
Scott: âBut I think you left off an important piece being biblically minded and good stewards with our money. Gambling is entertainment, and spending our expendable income on ourselves is not what Christ has called us to. You did mention we should only spend what we can afford to lose, but I believe that's insufficient. We've been trained to spend all of our disposable income on ourselves, but we need more self control and generosity to this. Would you address this idea that good stewardship requires more self control than simply making sure we only gamble with our excess income?â And then I appreciate this last part. âI say âwe,â because I need this reminder more than anyone.â Appreciate that little bit of candor there toward the end. Let meâI'll weigh in here first on this.
Sean: Yeah.
Scott: And I think that it is trueâI think we defended a modest form of gambling as harmless entertainment, being careful not to spend what we can't afford to lose. And I wanna question the premise that he describes here. Spending our expendable income on ourselves is not what Christ has called us to. I don't think that's true. Spending all of our expendable income on ourselves is not what Christ has called us to. But I think God has given us all things richly for us to enjoy. And the idea in the Old Testament of God giving the Hebrews the land overflowing with milk and honey, He intended for some of that to be consumed and enjoyed themselves. And so I wouldn't wanna be in a, what I would call a minimalist place, where all of our expendable income has to be either given away or spent on somebody else. 'Cause I think in reality, we spend a lot of our expendable income on ourselves. You know, our rent, our mortgage, you know, our bills, all of that. That's spending money on ourselves. And so, I think what he meant by that is that we shouldn't spend all of our disposable income on ourselves, which I would agree with. But I think there's a happy medium in there in the middle where I think it's okay. My wife and I just celebrated our 40th anniversary on a cruise in Europe that was much more expensive than we'll everâŚprobably, you know, we're not gonna spend that kind of money anytime soon, again.
Sean: [laughs]
Scott: But I think God was pleased with that because we celebrated appropriately, we enjoyed ourselves, and we were grateful for the bounty that God had given us in part for our enjoyment. So your thoughts on this?
Sean: Yeah, I think that's well said. You know, he said we've been trained to spend all of our disposable income on ourselves. My question is just, what is disposable income? And part of my assumption is we've already set money aside to give away, we've already sent money aside to our church, we've set money aside for expenses and to help people. When I talk about disposable income, that's already at play. So this is income where we can choose to go to a movie, or we can choose to go ice skating for ourselves, which is not bad. That's what I would mean by disposable income. With that said, this is a great reminder that when it's all said and done, all of our finances are not ours, but we are stewards of God's money and we'll be held accountable for how we spend it.
Scott: All right, hey, one more thing before we knock off here, Sean, you've got a new book coming out next week. Tell us, tell our listeners about that.
Sean: Yeah, this is with Tim Muehlhoff, Biola professor. It's called End the Stalemate. And honestly, Scott, I'm as excited about this book as any that I think I've ever written before. It really captures the heart of my ministry. And in a sense, it's an incarnational way of communicating with people. So God himself, through the person of Jesus, takes on human flesh and steps into our world, and sees the world through human eyes, and we're told was tempted in every way and understands us, yet without sin. What if we were to enter into relationships with people in our polarized, broken culture with that kind of incarnational mindset, where we wanna understand and feel how that person sees and feels the world? This is a book that's not just theory. It's very practical waysâhow to build common ground, how to listen, how to perspective-take. And I think anybody out there who's listening who says, you know what, I find myself in a stalemate at work, in family, culture onlineâthis will help you reach out in, I think, the love of Christ and practically build bridges with somebody who sees the world differently. So it comes out next week officially on the 18th. You can probably get it anywhere that books are sold.
Scott: And our podcast on Tuesday will feature Sean's conversation with his co-author, Tim Muehlhoff, on the book. So be sure and tune in for that to get a sneak preview of the book. Sean, I might suggest that for all our listeners, buy and read the book before you have your next political discussion with anybody.
Sean: [laughs] Very nice, good idea.
Scott: So thanks, I appreciate you and Tim for writing the book and for the heads up on that.
Sean: You bet.
Scott: This has been an episode of the Weekly Cultural Update of the Think Biblically Podcast: Conversations on Faith and Culture, brought to you by Talbot School of Theology at Biola University, offering all kinds of programs, masters, bachelor's programs in Southern California in residence and online. Visit biola.edu/talbot in order to learn more. If you'd like to submit comments, ask questionsâplease keep these good questions comingâor make suggestions on issues you'd like us to cover, or guests you'd like us to consider, you can email us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu. That's thinkbiblically@biola.edu. Be sure to tune in Tuesday for Sean's discussion with Tim Muehlhoff on this book End the Stalemate. If you enjoyed today's conversation, give us a rating on your podcast app and share it with a friend. Thanks so much for listening and remember, think biblically about everything.
