ݮƵThis week, Sean and Scott discuss:
- Listener Question: How Do We Prepare Our Children for Emotional Stress
- Listener Question: Are Humans Mostly Good?
- Listener Question: How Should School Chaplains Approach Kid's Pronouns?
Episode Transcript
Sean: Dozens of Olympians express their faith in Paris. The Vatican shifts its stance on food and water for patients in a vegetative state. The Labor Party separates itself from postmodern gender theorists, possibly marking the end of the gender war in Britain. A minister plays a key role in the prosecution of a man on death row, and now regrets his involvement and pleads for the man's life. These are the stories we will discuss today, and we will also address some of your questions. I'm your host, Sean McDowell.
Scott: I'm your co-host, Scott Rae.
Sean: This is the Think Biblically Weekly Cultural Update, brought to you by Talbot School of Theology, ݮƵ. Scott, you sent me this first story. We will start with a positive one that I think is really cool, about probably somewhere between 15 and 20 Olympians that use the opportunity, winning or losing, to express and share and proclaim their faith. This is such a great story. I would encourage parents to read this to your kids. I would encourage those who—if you are at work or placed with non-believers—want to start up a spiritual conversation, you can say things like, "Hey, what do you think about the Olympians who shared their faith? Do you think this is the place for this?" Great chance for opportunity. Now, I won't read all of them. We would lose our audience.
Scott: They go on and on and on in this article.
Sean: They do. [laughs] They keep going. There are videos embedded in it, too, to watch and share. I'll just share a couple of quick ones that jump out to me, and then I'm curious which ones jump out to you. In the 1500-meter final on August 6th, there was quite the expectation that the U.S. would not win or compete in this. We typically have not. It would be a battle between Norway's Jakob Ingebrigtsen—sorry if I mispronounced it—and Josh Kerr of Great Britain. But in the last 100 meters, American Cole Hocker snuck past and out-sprinted Kerr to win by 0.14 seconds. Now, this was a shock, and you could see on his face his surprise. But what he said is, right afterwards, he says, "I just let God carry me through the finish line." He added, "I felt like I was being carried by the energy of the stadium and God. My mind was focused, and my body followed through with strength and determination that I had." One of Hocker's Instagram posts offered a short explanation, "God did." Now, you and I could theologically debate whether this is adrenaline, or whether this is God or not, but the cool thing is winning an unexpected race and he goes, "You know what? I just want to give God the credit." It was pretty awesome when he could have given it to himself. One other one that jumped out to me. The title of this one is, "She Overcame Homelessness for Track and Field Glory." Shafiqua Maloney, on her Instagram bio, says, "I am a child of God." Yet amazingly, even though she's competing in the Olympics, she had been homeless for several months during the previous year. She represents the Caribbean nation of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. And what's interesting is, she arrived to Paris ranked 27th in her event, but sped through the first two rounds in personal record time to make the finals. She placed fourth, so she didn't get a bronze medal, but to see somebody who had previously been homeless, not even with a lot of the money and resources to train, show up at the Olympics and come in fourth in her meet is pretty powerful. And I love that she attributes it to God. What stories jump out to you?
Scott: Well, I had a lot of fun reading this. And Sean, it's been a long time since I've been so encouraged by one of the stories that we covered.
Sean: Good.
Scott: This was just…I found it incredibly encouraging. And there are a couple of things that stood out to me here. One is the phenomenon that apparently happened all over the Olympic village, where athletes from other countries who were followers of Jesus came together and just sort of spontaneously had these worship sessions. You know, two or three would sit on the stairs, and one with a guitar, and they just break out singing. And this happened all over the Olympic village. The highlight of this, I think, was the rugby players from the nation of Fiji, who, every morning, started the day—I'm not sure every player, but a good number of them—would start out the day singing hymns in the lobby of the Olympic village. And there were other athletes who would come just to come hear them sing. I thought this was so encouraging. These rough and tumble rugby players singing hymns every morning to praise their God. The other one that I found very encouraging was the Brazilian gymnast Rebeca Andrade, who came back from three ACL tears and won silver medals and then won a gold medal in the floor exercise at the conclusion of the gymnastics games. She unfortunately had the misfortune of being a contemporary of Simone Biles, who is probably the greatest female gymnast who's ever lived. But she specifically cited all the things that her faith gave her to make it through the hardship and all the stuff she had to go through coming back from three different injuries. She credits God for her resilience. She put it like this: “God was preparing me so that I could achieve my goals today. And, as the song says, ‘I'm preparing you for a new time that is about to come. Hold on, I'm doing it perfectly, and you will see.’ He's doing things I could never have imagined.” And she says she broke into song during one of the interviews after winning a silver medal in one of the individual competitions. I found that really encouraging…she had such a tough road. A lot of these athletes have come from really difficult circumstances. The other one that struck me was the 52 kilogram Judo event. I didn't actually watch a lot of Judo, but this story really stood out. Two gymnasts, Larissa Pimenta and Odette Giuffrida, squared off for the bronze medal. Giuffrida had come to faith under Pimenta's influence when—Giuffrida's Italian, Pimenta's Brazilian—Giuffrida traveled to Brazil, met Pimenta, and under [Pimenta’s] influence, [Giuffrida] came to faith. They squared off together in the bronze medal match. And Pimenta won, but they embraced not only as dear friends, but as sisters in Christ. And it was just a very, very touching moment where Giuffrida acknowledged the influence Pimenta had had on her for coming to faith, and they both acknowledged that they were in this not so much to win, but to honor their Lord. Super encouraging stuff. Not much to say in critique. This was, I found, just so, so heartening, and just such good news in the midst of the Olympics.
Sean: Scott, if there was a gold for picking the best story, I give it to you, because that last one is just moving, as saying, we can compete at the highest level. We're trying to win and then love one another after, especially somebody brought to faith. I mean, that's the kind of story that can really move you to tears. And there's great videos and images embedded in this article that are worth sharing…with others, especially your kids. So thanks for sending that to me. Now this next article you sent me is—
Scott: If I get a gold medal from you, that makes my day.
Sean: [laughs] Awesome. We'll take it. Well, this next story is totally shifting gears, here. I'm not certain what to make of this, Scott, if it's a larger cultural shift that's taking place, and where you stand on it, but the idea is that the Vatican loosens its stance on food and water given to patients in a vegetative state. Now the article says, "This week, the Vatican's Academy for Life issued a new text on a series of bioethical issues, including the provision of food and water hydration for patients in a vegetative state, which marks a modest departure from the Vatican's previously held position." Now, among other things, the 88 page report reaffirms a blanket “no” to euthanasia and a “no” to assisted suicide, so they haven't radically shifted gears, as far as I can tell. But it also shifts to a new openness from the Vatican when it comes to these aggressive kinds of treatments when people are dying from some other illness in a vegetative state. Now, they published this decoration on human dignity, Dignitas Infinita, and it reiterated the need to avoid every aggressive therapy or disproportionate intervention in the treatment of patients with serious illness. So it seems to me like they're stepping back, saying, sometimes the deliverance of food and water is so aggressive that it's not allowing a certain illness to run its course. That might be what they're saying, but some of this also results from new technology that seems to enable us to give food and water to people in a vegetative state that raises these kinds of questions we didn't have in the past. So, really, the debate is this: is removing food and water an act of compassion, at times, to allow somebody to die naturally in a vegetative state from the illness, or are those that do it really causing the death, and morally complicit? So, help us understand what's happening here, and why this is so important.
Scott: Well, I think this is a bit of a bigger shift than our article is giving the Vatican credit for. One thing I learned…I had a chance to study with one of the preeminent Catholic moral theologians who…I disagreed with him on almost everything we talked about. But in studying with him, he often mentioned that what looks to the outsider as very slight shifts in the Vatican's position, often is shifts that are much larger than that. And I think that's the case with this one here. In the past, the Vatican has said, basically, a blanket statement that said every patient who's in a vegetative state deserves to be fed and hydrated regardless of whether it's medically provided or not. And, in fact, I was on a television show that John Kasich hosted on Fox News on this subject several years ago with a Catholic priest who said, "Food and water is as basic to life as a fork and a knife." And I think that reflected a lot of the Vatican's position at the time. I think what they've recognized is that there are times when providing food and water to someone in a vegetative state…by the way, a vegetative state is where there's no higher brain function any longer. It's only the brain stem that's working. The brain stem controls all the automatic functions like breathing, respiration, heartbeat, digestion. And so, if somebody is at the end of life and their systems are shutting down, including their digestive system, it'd actually be inhumane to force feed someone whose digestive system can't process the water and the nutrients. So that's one case where I think all along they would have agreed with that. Where I think this is different is allowing for the recognition that food and water is medically provided, and therefore is a medical treatment that can be refused by someone who is competent to make those decisions for themselves. So, first, in a vegetative state, they would have refused it in an advance directive prior to the accident or the illness that left them in that condition. To think biblically and theologically about this, I think it's really important here, because death in the scriptures is seen as an enemy, and it's a normal, natural part of all of our lives because of the pervasiveness and universality of sin. It's not the way God intended. But death is also in the New Testament. It’s clarified that death is a conquered enemy, by virtue of the death and resurrection of Jesus. And what follows from that is if death is a conquered enemy, it need not always be resisted. And that is when treatments are futile or when they are more burdensome than beneficial. And often I think when we stop a treatment, we are essentially entrusting that person back to the Lord for whatever days he or she has left. Now I remember, really vividly, wheeling my father-in-law out of the hospital for the last time. He had just had surgery for a bladder tumor that had…it should have been a couple of days in the hospital that turned into three weeks because of all sorts of complications at age 89. And I remember wheeling him out, and he's in a wheelchair, and he can barely speak—his voice is so low. And he whispers to me to come closer so he can whisper in my ear, and I'll never forget what he said, Sean. He said, "Don't ever bring me here again."
Sean: Wow.
Scott: And what he meant was, I'm done with doctors and hospitals and tubes, treatments and technologies that I don't want. And they were making his life miserable. And I think he could say it like this, but I really think what he meant is: I will accept whatever days I have left. I will accept that as God's good gift and maximize my life apart from medical complications. Now, the other thing theologically on this that I think is really important is that we not mistake our doctrine of the sanctity of life for what's called vitalism. Vitalism is the notion that we are obligated to do everything at all costs and at all times simply to keep people alive. And if we equate that with the sanctity of life, then I think it leads to a theological statement that we don't want to make. Because if we're obligated to keep everybody alive at all times, at all costs, no matter what, essentially what we're saying is that earthly life, then, is the highest good. But, theologically, that's not true. Our highest good…Augustine was right when he said our highest good is our eternal fellowship with God. Now, earthly life is what I call a penultimate good. It's up there on the list, but it's not at the top of the pile. So, those two biblical principles I think are really important in this conversation: that under the right conditions, death need not always be resisted, and we are not obligated to keep everybody alive no matter what. And I think that includes removing food and water. Because removing treatments—I think the question you raise is a good one—is not killing a person. It's the disease or underlying condition that kills them. And even here with a person in a vegetative state, it's normally a condition, a brain injury, as a result of an accident or an illness that has left them…they're not really terminally ill, but they're not going to get any better, either. They're not coming out of that vegetative state. And so here it's not so much a disease, but it's the underlying condition that's preventing them from taking food and water by mouth that's killing them. And to the suggestion that food and water are basic to life, that's true, but they are no more basic to life than air to breathe. And yet we seem to have no issues with removing ventilator support under those right conditions, because they are medically provided treatments, which can be refused, I think, under the right conditions. Does that make sense of it?
Sean: Yeah, I think so. So if I'm understanding correctly, you support this shift that the Catholic Church is doing.
Scott: I do.
Sean: Okay. So I was wondering if you had—
Scott: Well, I remember when I was consulting with a couple of Catholic hospitals when this first came down years ago with their really tight restrictions saying, basically, everybody in a vegetative state had to be provided nutrition and hydration. We had already had policies in place for the ethical removal of these. And then the Catholic hospitals, they're under this Vatican decree.
Sean: Gotcha.
Scott: And so we were scrambling there for some time to get this right.
Sean: Okay. So, presumably, there's times it's okay to remove a feeding tube and times it's not okay. What would be the way that we would judge that? When the illness is at a certain level, when ahead of time they've said, "This is what I want you to do," or do you have a proxy operating on behalf of them? Or is this where it just gets really gray and you just kind of have to do your best, but we want the freedom to do it in what we would consider the patient's best interest?
Scott: I think with the vegetative state, it's not particularly gray.
Sean: Okay.
Scott: Because even if the patient has not said this clearly, this is where I think the surrogate decision maker can represent what would have been their judgment pretty well. Now, under the law, the [surrogate decision maker] has to have some evidence that this is the patient's wish. But I suspect most people, the vast majority who are in a vegetative state, do not want to be sustained like this. Particularly believers, if sustaining them is basically delaying their homecoming. Now, for somebody who's not a believer, I would say, who knows, there might be something going on in there mentally that we don't know about. So hold their hand, give them the gospel as straight as you know how, and ask them to respond. Then trust the Lord with that, that He will be fair in his judgment. And then abide by the patient's wishes in that state. Similarly, if the treatment is futile, which means it's not going to stop this imminent downward spiral toward death, or if it's more burdensome than beneficial, it's okay, I think, to remove any treatment, not just food and water. I had a buddy of mine who had major abdominal surgery, and he was on a feeding tube for a week or so while he recovered. Obviously, he needs to have that feeding tube stay in, and, regardless of what he said, he's going to get better, and it will eventually come out. People in a vegetative state will never be able to take food and water by mouth.
Sean: Okay. That's helpful.
Scott: Where it gets a little more gray is when you have patients who have dementia. Their dementia has taken away their ability to swallow, but they're still sort of with it mentally. That's where I think it's much more gray. Or a patient with ALS, for example, who's probably going to lose their ability to swallow before they'll lose other important functions. That's a little more gray too, it seems to me.
Sean: Well, at first I was concerned when I read this, because the Catholic Church has been such an ally of Protestant churches in terms of life and death issues. So, you see this as a shift in a better direction, not an area of concern. It is positive. Is there anything else?
Scott: No, I'm not concerned about this. I think it is a move in the right direction, in my view.
Sean: Good. Excellent. Well, this next shift we're going to talk about is another one that's been in the news quite a bit this week. This is an article in The Atlantic and the title, of course, grabbed our attention. It says, "The Gender War is Over in Britain." Now it says, when Keir Starmer, who is the Prime Minister in Britain, wanted to change the Labour Party's stance on sex and gender, basically there was an 800-word release that was announced by Anneliese Dodds, kind of a shadow minister for him. Three shifts he's kind of indicating here. One is that sex and gender are different. Another—although the Labour Party continues to believe in the right to change one's legal gender, safeguards are needed to "protect women and girls from predators who might abuse the system." Finally, Labour was therefore dropping its commitment to self-ID, the idea that a simple online declaration is enough to change someone's legal gender for all purposes, and this would now require a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria. So this is moving in a more centrist direction. Now, why would this be the case? What the article says is since 2015, which is the year Obergefell v. Hodges came down, the transgender issue kind of rocketed into the national conversation. We had the Bruce Jenner/Kaitlyn Jenner transition. Demands for single-sex sports teams, locker rooms, and prisons were thus considered exclusionary. This was the narrative for the past decade in Britain and beyond, and analogous to whites-only buses, schools, and water fountains under apartheid and Jim Crow. So the Labour, the main party of the British left, has now declared these arguments are unfair and untrue. Now that's a significant shift. Now, their new stance shows how, according to this article, the left can simultaneously acknowledge the need for an embattled transgender minority, accept the importance of biological sex to public policy, and look for political and social compromises. So really, this is a political article. We're not going to get into the politics of this, but in a sense, we're seeing the politics shift in Britain. We have before, at least medically, with the closing of the Tavistock Clinic. Now, politically, this new Prime Minister is trying to say, how do we move towards a more centrist position so we can talk about other things besides the gender topic? That's what he argues. And the article talks about how so many things came up, where they were stuck arguing about the exact percentage of women who have penises. This is actually documented there. [laughs] Sorry to quote that here, but that is in the article. Labour couldn't talk about Britain's housing crisis, high energy costs, crumbling infrastructure, because they were debating. There was even a claim that a child can be born without sex, because it's completely up to somebody's thinking. So, Starmer was asked to define a woman, and he said, "An adult female." Now, that still needs to get broken down, but we're moving in the right direction. And so now, the conversation is shifting in Britain towards a recognition of the lack of safety and effectiveness of puberty blockers, pushing back on trans women competing in sports. Now, they talk about this shift in Britain, and then they come to America and kind of say, "You're not seeing the same shift take place here in America," which is just interesting on so many levels. In fact, this week that this came out, there was an op-ed in the New York Times that said—it was a 20-minute read—criticizing the Cass report that, of course, came out of Europe and Britain. And it's kind of like we're seeing Britain move this direction, possibly more centrist. And as a whole, it seems that we're seeing in America people entrenching and kind of digging in their heels and resisting some of this research. Now here's the last paragraph, and then come in and tell me what you think. Last paragraph says, "The left must be able to defend trans rights without denying the meaningful differences between males and females. The right must be able to air concerns without demonizing trans people. Both liberals and conservatives should stop throwing around accusations of child abuse towards parents doing their best. The gender war can end if the broad, tolerant middle asserts itself." Now, I don't share that optimism, sadly, but I'll come back to it. But I appreciate the recognition that we do need to slow down on the rhetoric and find political solutions given how divided Britain is, and how divided America is, so we can move forward. What are your thoughts on this article?
Scott: Well, Sean, there are several things that jumped out at me on this. First off is the polls that are taken among American adults. The article cites more than 60% of American adults also believe that trans women and girls should not compete in female sports at any level, and solid majorities oppose hormone treatments for under 18. Even among trans adults themselves, the same polls found that three in 10 support sex-based restriction in sports, and the same number said it was inappropriate for younger children to receive puberty blockers. That's among the average person in the U.S. and among trans adults themselves. The other thing that jumped out at me was the statement from this very ardent—what I would call an ardent—long-term feminist, Catharine MacKinnon, who has largely been considered a bit of a fringe person. But she's making a lot of common sense here where she makes the statement sort of recognizing and supporting the direction that Britain's moving in this. She says, "Women are not oppressed by their bodies. We do not need to be liberated from our chromosomes or our ovaries." In other words, their biology is not something that's intrinsically oppressive to women, like some of the postmodernists have suggested. And it's been very encouraging that the left in Britain…and, you know, Keir Starmer is the newly elected Prime Minister, and the Labour Party has come into power over years of the Conservative Party, the Tories, being in power. But it's a significant departure for gender ideology that views it as an entirely social construct with nothing to do with biology. Now, you know, we've talked about this trend across Europe before, and moving away from what some have called a gender hysteria, particularly with pre-puberty kids. And I think it’s encouraging that it's now on the table in many of these circles in Europe that puberty itself can resolve many cases of gender dysphoria. Or at the least, no gender-affirming treatment should be attempted without a serious psychological assessment, since that dysphoria can be a symptom of deeper mental health issues that often go unaddressed. Now, I think the article is right that, for the most part in the U.S., people are not taking this movement in Europe all that seriously. Instead, they're doubling down on where we've been. And I think you're right, Sean, to say that they're digging in their heels. I think that's really accurate to describe that. So let me just say a little bit about...
Sean: Sure.
Scott: Helping us to think biblically about this, where the Bible's clear, it seems to me, that God created human beings, male and female. And to call that a binary, I think is actually what's being taught in the Scripture. That's almost a dirty word today in the American context. And the general entrance of sin into the world has given us things like intersex, which is that ambiguous genitalia. Gender dysphoria, where how you feel about your gender doesn't square up with what your biology is. And same sex attraction, things like that. And, as Paul indicates in Romans 1, these are indicative—though not the only things or even the major things that are indicative—of the brokenness of a fallen world. And therefore, someone who is trans, I would say, is not something that we celebrate, but it's a condition to be dealt with with the best that medicine has to offer. So those are a couple biblical principles that help us frame this theologically. And sometimes translating our theological framing into a middle ground proposal for public policy looks to some people like that's just a blatant compromise. But I think we have to recognize that the theological world and the public policy world are two different animals, and that public policy is sort of, by definition, a place of compromise, negotiation, and settling for limited objectives. That's part of what public policy is like in a fallen world, given the pervasiveness and universality of sin. So, Sean, I'm curious what you make of this middle ground proposal for public policy. You already said you're not particularly optimistic about it working in the U.S., but what do you think about it more in terms of principle?
Sean: Well, I have mixed feelings on this. One thing I do want to say is I think you're right that when it comes to the question of transgender, we need medical care. I think there's also a moral component to this that we cannot ignore, and a theological one. Sometimes in these conversations, people want to shift the topic purely to what's called disability, and it's just like any other medical condition. Of course, I'm not saying people necessarily choose to have this or desire this, and they're suffering through it, but if God has designed us as male and female, and our bodies are a part of who we are and our identity, then we need medical care and additional theological, moral support to help people live out who they are according to God's design. So I know you're not implying it's just that only-through-a-disability lens, but I think we need to make sure we add that component as well. I'm confident. Would you agree with that, Scott?
Scott: Yeah, that's really helpful clarification on that. I appreciate that.
Sean: Awesome. Now, with that said, I guess when I read an article like this…I'm a peacemaker by nature, and Christians are called to be peacemakers. We live in a culture in which we just have people with different philosophies and worldviews and belief systems, and we have to find a way to get along. Now, this article says a few things. It says Democrats need to meet de-transitioners, and Republicans need to meet transgender activists. Both sides need to hear the best version of their opponents’ arguments and ensure that the debate is being conducted on the basis of the best available evidence. I couldn't have said it better myself. I'm like, yes, let's meet people who see the world differently. Let's hear out their arguments. I do that regularly. But there's a sense in this article, it's like, if we could just listen to each other, then we could all get along and solve this and the gender war would go away. Now, I think the level of the heat applied to the gender war right now—that it's been dominating conversations for a decade—that's not going to continue. But underneath this, there's just fundamental differences about what it means to be human, what it means to be healthy, how we're going to flourish. And that worldview difference isn't solved by people simply understanding where somebody else is coming from. Now, that understanding is going to make us more compassionate. I think it's going to make us speak about people differently. But I think so much of the ideology here is directly opposed to God as a creator. It's pushing ideas of autonomy that don't ultimately help people flourish. And so as much as we understand that compassionately and graciously, we have to stand up and say, you know what, there's certain things behind gender-affirming care, especially for kids, that I'm not interested in some kind of medium. Just like on the pro-life issue. Okay, we can take steps in the right direction that help save lives. Good. But when it's all said and done, I want every single life, from the moment of conception, to rightly be protected by our government, because it should protect human beings. And I think this gender-affirming care model actually harms kids. It harms kids. Now they're saying here, they said, "Liberals and conservatives should stop throwing around accusations of child abuse towards parents doing their best." I mean, I agree. If you have a parent with a trans child and they're doing their best, calling them that probably isn't helpful. Right? That's not going to make them want to listen to you and continue the conversation. So rhetorically, it's not helpful. But I do think practically, it's not ever medically okay to transition a child biologically, especially when, like you pointed out earlier, people are realizing that puberty…in many cases this works itself out, the vast majority. And so many of these kind of care things, gender-affirming care things, are permanent and cause lasting damage on individuals. So, bottom line is, there's worldview differences we can't ignore. I'm all for being a peacemaker and kind and careful how we talk about this. But we cannot compromise what is at stake in this issue as well.
Scott: Hear, hear.
Sean: All right. Nothing else to add to that? Are we good on that? [laughs]
Scott: Nope. Let's close in prayer and go home. [laughs]
Sean: All right. Good stuff. Now, this last one could take us a long time. But we realize we have not talked about the death penalty, at least on the weekly cultural update. We have, at times, on our regular episodes. But this is a short op-ed in the New York Times. And it's about Brian Wharton, who's a UMC, United Methodist Church, pastor. And the article says, "Admitting a mistake can be very hard. But how would it feel if the mistake helped put a man on death row?" Now, all of us should pause and feel the weight of that. “That's the burden that Reverend Wharton has been carrying for more than two decades. He played a crucial role in the prosecution of Robert Roberson, who was found guilty 21 years ago of killing his two-year-old daughter and sentenced to death. Wharton came to regret his involvement in the outcome of the case. He recently visited the Texas death row.” Now, the reason the New York Times is highlighting this story is that they're creating a bunch of videos of what they think are mistakes and abuse in the criminal justice system, specifically applied to the death penalty. So the article says, "The videos are in keeping with the New York Times' longstanding position that the punishment is full of bias and error, morally abhorrent and futile in deterring crime and should be abolished." Now interestingly, just really quickly, 29 states now have either abolished the death penalty or have paused executions. And that was 12 in 1999, the year after I graduated from Biola. So basically, 60% of states have paused or stopped, abolished the death penalty. A Gallup poll found…now it's interesting that in politics, we have not heard this discussed at all—at least I haven't—in the election. It has not been a topic that I've seen. It just hit the point where a Gallup poll found that more Americans said the death penalty is administered unfairly, 50%, than fairly, 47%. Yet there were 11 executions in 2021, and then that reversed. 18 in 2022 and 24 last year. And I guess 2400 prisoners are sitting on death row right now in the United States. How do we think biblically…or your thoughts on, kind of, the story and the larger trend of what's happening with the death penalty?
Scott: Yeah, this is actually a gut-wrenching story about this person who was in law enforcement, now is in the pastorate. But we need to step back here and, I think, look at what the Scripture has to say about the death penalty. For one, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with requiring life for life. Genesis 9:6 is pretty clear about that. But I say, with procedural protections to ensure that mistakes aren't made. And that’s Numbers 35:30. It has the requirement of two eyewitnesses to a capital crime in order to be sure that justice is being administered. New Testament has virtually nothing to say about the death penalty. I think perhaps because the Old Testament was so clear, and also, I think, perhaps because Jews could not impose the death penalty under the Roman Empire. So it was sort of a moot point to them. Maybe Paul's statement in Romans 13 about the state not bearing the sword in vain could be a reference to the death penalty. But the issues today are around how it's administered—the possibility of mistakes, bias, particularly racial bias—and that it be a matter of justice and not revenge. I would distinguish, there's a personal side to this and the criminal justice side that are two different things. The state is not in the business of forgiveness. That's an individual responsibility, theologically speaking. The people who talk about forgiving the people who killed their loved ones…as hard as that is, a lot of people recognize that they're in this prison of resentment. The only way out of it is to exercise forgiveness toward the person who has done the unthinkable in their lives. In fact, I think one of the people in one of the other articles in that same column suggested that she had to learn how to forgive. In my view—and this may be somewhat controversial—I think there are probably some cases in which life without parole is not quite adequate justice. Say a terrorist who takes out a school and kills hundreds of kids, or Timothy McVeigh, for example, who blew up the Oklahoma City Federal Building, and two to three hundred people were killed in that. For that, I think there's an argument to be made that life without parole is not quite adequate justice. I think on the other hand, life without parole could also be cruel and unusual punishment, because you take away hope, and you take away really any incentive to try and improve someone's life and be a healthy contributor again. So, I think what the Scripture has to say is that there probably are some cases where life for life is okay, as long as it's done procedurally correctly. The real debate, I think, is over whether the procedure is so flawed that the death penalty cannot be administered justly. My own view is that the possibility of mistakes is a really big deal, and I would rather have life without parole than the possibility of putting an innocent man to death.
Sean: Seems to me at the root is one of the biblical principles, of course, in Genesis 9:6, that he who takes an innocent life made in the image of God forfeits one's own life. So it's not like retributive justice, where I'm trying to get back at somebody. It's not primarily in terms of culture, trying to prevent further kinds of misbehavior and crimes. You could correct me on this. I don't think the evidence shows that there's a deterrence effect of capital punishment.
Scott: Unclear at best.
Sean: Unclear at best. It's more a sense of life for life. And so, biblically, I am, in principle, in favor of it, in the way that you described it, but very, very aware of the abuses and need to make sure we get things right. Now, let me ask you this. Do you think this is an issue that Christians can agree to disagree on? And we've seen like in just war, there's pacifists, there's those who embrace just war within the faith. And, even, you gave the example of Timothy McVeigh…we interviewed a journalist probably five years ago when we were just starting the podcast, long before COVID. And she did a story on Timothy McVeigh's father reuniting with another father who lost his daughter in the Oklahoma City bombing. And they met and expressed grace and care for one another. And her argument was because of her Christian faith, even in cases like McVeigh, we don't turn by taking life. Christians should be different. Now, I end up reasoning differently than she did, but I have a hard time saying that's not within the larger spirit of Christ, and that's outside of the fold. I just simply wouldn't go there. So can we just agree to disagree on this, even though it's such an important issue given that life is at stake?
Scott: I think we can agree…the part where you can especially agree to disagree is about the procedural parts: how the death penalty is administered, bias, mistakes, things like that. And I'd like to hear…I mean, if somebody has a principled argument why the Scripture doesn't allow for life for life in some cases, I'd be open to hearing that. That one I think would be a little harder to agree to disagree about. But the procedural part, I'm totally with you on that.
Sean: Okay, fair enough. So Christians can differ based upon how effectively they think it's carried out. It is interesting that…you're right, like, I think, when there was that bombing at the marathon in Boston, there were a whole lot of people calling out for the death penalty who are normally against it, because there's something inside of us in certain cases that just realizes justice needs to be done. And so, it's interesting to see that bubble up at other times as well. Okay, you ready for some questions?
Scott: We have some really good questions here this week, and let's hear it.
Sean: All right, so we got three questions here. This mom says, “My daughter is 17 and plans to be a firefighter. She's taken fire science and EMT classes through her high school, finished a young woman's firefighting leadership camp, and will soon be volunteering.” First thing I would say is congrats. The question is, “How can I help spiritually prepare her for the things she'll be encountering in her career?” And then says, “For example, the rate of suicide among firefighters and first responders is estimated to be double the rate of the civilian population. They do an amazing job at carrying unbearable weight. What suggestions do you have, or can you point me to any resources that might help me talk with my daughter about a Christian perspective on suffering?” Now, I'll give a couple thoughts here. I think there's two things at play here. I'm not a firefighter. I'm not a cop. I don't personally understand that level of pressure. I think the single best thing she could do is find other firefighters in her church, or others who work in a similar capacity and deal with that kind of burden, and just talk with them. Get somebody to mentor them. You could ask your daughter if she's open to it, you could try to find some. But just sitting down with somebody and talking with you, "Hey, there were times where I was depressed. There were times I wanted to give up. Here's how I cope. Here's what I wish I did differently." Finding someone who's been there, who you respect their faith, would be one of the best things that I think you could do. Now, the end of this question is, “Can you give me resources on suffering?” One of my favorite books on evil and suffering is by former Talbot and Biola professor Clay Jones: Why Does God Allow Evil? Now, it's more theological. It's more biblical rather than practical. That's an amazing theological defense of why there’s suffering and evil. I love Philip Yancey's book, I think it's just titled Where Is God When It Hurts?, which is very thoughtful but also very, very pastoral. What would your advice be, Scott?
Scott: Well, I think, Sean, this is the reason why most firehouses have chaplains attached to them. My longtime colleague here, Michael Anthony, was a firehouse chaplain in Orange County here in California for many years. He had an incredible ministry. He's basically helping firefighters deal with exactly what this mom is concerned about. That would be one, I think—avail themselves of mentoring like you suggested and of chaplain services. A lot of the firehouse chaplains are really very solid believers who can actually help disciple them and deal with the kinds of stresses that they're dealing with. The other thing I think is just to ensure that she has a regular intake of God's Word and that she is connecting with God on a daily basis, taking to Him those things that she's dealing with in the firehouse and as a result of the calls that they have. A lot of her training will prepare her for that, but I think there's no substitute for having a solid, firm relationship to God before you enter into things that might be really stressful and put weights on you that you might not be prepared to carry. The good news is, she doesn't have to carry them alone, because there's support within the firefighter community. There's also support for her relationship to God from her church. I don't think you have to understand everything about their world in order to provide comfort and perspective.
Sean: One last thing I'll throw in here. If you're listening to this and you are a firefighter, former firefighter, you're married to one, or have a good friend who's one, and you know of specific, tested resources that are helpful—maybe a book, maybe just a link to a YouTube video, maybe kind of an online firefighters Christian organization, maybe a support group for Christian firefighters—send it to us here, and we will forward it on to this family directly. And we'll give that email at the end, but it's just thinkbiblically@biola.edu. We'd be happy to share it with her. Next question. This person says, "I'm writing in response to your recent weekly Cultural Update about artificial intelligence. One of you made the statement…” - and, Scott, I believe it was me for the record - that, quote, “‘That may mean 51% of people are good.’ I recommend that you choose your words carefully. There's none good but God. 80% of the world thinks that people are inherently good. We just make bad decisions from time to time. This is not biblical. My fear is that even with just productivity gains in AI, humanity will use their free time for sinful ends. So here's the question. If 90% of the world are unbelievers and self-driven, and we throw demonic activity into the mix, and even Christians still sin, should we expect evil things all around us? Shouldn't this keep us from saying that people are good?” Now, given that I think this is directed at me, I'm tempted to respond, but I think you want to actually weigh in here, Scott. Go ahead.
Scott: Well, I would say yes and no, here, to the question. Shouldn't we expect evil things all around us? Yes, we should. I don't think, given our view of human depravity, we should ever be surprised at the expressions of it. But shouldn't this keep us from saying that people are good? I think the answer to that is no. The passage that he's referring to—he doesn't refer to it explicitly, but “there's none good but God”—comes from Romans 2 and 3, where Paul is outlining his argument for the pervasiveness and universality of sin. And the idea is that nobody works their way to their own salvation because of sin. And when the idea is that there's none good, no one does good, no one seeks after God, those are statements that are intended not in an absolute sense, but in the context of Romans 2 and 3, where Paul is addressing the efforts to work your way and provide good work sufficient to merit your salvation. What he means is that there is none good sufficient to earn your salvation. Not that there's no good people in an absolute sense. Lots of unbelievers exercise virtue. I wouldn't say anybody is inherently good. I think we're all inherently fallen, but we have good in us, in part by virtue of being made in the image of God. So, I don't want to discount that. But the idea I think needs to be…we need to be careful that when we refer, either implicitly or explicitly, to a passage of Scripture that we take the context seriously and view the context carefully. Because I think what he's referring to in Romans 2 and 3 means something a little bit different than what he's suggesting.
Sean: So the encouragement to choose our words carefully, you would kindly flip it around and say, choose to understand the words in context that others speak carefully, and those in Scripture. Look, I'm happy to say there's times I could be more clear and misunderstood. That is going to happen on a program like this, that's for sure. But the distinction you're making is really helpful. No one is good in terms of justification. None of us can stand before God sinless apart from Jesus Christ. None of us are good in that respect. But there's also sanctification, where there are people who are more morally like Christ because of their relationships, power of the Holy Spirit, studying Scripture, their life experiences. So there are some people whose hearts are more evil and corrupted than other individuals, even though none of us can stand with a completely pure heart before the Lord. So I'd invite this listener to go back…and in our conversation we had about the update to the book 12 Crucial Truths that aired on our regular episodes, one of the things I talked about is how we were not clear enough in the first book, Unshakeable Truth. And then when 12 Crucial Truths came out, I wanted to make it crystal clear about the depravity of mankind and how none are good. So that might bring some clarity, but as always, we appreciate the comments nonetheless. Let's go to this last one here, Scott. This says, "Thank you and God bless you for your work.” Appreciate that. This is a question about the recent episode on Christians and preferred pronouns with Tim Muehlhoff, where Tim argued—he's a Biola communications professor who wants to keep the communication going—that at times it's good and permissible to use preferred pronouns. I argued the opposite. And you can go watch that or listen to that on the podcast or see the video on YouTube. This person says, "How do you advise a chaplain in a public school in Australia on their use of pronouns with transgender kids?” I somewhat hesitate to give advice to a chaplain in Australia because I haven't been there, except in the airport. I've been in New Zealand, but I know they're radically different, and I just offended Australians by even making that comparison, and probably New Zealanders.
Scott: [laughs]
Sean: That's the closest I've been. So I somewhat hesitate, but I would just say, if my arguments are sound, and I gave them because I think they are, find a way apart from using preferred pronouns as you engage individuals. Find some other way to do so. And in some of my conversations with people, one-on-one, you don't use and need preferred pronouns when you're talking to an individual. You just simply say something like, "Hey, tell me your first name.” Because our first names are the most intimate things about us. And then refer to people by their first name. Now one interesting conversation to have, if this person persists, just say, "Hey, I'm a chaplain, and I'd be really curious if you'd be willing to sit down and talk with me about your story. When you first started to feel gender dysphoria, how people responded helpfully, not helpfully, what advice would you give for me as a chaplain?" And just listen and try to understand where this person is coming through. And then maybe you'll have a chance to share your reservations graciously, and then just simply say, "Can we stay in relationship even though we see this issue differently? I would love to. Let's work for a mutual way." Now some people might say no and not do this, but I actually think most people want to find a way to stay in relationship if they feel respected and understood and cared for. Any other thoughts on that one, Scott?
Scott: Well, I think if the care is genuine, it has a way of breaking down barriers. And I think that's our best shot at trying to maintain a relationship while holding to what we believe to be the proper narrative about gender and sexuality. So I commend you for that approach. I think that's right. And I, you know, God bless this chaplain for being, you know, being in the public schools in Australia—very challenging environment. But I think showing that kind of compassion is an excellent first step as opposed to digging in your heels on the ideology.
Sean: And this individual has probably done this, but I would reach out to some other chaplains in Australia and connect with them and see how they navigate this and try to work this through together. Good episode, Scott. As always, fun and interesting.
Scott: Always good. Always fun.
Sean: And I'm already looking forward to next week.
Scott: I got a few stories for next week already.
Sean: I bet you'll text me this afternoon when we're done. [laughs] All right, friends, this has been an episode of the podcast, Think Biblically, Conversations on Faith and Culture, brought to you by Talbot School of Theology, ݮƵ. We offer master's programs in theology, Bible, apologetics, marriage and family, Old Testament, spiritual formation, and many more fully online and in person. To submit comments or ask questions, please email us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu. Please give us a rating on your podcast app. Every single one helps, and we'd be honored if you would consider sharing this episode with a friend. We appreciate you listening and we will see you Tuesday when I have a chance to interview Katie McCoy on her outstanding book on the doctrine of humanity. I'm convinced that the questions of anthropology and what it means to be human are some of the most important questions we have to think about biblically, and Katie and I discuss her excellent new book. In the meantime, remember to think biblically about everything.
