91This week, live from the Evangelical Theological Society Conference in San Diego, Scott & Sean discuss:
- West Virginia to ban physician-assisted suicide, sparking a larger discussion on bioethics and cultural trends.
- Harvard's controversial "" and a student's bold critique highlight the cultural longing for deeper meaning in human relationships.
- The Texas Board of Education backs an elementary school curriculum incorporating biblical content, raising questions about the role of faith in public education.
- Listener question: Follow up on discussion of genetic privacy and its implications in healthcare and insurance.
- Listener question: How to give generously without Pharisaical tendencies.
- Listener question: Recommendations for Bible study tools include the new and Logos Bible Software for deeper scriptural engagement.
Episode Transcript
Sean: West Virginia amends their state constitution to ban physician-assisted suicide. How should we think about Harvard's Sex Week? And how is it a sign of deeper spiritual yearning in this generation? The Texas Board supports curriculum for elementary students drawn from the Bible, and it creates quite the storm. These are stories we'll discuss, and we also take 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, 91. Scott, what makes us unique is that we are actually recording this live from the Evangelical Theological Society. So folks hear a little background noise, that is theologians and professors walking by. But there's some big stories this week. We don't want to miss the opportunity to dive in.
Scott: It's still post-election stuff. But we did find stories that really had a lot of significance, that don't have anything to do with the election or the transition.
Sean: Well, this one popped right up to me, because it's so in your lane in terms of your expertise in bioethics. And it's about this assisted suicide kind of ballot in West Virginia. So although it's been on the ballot in different states in recent years, it's typically not an attempt to legalize it. But this year in West Virginia, voters were asked if the Constitution should ban it. It was a close vote, but West Virginians decided 50.4% to 49.6% to amend the Constitution to include a prohibition on assisted suicide. Now, interestingly enough, assisted suicide is already illegal in West Virginia. But what the constitutional amendment does is make it harder for proponents to launch an effort to legalize it. Now, just to give a little background of the arguments, this is no surprise. But pushing back on this from a group called Compassion and Choices is, of course, we should expect the possibility of ballot initiatives like this in other states. And our organization will be there to protect parent-directed care and, no surprise, bodily autonomy. That's the defense that they're coming out. So they're seeing this as attacking freedom and attacking bodily autonomy. Of course, that's the way it's framed. Tell us you're taking this. I'm really curious. Are you surprised by this? Are you encouraged by this? What do you take?
Scott: I'm not particularly surprised. And I'm encouraged by it. And here, I think what's important to recognize, there's bigger things at stake than just West Virginia. Because the British Parliament is debating this week a bill that would legalize medical aid in dying, which refers to the umbrella term for both assisted suicide and euthanasia. And it's based on the Oregon Death with Dignity Act. It's been in effect now for probably at least a decade, if not longer. And so the West Virginia story is actually they want to forestall initiatives that would legalize assisted suicide by actually building this into their constitution, their state constitution, that they will prohibit it. The decisions back in the late '90s that were the first Supreme Court decisions on medically assisted aid in dying allow for them to do that. They also allow for states to legalize it, if they so choose, which is not that different than the way when Roe v. Wade was overturned. They left it to the states. So here's a couple of things that I think are really important to recognize. One is the Oregon Death with Dignity Act has had a really interesting history. For one, they have not had as many people participate in the law as they thought they might. And part of the reason for that is because end-of-life care, particularly palliative care or pain management care at the end of life in the state of Oregon, happens to be better than the norm. And so surprise, surprise, when people have their pain managed, most of the time they want to live, which I think makes a lot of sense. But over the last decade or so, some key safeguards in the Oregon law have been loosened, which makes me really nervous. Things like a waiting period, a residency requirement, and a requirement that it be a terminal illness to qualify for this. There's a waiting period, originally a waiting period of two weeks between the initial request and the administration of assisted suicide. That has been shortened to now 24 hours. And in some states, like in Washington, the 48-hour requirement has actually been loosened. The residency requirement has been loosened. So you don't have to-- originally, you had to be a resident of Oregon for six months in order to qualify. So basically, they've set themselves up as an assisted suicide sanctuary, because there are other states in the West that have done this, but not so much in the rest of the country. Also, you can get the medication now by telemedicine. Nurses can do this rather than trained physicians. And the thing-- here's, Sean, the thing to look for is when the requirement for full, explicit consent starts to be loosened. That's the one to really be careful about, because I think you can make a good argument that the demand that medical aid in dying always be completely voluntary is unenforceable. So think about this. Say that you and I are brothers, and our grandfather is at the end of life, and he doesn't have a terminal illness, but he's got expensive care, and his quality of life is going down the tubes. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see how you and I, over time, could bend his will and twist his arm, figuratively speaking, to basically coerce him into signing a declaration for medical aid in dying. Not because he was tired of living, but because we were tired of him living. And manipulate him into it. And here's the point. Nobody will ever know that that happened. And we can even put his physician in cahoots with us, and that's protected by medical confidentiality. So the idea that we could even detect, much less enforce, this idea that medical aid in dying not be coerced, is impossible. It's impossible even to detect when that takes place. And my other take on this is that the pressure on states to expand medical aid in dying is going to increase exponentially in the next decade or two. Because my baby boom generation, we're now calling us the geezer boomers. Because we now have the highest percentage of people in the population over 65 than we've ever had in American history. And we spend-- I think we mentioned this before-- you will spend roughly half of your health care expenses in the last year of your life. Lifetime expenses. And so the cost of that is already overwhelming. And so I think we're going to see pressure on people to sort of exercise their quote duty to die and get out of the way. Or as my colleague in this area put it, there's nothing cheaper than dead. And so we have in some states terminal illness care is being refused by insurance companies while medical aid in dying is being offered as covered. So insurance companies could actually come and play a part of this as well. So that's my initial take on this. I think there's lots to be encouraged about with the West Virginia bill, lots to be concerned about with where this might head in the future. I find this is one little finger in the dike that I think is a point of encouragement.
Sean: So finger in the dike is not exactly a movement towards other states following suit. Like if anything, I look at this, I'm like, OK, West Virginia, pretty conservative, barely past there. So in some ways, it's clearly a reaction and safeguard given what happened in Oregon that you described, and even in some places like Hawaii and Washington State where they're allowing nurses to prescribe lethal drugs and reducing the number of times between two oral quests for assisted suicide in California from 15 days to give you two weeks down to two days. So clearly, the folks in West Virginia see some of these concerns and want to stop it. But it's super conservative, barely passes. In many ways, this seems like a last breath and safeguard more than a movement to me.
Scott: I think that's probably true. We have to be careful not to understate the cultural headwinds…
Sean: That's right.
Scott: …that are against those of us who oppose medical aid and dying. You know, Sean, there was another piece that you sent to me from the New York Times which described an ALS Lou Geary's disease patient. And the author credited this Canadian doctor for helping him understand what his mom was going through. And so this is a Canadian doctor who is an abortion provider and a euthanasia provider. What was so significant about this is the examples from Canada where simply a person not wanting to be a burden to their family members was good enough to be eligible. In the Netherlands, having a completed life is considered enough to be eligible for medical aid and dying. That you've sort of lived your-- you've lived a full life.
Sean: What does that mean, and who decides that?
Scott: Well, and the subtext from that is that once you've lived a full life, you have a duty to do this so that you won't be taking up a lot of expensive health care dollars that could be distributed to other people who could benefit more significantly from it. And in the Netherlands, if patients decide they can't live with their condition, whatever that means, that's good enough. There's no longer any requirement that it has to be a terminal illness with any designated time span you have left to live, all of that. Now, here's the thing to be-- to notice on this. If the right to die is a fundamental right-- and this Canadian doctor was telling that she's a human rights advocate for championing both abortion rights and medical aid and dying rights-- if that's true, if that's a basic human right, then criteria for eligibility are irrelevant. Because nobody has to give criteria to be eligible to exercise a right of free speech or right of conscience or a right to a fair trial, things like that. Fundamental rights don't need restrictions or guardrails to make sure that some people can exercise the right as opposed to others who can't.
Sean: So driving, voting, drinking, these are not fundamental rights that we would say--
Scott: Those are privileges. I call those privileges.
Sean: Privileges. Yeah, that's a good distinction.
Scott: So here's-- she describes-- and this doctor's really interesting case, because she describes-- she has regrets about some of the patients she's provided this service for, because they had time left. They left earlier than they needed to, according to her, which is really striking, that it is simply a subjective decision when a person is done living. It's considered a fundamental right of autonomy that I get to choose the timing and manner of my death. When, of course, if we think biblically about this, God is the one who holds the timing and manner of our death in His hands. Now, several years ago, I consulted with a person who had ALS, Lou Gehrig's disease. And I recall him being really concerned about how his quality of life was going to suffer and how he would become a burden to his wife. And he wanted to not be connected to a feeding tube, because once ALS patients lose their ability to swallow, then it's just-- they go pretty quickly, unless they have a feeding tube inserted.
Sean: Gotcha.
Scott: But he was afraid that once he was on a feeding tube-- and he would still have meaningful life to live while on the feeding tube-- but when his condition deteriorated so that his wish was to go home to be with the Lord and no longer be treated for ALS, he was concerned that his wife wouldn't have the stomach to have the tube removed. And so he was asking the question, is it OK to refuse to have feeding tube in general, just before it actually was really necessary? Because what he was most afraid of was lingering on, where he was imminently dying, but really would be much better off going home to be with the Lord. Now, I told him that I thought, given where his condition was headed, I thought that his refusal of a feeding tube was morally justifiable. And that his fear, I think, was a legitimate one, because his wife did not consider taking care of him a burden. And she would never admit to that, which he was, I think, rightly concerned that his care was going to require full-time, round-the-clock care very soon. And that he knew she wouldn't be up to that. And so he wanted to spare her the grief that was going to be caused to her out of seeing him die slowly and in suffering and discomfort. So the point I want to make here, Sean, is that this is different than a suicide or euthanasia case. This is refusing a treatment that is necessary to keep you alive. And remember, we've said before that because death is a conquered enemy, it need not always be resisted. And under the right conditions-- I think his case met those conditions-- it's OK to say stop the medicine. That's different than saying to medicine, end my life. He's saying, I want to live out the rest of my days, apart from medical interventions that are going to make my life even more miserable.
Sean: So you wouldn't say that's really medicine, because it's food, but it's medical intervention…
Scott: It’s medically provided.
Sean: …that's unnecessary to allow him, in a sense, to die from the condition that has incapacitated him.
Scott: The underlying condition, rather than the physician's direct intervention to give him drugs that will immediately cause his death. That's a morally relevant difference.
Sean: That makes sense. That's helpful. While you were describing that, I was thinking, I hope you don't ask me live how I would have addressed this one. But honestly, I thought that was my response. So I'm glad. And that's really helpful, Scott.
Scott: This is a tough one. But I think there's room for compassion and sensitivity for people in these conditions. I don't ever want to say that we lack compassion, because we are morally obligated to provide all appropriate measures for pain relief and for relief of suffering. And one of those things actually has to do with the mental health of people in terminal illnesses in these conditions, because surprise, surprise, they get depressed. But the mental health conditions are rarely, if ever, treated. In fact, this Canadian doctor reported that only a very small percentage of the patients who come to her get a mental health assessment. It's very rare.
Sean: And they shorten the time down so the chances that they would get the care they need is minimized in these states.
Scott: Yup.
Sean: That's the concern. Well, good reflection, Scott. That's really, really helpful. And we'll keep tracking that and see if it spreads to other states or if this is an anomaly and keep folks kind of in tune with that.
Scott: I say keep, especially keep watch over the status of this bill going through the UK Parliament at present.
Sean: Good stuff. Well, this next story you sent to me, and I've been hearing about sex week kind of things, it feels like, since I was in high school in the '90s. This is the 12th year of the one at Harvard. And I got to tell you, I just got on the Instagram page and just the website to get information. I'm not even going to read some of the names of the sessions that were held.
Scott: I looked at the schedule.
Sean: OK.
Scott: And I mean, it is-- I mean, every other one is probably one we can't read on the air.
Sean: At least. I think that's even being somewhat generous. So, in somewhat, I read this. And there was a question, like, is Harvard just allowing this or celebrating this to a degree? I think these are very fair questions. An article came out you sent to me about a student who really protested this.
Scott: He did.
Sean: And he wrote this kind of critique of it. It's brilliant, the kind of brilliance I would expect from a student at Harvard, which gives me hope in the midst of some of this just degeneracy that there's somebody stand up and boldly pushing back. Here's a few of the things. He said the discussions that unfolded during sex week-- and again, this is a student at Harvard writing in a publication to a left-leaning school so he could get targeted and treated differently because of this.
Scott: This was published in a piece called The Harvard Salient, which is a conservative journal. But it's published under the undidosophies of Harvard University.
Sean: Gotcha. I just think it's brave because--
Scott: No kidding.
Sean: --his willingness to push back and take heat personally-- and I don't know professionally. Potentially, he was willing to do it-- is pretty great. He said, “It's a week filled with explicit explorations of disordered, harmful sex acts that blur the line between intimacy and perversion, a capitulation to the basest instincts of human nature. It's a trivialization of intimacy, reducing human relationships to mere fodder for casual discussion, and even more casual action reveals a disquieting loss of respect for the sanctity of human sexuality.” I think he's right about this. Points out a few things that I thought were really interesting. He said, “Sex Week really capitalizes on a deeper tragedy in which there's a separation of the physical act of sex from its God-given purpose. So, in other words, what it does is just reduce sex to satisfaction and entertainment, and it guts it of any deeper spiritual reality or calling.” I'm reading this, going, this young man-- brilliant. I think he's right about this. And I mean, I wouldn't even read more of some of the stuff. He said, but he makes this point. He says, “As these students engage in this and they chase momentary pleasures, they're haunted by the awareness that their lives lack lasting significance.” And then there's this line here that's so good, Scott. He says-- he talks about the stuff going on and how really there's this abandonment of real intimacy and relationship and meaning and commitment for hedonistic pursuits. And then he says in here, he says, “This will not fulfill the deepest longings of the human heart.” I think he's right about that. And I got a couple of reflections about this piece, but tell me your thoughts.
Scott: Well, I looked at the schedule of things that they're doing. Let me suffice it to say that it pushes every envelope on sexual practices that you can imagine. And if there was an example of the celebration of debauchery on a campus, I think this is a good example of that. Now, I think there are a couple of things that I think are particularly insightful. He said, “Sex Week uses sex to escape the hollowness of modernity that has taken sex off of its moorings.” And I think that's a really good connection. They abandon the richness of human connection for the superficiality of hedonistic pursuits. And I think that's exactly right. And it's taken sex out of its context of marriage and procreation, which is what gives it its sacredness, and reduced it to just a physical activity. Now, it sort of makes sense for people who have a naturalistic worldview, don't believe that we have souls, and believe that we're nothing more than our physical parts and properties, that sex would be reduced to just something that's physical. But the idea in the scriptures, it's very clear, is that sex has a soulish component to it as well. It's the intersection of two souls. It's not just one flesh. It's oneness. And that term for one flesh in Hebrew has to do with the whole person, including the soul. And so I think people who have had bad sexual relationships, they recognize that they've been scarred by that. They recognize those have lasting consequences. It's not something that you sort of do in your leisure time and forget about and go on to the next thing. Those things stay with you. And so I would suggest a view that sex in a relationship, I think, for our culture in general, has become the main course instead of being a dessert. The relationship is the main course. I remember hearing your dad say years ago that most sexual problems are not physical. They're relational.
Sean: That’s right.
Scott: And they have something to do with the brain and the soul, not just the plumbing. And so usually, sexual problems have to do with relational issues that are unresolved. And here, we have all kinds of sexual activity without any sort of relational connection. And so the fact that that is hollow and superficial, I think, from a biblical worldview, is hardly surprising. And so I want to commend this person. I suspect that the student is Catholic, because he's reasoning, using things that I think we've seen in other Catholic defenses of the sacredness of sexual relationships, which I think he's absolutely right about those. I'd say he's thoroughly biblical in that.
Sean: I agree.
Scott: But I think to emphasize that sex is not the end all. And usually, when people get too involved sexually too quickly, it short-circuits other aspects of the relationship that are crucial for sexual fulfillment later on. And so it's like you're mortgaging great sex and marriage for what you can have at present. So I found this-- I first read this, and I thought, good night, I don't even know where to start with this. But I'm so grateful that this particular student spoke up and did it articulately and with relevance and with a theological worldview, and I commend him, and may his tribe increase.
Sean: I was thinking about the Puritans who founded Harvard in the 17th century, quite literally rolling in their graves when one of the early things they said as the school was founded, "So everyone shall consider as the main end of his life and studies to know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life." That's the main end. The motto, which is still on the crest, is veritas. And for years, it said, "In Christi gloriam, for the glory of Christ." If there's not an example of at least a segment of students and beyond within Harvard, of course, there's some great faculty that are there, some great students, no doubt about that. But a significant segment, seemingly allowed, possibly celebrated by the university, abandoning that, I don't know what it is. So it's actually kind of heartbreaking reading this, saying here's one of the beacon universities allowing this in their campus. And in light of especially the Me Too movement, in which we've seen this just sense of individual autonomy ends up leading to sex abuse, ends up leading to so much damage.
Scott: And you look at-- they do have guidelines for appropriate sexual contact. But the only guideline is consent. That's all there is. So whatever two autonomous consenting adults agree to in the steps along the way is-- that's the only moral value that puts any guardrails on it.
Sean: And based on the names of some of the lectures, you're exactly right about that. You know, at the heart of this one more thing, Scott, is this student says, "The tragic irony is that in the pursuit of freedom from moral constraints, they sever the ties with the very essence of their being, denying themselves the object of highest freedom, the profound love that only a relationship with God offers." That is brilliant. And exactly what I say to students when I talk about sex is when I ask students to find freedom, it's doing whatever you want without constraints. So in many ways, what this generation has been told freedom is, we see being lived out on Harvard's campus. And this student is saying, time out. Actually, freedom is not found looking within, do whatever feels good and you want, as long as the person consents, it's being a part of something bigger than yourself and conforming your desires to objective reality, which is knowing God and knowing others, that you experience real freedom. And that's what we get to teach our students. That's why I love what we do at Biola, honestly, is we get to talk about these things. I just did last week in my class, was talking about sexuality. I read a book by Wilhelm Reich in the 1930s, basically making some of these arguments, that neurosis in the world is us not living out our sexual instincts. And there's prohibitions and bigoted people basically telling us not to engage in sex. 1930s, and now people are living this out. It's one thing to have an excuse in the 30s before the damage of the sexual revolution. This song has been played, and I think it's clear this doesn't work. Thankful that this student pointed out.
Scott: Siegmund Freud would be very proud today.
Sean: (laughing) He would be.
Scott: But let me recommend our friend Jennifer Morse with the Ruth Institute. 'Cause her, I would encourage our listeners to access that, the Ruth Institute, which is particularly designed to help survivors of the sexual revolution. And people whose lives have been torn up by these kinds of things, there's a place to go to get help.
Sean: Well said, good stuff. My last thought on this, Scott, is looking at some of what those seminars were about. My first thought was, our culture has become completely pornified. That's essentially what it is. And people are just playing it out. That's just something we can't miss. And that's why we have done this recent interview and discussion on that.
Scott: Here, here.
Sean: All right, we're gonna shift big time. We've got from Youth in Asia, Sex Week at Harvard, to a story, this one is in the New York Times. Texas Education Board backs curriculum with lessons drawn from the Bible. Now, Texas education officials backed on Tuesday of this week, a new elementary school curriculum that infuses, this is a word that New York Times uses, infuses material drawn from the Bible into reading and language art lessons. People are already protesting in Texas, no big surprise. Advocates of religious freedom say the curriculum is the latest major effort by conservatives to explicitly tie the nation's history and politics to Christian values. There's been other clashes about this in Oklahoma. And you and I have talked about some of these other cases.
Scott: Louisiana.
Sean: The Ten Commandments, Louisiana popping up. So this is one of a few cases. Governor Greg Abbott has said in a statement, initially he said the lesson would quote, allow our students to better understand the connection of history, art, community, literature, and religion on pivotal events like the signing of the US Constitution, the Civil Rights Movement, and the American Revolution. Now that sounds good as far as it goes, but the debate is when it gets to the lessons themselves. Have they gone from this barrier of just educational to being a little bit more evangelistic? That's what the argument is. It seems like there's 2.3 million public school students in kindergarten through fifth grade. Schools, this curriculum is optional, but they're given a financial incentive to adopt it. I'm not sure if I love that. That was a little bit of a red flag for me. Now they focus, they delve into Christianity more in depth than they do some of the other faiths. And we could briefly talk about whether that's warranted or not. The debate goes on. How much is this permissible? Is this a good idea? Does it blur the line again between instruction and evangelism? I've got some thoughts on this. I'm curious where you land on this story.
Scott: Well, there are a couple of things I really like about this. One is I think it's overdue to have students be exposed to the Christian roots of our nation's founding. Now granted, the founders were not all Christians. Some were deists, maybe an atheist or two among them, but Protestant Christianity was just part of the air that people were breathing at the time of the founding of the country. And so you would expect that that would have a significant influence over the kinds of founding documents that were drafted. And so things like original sin, I think was the reason for the separation of powers because of original sin, we can't trust any branch or individual of government with too much power. There always had to be checks and balances and guardrails. And the notion that we are endowed with these rights by our creator is I think a pretty sound reason for some of the rights and freedoms that we have. So I think we could say that the founders recognized, they didn't create these rights and freedoms, they recognized what was already in the air that was breathed at the time. And I'm particularly okay if it's historical. And I think it's okay, and in fact, I think it's really good if we are using different religious motivations to advocate for certain virtues. The virtues of being good citizens, for example, the virtues of kindness and caring and forgiveness, things like that. I think showing not just the Christian but other religious roots for that I think is helpful because I wanna do everything we can to try and cement those virtues into the lives of students rather than seeing them just pasted around the classroom without anybody knowing where they came from or who says that those virtues are worth following. I'd also wanna be fair and show some of the places where religious faith has been problematic. I wouldn't want it to be simply just the positive. 'Cause I think students are owed an honest assessment of the contribution that faith made to slavery.
Sean: In like third, fourth and fifth grade?
Scott: I think initially, yeah, I don't think that's a problem. I don't think they need to go into great detail. But I think I wouldn't want it to be something where it's not objective and it's not fair. Though I think that some of the downsides, I'd wanna expose people to that too. The other thing I'd wanna be careful about is I don't want parents abdicating their role in religious instruction to the schools. Any more than I want them abdicating it to the church. Parents responsibility to disciple their kids. It's the church's responsibility to equip them to do that well. And I'm not convinced that the school has any role in doing that. But I think as long as it's historical, as long as it doesn't sort of reach into overtly proselytizing kids, especially that age, I generally have sympathy for this. I think I also have sympathy for Jewish, Muslim and atheist students too, who could feel very uncomfortable if it moved from just historical to more evangelistic. That makes me a little nervous. Now, one thing that I think is particularly important for our listeners and I don't think we've gone through this with them, but just let me just say a little bit about what the founding fathers had to say about the general place of religion in our founding. Ben Franklin put it like this, "The necessity of a public religion, the great mass have needed the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support them in virtue and retain them in the practice of until it becomes habitual." Basically, he's saying, Without religious revival, I don't have much hope for virtue being transmitted to the next generations. Hardly the separation of religion and society.
Sean: And he was more of a deist, by the way.
Scott: He was a total deist. So was Thomas Jefferson, by the way, who said this, "Religion should be regarded as the alpha and omega of the moral law and a supplement to law in the government of men." Not really, and by the way, Jefferson was out of the country when the First Amendment was written.
Sean: Oh, interesting.
Scott: Here's George Washington in his farewell address. "Religion and morality are indispensable supports to political prosperity. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." In other words, they did not endorse one particular sect or denomination, but they definitely did not hold that religion had no place in civil society. In fact, originally, what the separation of church and state meant was to keep the state out of the affairs of the church, not vice versa. In fact, in that term, the Baptist Roger Williams was the one who coined that wall of separation more than 100 years before the First Amendment was ever written. And so that was well entrenched, I think, within what the founders saw as important in terms of the general value of religion. They did not see religion as private or irrelevant to national morality and prosperity.
Sean: I taught at a private Christian high school, 21 years. 10 years full-time, 11 part-time. And I think it was the first, maybe second year I was teaching, I was asked to baptize a student, and we had a chapel and I baptized a student. Afterwards, I started reflecting on it, thinking, You know what, we're a Christian school. We're not a church. I don't think this is the place to do that. So we do mission trips, but only if they have distinct educational purposes and advance the school. Well, obviously, a public school is not a Christian school, but the question is, what should be the function of a school, and what should be the function of a church? Simply from an educational standpoint, kids should learn about the founders, like you said, and how the faith informed philosophically and ethically and in these different realms. And yes, we need to learn about other faiths, but we are founded shaped by Christian ideas more than any other faith. That's not favoring Christianity, that's recognizing who we are.
Scott: That's just reality.
Sean: So I think it should. But I kind of feel with this, I haven't had a chance to go through the lessons and read them. There's a lot of people giving their comments about it in here, but I do fear that possibly there's some Christians overly eager at the opportunity to get Bible in, that they sacrifice the quality of the lessons, and it does veer towards evangelism, which gives permission for the other side to say, here we go again and shut the whole thing down. So I think we as Christians should be content just because of our love for education in itself, just with the trust in the background that exposing people to who Jesus was, who the Bible was, how it shaped Martin Luther King Jr., my goodness, might spur those with a sense of openness to go further. And we've seen this all around Southern California and other states. There's classes like in high school, on I think they call it ancient Hebrew history or something like that. And they study the Bible, and I've talked to kids, Christians and non-Christians, Christian kids who've taken them, and they both said, we're not sure where our teacher stands, but we're just learning historically, and it's interesting. And even some of the debates in here, some, to make your point, some people said, our students are only gonna learn the positives, but not how people used religion to defend slavery. I think we should use the negatives, but let students debate it, just like you debate a historical text, or you debate certain scientific ideas. Let them debate, okay, the text says this, does this give permission or not? At least introduce them to it. And I have no fear of the abuse of that. I think we can have more confidence in the truth. So I think it's a good idea on educational standpoint, but I just hope people making it aren't overplaying their hand. It's my concern.
Scott: My concern is on the other side of that, that people are underplaying.
Sean: Okay, all right, tell me.
Scott: Because I'm concerned that the, the qualifications, what are the qualifications of the teachers to teach this? What kind of rigor will they have? What's the hermeneutic that the teachers are gonna use? What's the worldview that they're coming from to teach this historical stuff? That troubles me a bit. I'm not sure I want people teaching Bible infused lessons who don't have at least a modicum of theological education themselves.
Sean: Okay.
Scott: So I think that's just a question.
Sean: That's fair.
Scott: So interesting to see, watch this and go see what happens in the future, especially if the curriculum becomes available publicly. I'd encourage our listeners to get access to that and see for yourself what kind of lessons are being taught, make that decision for yourself.
Sean: Good word, I love it. We've got some good questions as always. And this first one came in related to our weekly cultural update last week. There was a segment we discussed on genetic testing, the potential problems and issues raised by both the testing itself and family planning based on that testing. This individual wants to know why the main thought behind the story wasn't the absolute wickedness of insurance companies using someone's genetic code to deny people healthcare. If a government system was doing what the insurance companies are doing, wouldn't you criticize it? Fair question, but your take.
Scott: Well, we would, and I thought we did. If I'm recalling, what we said clearly is that genetic privacy has been a moral non-negotiable from the start of the Human Genome Project and is still the case today. And that insurance companies should not be allowed to use your genetic information against you because that's not something you have any control over. Now we did try to explain the viewpoint of the insurance company and the fairness involved for them, trying to be able to accurately assess the risks that they're taking. But that's why they have a risk pool to spread out the risk so that no one person's issues will sink the insurance company and jeopardize it for everybody else. Now, what we were trying to explain was just the difference between the loopholes that were provided for long-term care, for disability insurance, things like that. But I don't recall any place in that where we were saying that that was morally justifiable 'cause I don't think it is. So just to be clear, and for this listener who wrote in, I really appreciate that, the chance to be clear about this. And just to reaffirm that our view that genetic privacy has always been a moral non-negotiable is still true today.
Sean: Well said, I have nothing to add to that other than that you and I are both philosophers and both professors. Maybe nuance things to death at time and it's lost. Here's exactly what we mean and why. So we appreciate the chance to clarify. That's great, good answer. All right, this one says, "Thanks for your respective ministries. I've benefited greatly from your works, podcast, and video content. With the holidays approaching soon, how should Christians think about giving? In Matthew 6:3-4, Jesus teaches us to give in secret, unlike the Pharisees. On the other hand, many Christians insist that we should prioritize giving when it is attached to the gospel. But in order to attach the gospel to the gift, we often need to make ourselves known in the process. If we only give in ways that make ourselves known to others in some ways, are we essentially modern-day Pharisees?” Before we answer, these are the wonderful questions we get from our students at Biola Talbot.
Scott: These are great questions.
Sean: I was like, “Very thoughtful way to nuance this.” So is it Phariseical to tie giving to the gospel?
Scott: Not necessarily. And I don't think identifying yourself as the giver necessarily makes you Phariseical. What Jesus was condemning there was the Pharisees trumpeting their giving as a source of pride and a way of putting themselves in a place of spiritual superiority over the rest of the hoi polloi. So I think you can do that. I think you can give without it being a source of pride. You can give just out of gratefulness and generosity and desire to invest in certain organizations that promote the gospel. And to do that, you do have to identify yourself. That's true. But I think you could do that without it necessarily being a source of pride and arrogance.
Sean: I think that's a great distinction. There's a massive difference between giving so people see me as a religious observer, a generous person, you're really giving for selfish gain and giving for the sake of the gospel, which is a good gain. Now, does anybody have 100% pure motives? Probably not. And that's where we have to do a heart check and ask. But I think you're right that he's critiquing the Pharisees for this hypocritical way in which they're approaching giving versus someone who gives and says, I want people to know that Christians are generous and that God loves them. And that this is a part of the gospel sacrificing. If that's your motivation, I think that's great. And that's why the woman who gives, Jesus holds up his example in the temple and she just gives like pennies and just holds her up as a model. Like it's not the amount, so to speak, it's the heart that's behind it. The heart of the Pharisees Jesus was critiquing was for self acclamation, for self justification, for the gospel is the exact opposite. It's sacrificial to invite people and maybe remove a barrier somebody has about how Christians treat them.
Scott: Precisely.
Sean: And so they might consider the gospel. That motivation, I think, changes everything.
Scott: Now for the Pharisees, their giving was a look-at-me moment. Look how spiritually superior I am because I'm following every jot and tittle of the law in terms of my giving. And what Paul describes, the only criteria for giving today are they'd be done cheerfully and not under compulsion. And recognize that we approach our giving open-handedly, God owns it all anyway, it all belongs to him. And we're giving back to him a portion of what he's blessed us with. I think end of story.
Sean: I mean, yeah, I mean, I guess one last thing, even though it is the end of story.
Scott: Not end of story, not quite.
Sean: I mean, think about when I get a gift underneath the tree, sometimes who it is from is as significant or more significant than the gift itself.
Scott: That’s right.
Sean: Let's keep that in mind as we also give, wow, like my mom found this, my sister found this, my neighbor, that is a part of the gift that communicates the care behind it. So if that's the motivation of Christians, not only is it not Phariseeical, it can be a good thing done in the right way. All right, this last one might officially be the easiest question. That doesn't mean it's not a good question.
Scott: Maybe so.
Sean: It's practical and helpful. But this person says, “I'm looking for some good Bible study tools so I can study God's word more deeply and effectively. I want a Bible commentary.” Now you have one you wanna suggest, which is great, but before you do so…
Scott: Go for it.
Sean: …I love Logos Bible software. I use that, they've recently incorporated artificial intelligence, and they went from spending like thousands of dollars buying this whole thing, actually just shifted last month to like monthly…
Scott: It’s a subscription. Interesting.
Sean: …it's kind of like the monthly subscription fee. So people can afford these massive libraries without spending thousands of dollars. I've used it for years, I'm a fan. No one asked me to say this for them, but I love what they do. I'd encourage her to just check that out as a resource.
Scott: You know, Sean, you and I were both at a breakfast this morning for Zondervan authors, of which we both are, and they announced what I think is the perfect tool for this listener. It's called the NIV Application Commentary on the Bible. It's one volume; it's taken what was probably, I don't know, 20 or so volumes in a series that had been published for the last 30 years called the NIV Application Bible, but it was on each individual book or series of books. But the editors put the best stuff from the series all into one volume. And I had a chance, even though I just got it this morning, I had a chance to look through it, and they have the original meaning of the passage, and then the application. And it's really rich. It's got great stuff in it, it's not too specific, where it's tied to specific settings or context, but it's great application. It helps you think through how the big idea of the passage is relevant to life, but still allows you to fill in some of the details, the specifics of your own experience, to be consistent with that.
Sean: Say the title again.
Scott: So I would strongly recommend that. The NIV Application Commentary on the Bible. It's the one volume edition. All right, it's just out, it's brand new. And this particular listener, you can probably get it fairly hot off the press from Zondervan publishers.
Sean: Love it. So Logos Bible Software, the specific commentary you just mentioned. I've also found Best Bible Commentaries Online is helpful to say what book and how long, multi-volume, single for pastors, for laypeople. That's a helpful resource if you wanna dial in. But good stuff, Scott.
Scott: Yeah.
Sean: As always, enjoyed it.
Scott: Here, here. Here, here
Sean: And uh, looking forward to next week. This has been an episode of the podcast Think Biblically, Conversations on Faith and Culture, brought to you by Talbot School of Theology at 91, but recorded in San Diego at the Evangelical Theological Society. At Biola, we've got programs, master's programs online and distance, Bible, apologetics, spiritual formation, marriage, Old Testament, and so many more. Please keep your comments and questions coming. You can send them to us through thinkbiblically@biola.edu. And we really would appreciate it if you consider giving us a rating on your podcast app and consider sharing this with a friend. Thanks for listening. And we will see you Tuesday when our regular episode airs. In the meantime, remember to think biblically about everything.
