911������

This week, Scott & Sean discuss:

• Italy for its citizens, sparking controversy on LGBTQ rights and ethical surrogacy practices.
• The University of Michigan invests $250 million in DEI initiatives, but faces increased discord and .
• A new feature introduces embryo clauses, addressing legal issues in the event of divorce or death.
• The Catholic Archdiocese of LA agrees to a record $880 million settlement with sex abuse victims, pushing total payouts above $1.5 billion.
• Listener questions explore challenges of gender identity, relational dynamics, and the importance of seeing identity in Christ.

Episode Transcript

Sean: Italy criminalizes surrogacy for its citizens beyond its borders. The University of Michigan spends $250 million on DEI initiatives over the past decade and yet sees increased discord and division on campus. A leading digital platform now offers prenuptial embryo clauses for future divorce, death, disagreements among couples. And the Catholic Archdiocese of LA agrees to pay $880 million to sex abuse victims. These are the stories we'll discuss today. We'll also address some of your excellent 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, 911������ University. Scott, once again, some just fascinating stories that are really in your lane. I'm looking forward to your thoughts on this.

Scott: We get great stories almost every week here. This is pretty good stuff.

Sean: Well, let's jump into this first one. In the New York Times, and the way they frame it is very, very telling. We'll comment on that. But it's about how this new Italy law criminalizes surrogacy from abroad. And here's what it says. So reportedly, just this Wednesday, Italy passed a law that criminalizes seeking surrogacy abroad. Now, in the Reuters article, they said it's up to a two-year jail term and 1 million euros, which is close to about a million dollars roughly, a little bit more. Now, the article says surrogacy is already illegal in Italy. But the government of the current prime minister has vowed to broaden the ban to punish Italians who seek it in countries where it's legal, such as parts of the United States. And also discovered that not only Italy, but Spain, France, and Germany are among the European countries which outlaw all forms of surrogacy. But this seems to be a new law to outlaw among citizens who go abroad for it. Now, the way this article is framed is really interesting. It's kind of, well, let me read this. It says, even before it passed, the law had plunged gay families into panic. Now they feel even more in danger since the new law, they could be subject to prison incidences and large fines if they seek surrogate birth abroad. And then on the other side, those who tend to be more conservative, someone who works for their current prime minister says, hooray for children and their right, which is a priority to have a father and a mother. Now, I guess alongside Hungary and the Czech Republic, Italy is among one of the few EU countries that does not recognize same sex marriage. Now, it recognizes same sex civil unions, as far as I understand the same legal laws, but not same sex marriage, which would also involve like adopting, etc. Of course, against surrogacy, the article mentions the Roman Catholic Church, along with many feminists, which is just interesting for lack of a better term, bedfellows on this one, so to speak. It says gay couples, because they need a third party to have children, many feel that the law leaves them especially vulnerable to scrutiny. Now, I've got some thoughts on this, but you've written and really weighed in to surrogacy a lot. Is this going too far or are you encouraged by this?

Scott: Well, I think it's a little hard to say whether the law should enforce some of our moral intuitions, I think is a separate question than the morality of it itself. What this does, in Italy, this was the last recourse for gay couples to have families. Because they can't do surrogacy within Italy, they now can't do it outside the borders, and gay couples cannot legally adopt in Italy, nor can they have access to fertility treatments. So you can see where LGBTQ advocates could conclude that this was specifically targeting gay couples. Now, the interesting part of this is, again, you mentioned the way it's framed. And one of the ways the article frames this is by describing the Prime Minister of Italy, who was in favor and was pushing the law, is being tainted by being called the leader of a post-fascist government who's appealing only to her conservative base. And I think the notion and the way this is framed is that this is only a political decision. And there's no thought given to the idea that this could be actually a law designed to protect children and women. Now, in part, the reason I'm encouraged about this is because I think most of the couples who would look outside Italian borders probably would not go to the United States or Canada. Chances are they would go to places in the developing world where the kind of surrogacy that they want does not involve a genetic connection to the child called gestational surrogacy. And we have more reports of this than we know what to do with about women who in developing world countries are being exploited by wealthy European and American couples who are looking for basically a discount rate for their surrogacy arrangements. Normally, surrogacy arrangements in the US and in Europe cost somewhere between $50,000 and $100,000 because normally IVF is also involved. You can hire a surrogate in places like India or other parts of Southeast Asia for probably $5,000, $6,000. And that for a lot of these women in these countries, that's the equivalent of a full year's wage. So there's clearly a market for this, but it sort of raises the question, is everything that can be subject to market force, it should be. And I'm not sure that this is one of those things that should be. Now, I think it is really important, the article points this out, that it's important to distinguish between poor women who can be exploited and those who do surrogacy without compensation. But that's a false dichotomy because the number of women who will do surrogacy without compensation is exceedingly rare. The only person who would do that might be a family member or a very close friend, but poor women being exploited in developing world surrogacy farms where they're basically housed in dormitories for the nine months of their pregnancy, basically under something pretty akin to house arrest. That's a textbook definition of exploitation. And it's also possible, I think, for surrogates who develop a bond to the child that they're carrying, not a big surprise that they would do that to be exploited similarly. Now, I'm not convinced that exploits all women like the Italian conservative suggests, but I think that's probably too strong. Now, the other thing that's worth pointing out here is some supporters maintain that, some supporters of the law maintain that surrogacy is actually baby selling. And with gay couples, the most cost-effective way to do this is by one of the men in the gay couple artificially inseminating the surrogate. That's called genetic surrogacy. That's the most cost- effective way to do it. And that, I think, constitutes baby selling because the woman who provides the egg and who brings the child to term and gives birth is by anybody's definition, the mother of that child. And she is turning over parental rights to that child in exchange for cold, hard cash. And she's actually signing a waiver of parental rights. That is baby selling. And I think we are absolutely right to allow that, I mean, to the law not to allow that. That violates the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States that outlaws slavery because it outlaws the purchase and sale of human beings. Now, is the law going a little too far, I think, so they can't do this outside the country? I think maybe. But I think on the other hand, it's really good for kids to have a mother and a father. And the fact that it works against gay couples having families, I don't see as particularly morally or legally problematic because we know, clearly documented, that the best environment for a child to flourish is to have a married mother and father who are living together harmoniously under the same roof. That's a huge advantage for children. And what we know is that it involves, families involve more than just love. It takes a mother and a father who do different things and have different roles and provide different things for a child. But I think the way this article is framed really gives no thought to the notion that a law that outlaws surrogacy could be protecting women and children. I wouldn't actually have a problem with an American law that prohibited people from going to some of these developing world countries for surrogacy. Because I think in most cases, they are complicit with the gross exploitation of women who, strictly for financial dire straits, are doing something that they would otherwise never consider doing. And Sean, that is a textbook definition of exploitation. So I would not have a problem with that. It may be different in some other parts of the world where I think it's a harder case to make in the West that women are being exploited. I think that's a distinction that really does make a difference between surrogates in the West and surrogates in the developing world. So what the law should be here, I think, is a little bit more challenging than just the moral discussion of it. That's where I would come down. I'm curious to know your thoughts on this.

Sean: That's really helpful, and you're drawing out there's a difference between the political rule that we have about this, the value of politics, then there's the ethical question whether surrogacy is ever best for the kids. Then there's the question about exploitation that might look differently in the West versus in developing countries. So these layers are important to unravel. I think the heart of this article where it misses it is it's through the lens of how it affects gay couples and those who are infertile. And I couldn't help but read this and think about our friend Katie Faust, author of Them Before Us, and says we need to shift our approach to policies and ask the question first, what is the best for kids? What's the best for children? And this article frames it in a way through what's the best for couples? What do they want? And it seems like a range of technologies are fine, even given the potential exploitation you mentioned, because parents should be able to have the kids that they want. But if we approach this through what do kids need and what's best for kids and how it's going to affect women, I think we come to a very different conclusion about this. And you're right that kids need a mom and a dad. All the study shows that. We of course could make a biblical argument for that, but sociologically kids deserve a mom and a dad. And I would take issue with this if somebody said, I want to be a single person and bring in a child without a mom and a dad in the same way I would with a gay couple. So I'm not just picking on them. I'm saying we know kids need and want and deserve and has, as Katie says, have a right to their mom and their dad. And you can see the worldview, at least to this writer on the New York Times coming through differently, when I think I would frame it. Now I'm not worried. I don't know if worried is not the right word. I don't see this being like a trend that's growing around the world. If anything, I see this as like a prophetic voice in the wilderness that's not going to catch fire. But as a whole, I'd much rather see laws that are calling into question surrogacy than those who are liberalizing it. I think more people will benefit from it. You agree with that?

Scott: I concur. I guess I'd be a little nervous about making this an absolute, absolute. And here's an example. I had a couple in my office, you know, probably two or three years ago, where they had gone through IVF and they'd finally conceived triplets. She miscarried halfway through the pregnancy, lost all three children, had a terrible uterine hemorrhage, emergency hysterectomy, and they had five embryos in storage. And they desperately desired to implant them themselves and raise them as their children, but without the ability to do that. And their only option for bringing these children into the world was to employ a surrogate for that purpose. And I didn't see any point in putting those embryos up for adoption because the mom and the dad who created them wanted to raise them themselves. Now you can say, "Yeah, that's a problem that IVF created in the first place." And that's true. But at the point where they were sitting in my office, that was water under the bridge. And we had to make a decision about what's going to be best for these embryonic children. And I think the only option for them was to have a surrogate give birth to them and then relinquish them back to the parents right upon birth.

Sean: Yeah, that's a really interesting case. I think it is water under the bridge, but you and I have a conversation coming up next week we're going to post on IVF. And the mere fact that we have to make this decision at all and they came to your office to me is a problem with IVF, but I'm obviously skipping ahead. But your advice, given where they're at moving forward, fixing a broken problem, given that these embryos are full human beings, I'm with you on that as far as it goes. But all right, good example. Anything else on this one?

Scott: Well, we won't reproduce the conversation we'll have next week here in the next five minutes.

Sean: Exactly. We'll keep folks anticipating that conversation coming up. Okay, so let's radically shift gears here. This article totally caught me by surprise. Now you hear me often being critical of the New York Times. For the most part, I think they got this article right. This is about a 20-page article and there's a shorter one that's like a two-page article that comes with it. And the title is "The University of Michigan doubled down on DEI. What went wrong?" Now let me give the backstory of this a little bit more than normal, but it's important. So there's the article. This is an investigative reporter for the Times and he spoke to more than 60 students, faculty, alumni, got internal documents, kind of did an investigation of what's gone at the University of Michigan, one of America's most prestigious public universities. And they have proclaimed that they have a commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. And most students must take at least one class addressing racial and ethnic intolerance and resulting inequality. Doctoral students must take an equity lab, a racial justice seminar, and computer science students are quizzed on microaggressions. Another example at the Art Museum that's on campus, the English department had a 245-word land acknowledgement that when you look at the art it says it's core subject as "a language brought by colonizers of North America." And according to the DEI webpage, you must fight all forms of oppression. So a decade ago, Michigan's leader set in motion an ambitious new DEI plan. This is what's interesting, Scott. It said aiming to enact far-reaching foundational change at every level in Michigan, so incorporating it everywhere, and they put a quarter billion dollars into this. Now the goal was to attract and retain more diverse array of students and faculty. Now you and I would say that in itself is a good end. Diversity properly understood is a biblical value from Genesis all the way forward, but the means of how they did it is what is being called into question here. Not so much the end. And what's interesting here is it seems that the University of Michigan, even though this is creating more discord and division and not helping the problem, arguably making it worse according to this reporter, both MIT and Harvard have moved the other direction, no longer requiring job applicants, for example, to submit diversity statements. So one of the fascinating things is this author received a confidential report, which I'm not sure why it made it in this article if it's confidential, but nonetheless, that a committee appointed by Michigan's provost and stocked with professors with DEI-related appointments urged the school to continue using diversity statements in hiring and promotion, arguing that to get rid of it would be seen as capitulations to the winds of political expediency. So even if it doesn't work and make things worse, we can't give in to the right, so to speak. That would be unfortunate. Now this investigator said he found a different kind of backlash. Most students just had a sense of weary disdain against it. And even many black students regarded the school's expansive program as well-meaning, but a failure. Gosh, how much more do I give here? They say a few other things. It says Michigan's own data suggested in striving to become more diverse and equitable, the schools become less inclusive. Students and faculty members report a less positive campus climate than at the program start and less a sense of belonging, and that students were less likely to interact with people of different race or religion because of this training itself. The other thing is everyday campus complaints and academic disagreements, professors and students said, were now cast as crises of inclusion and harm and demanding further involvement from people. So they're hiring more and more officers. Here's what they said. Let me read one more section here. Okay, so back in 2016 the university's president, when it started, promised to make DEI one of his top priorities. And he said, we're going to put $85 million to transform the entire university, which turned into a quarter billion. They have 69 employees and a research center. And basically, as we read in this article, Scott, they from the top down tried to incorporate DEI into everything that they did. Now, this article says there's some examples that they thought were over the top. One example is there was a professor asked a white student to read aloud from the landmark Supreme Court case, Cooper versus Aaron, which forced the desegregation of public schools in Little Rock. And the 1958 Supreme Court decision had the term Negro, which some students said was offensive. So we couldn't read the Supreme Court justice. There's a briefing. There was a huge faculty session on LGBTQ issues and quite a few faculty are like, why are we talking about pronouns and student sex lives at all? I thought that was kind of an interesting dynamic that came out of this. The number of complaints at the university by 2015, there was 200, you know, sex or gender based complaints. 2020 it would had doubled. Last year, it surpassed 500 complaints about people failing to recognize privilege, et cetera. And then at the very end, I know I'm covering a lot here, but it's important. They do point out that conservatives are a small minority at Michigan. In fact, of all the efforts for inclusiveness, perhaps 10 or 15% of all students are conservatives. I thought that was really interesting. Let me get here to the end. This is the last point I'll make, Scott. I'm going longer, but this is important. They said even in the academic academy, some long accepted precepts of DEI are coming under scrutiny. So for example, some researchers argue that teaching students to view the world through the lens of identity and oppression can leave them vulnerable instead of empowered. They question the notion of microaggressions and how real they are and how effective pointing them out is. The bottom line is they're saying not only conservatives, but some liberal scholars are wondering if we put too much time and emphasis, well intention, but misguided money and time and resources that not only has not helped, but has made things worse. What are your takes on this?

Scott: There's a lot to say about this.

Sean: There is.

Scott: I think it's been widely documented, not only in the universities that you mentioned, Sean, but also in companies that have tried to incorporate DEI programs that the top down diversity programs simply don't work. I think Michigan's students admission of its failure, that they either show apathy or disdain for it. The black population has not increased, but Hispanic and Asians have, by the way. It's been very divisive and DEI movements tend to see racism and sexism virtually everywhere. It's not surprising that the number of complaints have actually skyrocketed since the program was begun. Now, here's the reason why I think it's been so divisive is because gender and race-based identity and their identity is considered to be core to who you are. Therefore, any critique of gender or race-based identity is a criticism of their identity itself and is thus political. They invoke political rights to protect their rights to their identity. Now, unfortunately, it's really difficult in most places where DEI movements have taken hold to have a diversity of views about diversity itself. That's why I think conservative students tend to show probably more disdain than most on this. Now, part of the reason for this is most DEI movements come from what we would call a neo-Marxist ideology that sees the world through the lenses of oppressors and oppressed. Depending on what race or gender or socioeconomic class you're in, you are either a member of an oppressor or an oppressed class. Not surprising, most of these movements are heavily left-leaning. That's also not a big surprise. If you think about this theologically, nobody gets a pass on original sin because whether you are an oppressor or an oppressed person or a member of one of those classes, as Alexander Solzhenitsyn put it, "The line between good and evil runs not between us and them, but that line runs right down the middle of the human heart." We really have to think hard theologically about these lenses through which diversity movements tend to see the world. The other, I think, tricky part of this is that many of the terms that are used such as white privilege and white fragility frequently go undefined and they end up meaning a lot of different things. I'd want to be careful before I... I think even the term racism is often undefined and can refer to anything from racial prejudices to simply being a beneficiary of a system that's considered to be racist, which again in a lot of these movements simply by being white you are considered a racist because you're a beneficiary of a system that was built to benefit white people. Now I think there is something to the idea that there are advantages in the West, I think, to being white. Some of those, I think, do carry socioeconomic privileges, but some do not. Maybe the term white normativity might be a better term for it. The other thing, Sean, that struck me in this is we assume that diversity is a good, and I think you're right to defend it theologically, and I think that the Kingdom of God is going to be an incredibly diverse place.

Sean: Amen.

Scott: But in a lot of these places it's rarely defended or given any kind of rationale. And I think in a lot of institutions, the idea that we would have a diverse workforce or a diverse student population or diverse faculty is not really up for much debate. The means for how we get there, that's different. But I would suggest, there's the other irony in this, in many of these places we have a diversity of every kind except the kind that you and I think is most important, and that is the diversity of political and cultural views. And I think there's a place for all kinds of identities except for people who are religiously committed and have their identity come fundamentally from their religious views. That applies not only to Christians but to conservative Jews, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, anyone with a serious religious identity. That's really not part of the identities that matter in the diversity debate. So that's some of my take on this. I think having some nuance and having a way to step back and to evaluate whether these programs are actually doing what they're accomplishing is a really good thing. And I think this, you know, like 911������, what we're trying to do is to see diversities always through distinctly theological lenses. And that term is not only what we pursue but how we do that. You know, we've closed our diversity office about a year ago and have put that under the diversity efforts now under the president's office. And we're still committed to being a diverse student population and a diverse faculty and staff. But we are not doing this in more of a top-down way like we've typically done that in the past.

Sean: Good stuff, Scott. I think especially your point that diversity is assumed to be good but often not defended is often the same with equality. Like where do we get the idea that equality is intrinsically good? Well, that's a biblical idea that we are made in the image of God and have value and equality is good. I think we see diversity in the past at creation, male and female, one example. And of course, the table of nations we see developing in the early chapters of Genesis. We have diversity in the present, in the church, a diversity of gifts, of course, is talked about to give another example. And in the future, heaven, we have diversity, people from all ethnicities and backgrounds coming together. And so, I think in our culture, diversity in the university is often viewed as an instrumental end. We learn more, we grow more. But within a biblical worldview, diversity not only has an instrumental end, people might see stuff that we don't see, but it's an intrinsic good coming from God's character Himself who's unity and diversity. That's one distinction. You know, this really jumped out to me, this quote I read earlier where it said at University of Michigan. And by the way, they only studied one university because it was the biggest. Can you imagine how much money has been spent on this? Probably tens of billions? I mean, I have no idea that made things worse. Partly this shows that good intentions is not enough to get good results if it doesn't actually work and match up with human nature. This is a huge lesson there. I can't imagine how much money was spent on this. But they said, "Aiming to enact far-reaching change at every level, striving to touch every individual on campus." It's almost like they took DEI as a religion. And later in the article, they said, "People almost see it like a state religion." That's kind of what we're trying to do here but differently. Think biblically about everything. And my favorite emails we get from people like, "I hadn't thought biblically about nursing. Had not thought biblically about this issue.” All of creation is God's. We should think biblically about it. So if you take God out as the unifying factor of all things, you're going to have to replace it with something else. And things like DEI ultimately don't work. One more... Oh, go ahead.

Scott: Well, when you speak about equality too, we need to distinguish between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. Those are two really different things. And I think we can make a good case that there have been groups that have been historically marginalized who've not had the same kind of opportunities. And we have a moral obligation to level the playing field in that way. But not in terms of outcomes. There are too many variables involved in that. Opportunity, yes, clearly. That's a moral obligation.

Sean: Good word. Last thing I have on this is the very last line jumped out to me. They're talking about how things have exploded in light of what's happening in Israel since October 7th between Palestinian and Israeli students. And the last line they said frustrated. They wonder how can people talk about Gaza at a time as this. Last line in the article says, "Students were like, 'I think we do want to be able to talk with each other about these things in a way that's effective.'" Price said, this other person quoted in the article, "We just don't know how. We've never seen it." That's heartbreaking. That is heartbreaking. That students know how to shout on social media. They know how to play this DEI game. They've been taught microaggressions for a decade. Whatever it is, they've been taught a certain way of seeing the world through oppressed and oppressor. They don't know how to just listen well. They don't know how to disagree well. Ask good questions. If I were the University of Michigan, I would stop their DEI efforts and I'd start studying a book like Georgianci's Beyond Racial Division. He gives a critique of both color blindness, not recognizing that race is a persistent issue we need to address, but also the anti-racism patterns that we've seen uncovered here. And he actually shows that these DEI programs don't work and there's evidence going back to 2016 when this started in Michigan. The data was there. And part of this is he says, we need to talk with each other, listen to one another, understand the world through the lens that other people do. This doesn't solve everything, but I think this article says there's a hunger to not just be preached at and approach through this lens and to humanize the issue and talk and listen. I'm going to wish they would bring in our friend, Tim Muehlhoff from Winsome Convictions and just say, how do we talk to one another on campus? And frankly, I think we're doing a really good job of that at 911������. I think that's what makes 911������ unique is we invite different perspectives and listen to people and have conversations. That is one of my favorite things about 911������. Anything else in this article at Jump Out, Scott?

Scott: And we require winsomeness and kindness in those discussions.

Sean: We do. Well said. All right. These next two, we'll go a little bit more quickly through them, but this one you sent me, I don't even know what to do with this one, Scott. It says, "Hello prenup introduces embryo clauses to address modern family in prenuptial agreements." Now, two things about this, then you jump in. And it's kind of reading like an advertisement, like it's a commercial, not a news release. It says, "Hello prenup, the leading digital platform for prenup agreements is excited to announce the launch of a new innovative feature, prenup embryo clauses designed to help couples address the complex legal and emotional considerations surrounding fertility treatments, embryos and reductive planning. With advancements in fertility technology, more couples are choosing to freeze embryos for future family planning. However, the legal landscape surrounding the disposition of embryos in the event of a divorce, the separation remains murky and under addressed in many standard prenuptial agreements, despite case law, et cetera, making it difficult for couples." So they say, bottom line, with this new feature that they're offering and selling to you, they allow couples to predetermine what will happen to their embryos in case there's a divorce, the legal parent status, the parties, maybe something happens with death, something happens to the frozen embryos, financial responsibility. I don't even know where to start on this one, Scott. Give me your thoughts.

Scott: Well, I think I do know where to start here. In one sense, this is actually very encouraging. And the reason for that is that it goes back to the central question involved in these, you may have heard about some of these celebrated celebrity couples that had IVF and they got embryos frozen and they divorced. And they go to court. And most courts have indicated that these embryos are property to be divided, not a custody decision. But think about it, the reason there's so much passion with these couples who have these disputes is they realize that their embryos are more than property. And often one parent wants them implanted and the other one does not. And what they say almost all the time is that they don't want, they have a right not to become a parent against their will, which suggests really strongly that the dispute they're having is a custody one, not a property one, because they already are parents and they know it because they got embryos in storage. And here's the language of this is what I found so interesting and so encouraging. Is that the new feature allows couples to predetermine what will happen to their embryos in a variety of situations like you mentioned. One of those presumes that this is a custody decision. One is that what should happen to the embryos upon divorce, here's the one that matters, the legal parent status of the parties in the event of divorce or death. That's not a property view of embryos. That's a human, that's a custody dispute over children, because they're trying to determine who's the legal parent, not of this property, but who's going to be the legal parent of these children. Right now, not after they're implanted and born, but right now as they are being, as the disposition of them is being decided. So I found this actually pretty encouraging. And I think what it shows is that the couples who go through IVF, they sort of, they have an intuition that these embryos are more than just clumps of cells. They may not be able to spell it out precisely like we'd like them to, but I think they know that there's just something qualitatively different about these embryos. And the prenup agreement, I think, presumes that they will really involve as a custody dispute, not a property division.

Sean: That's a great observation. I did not pick up on that reading this, but I recall when you mentioned the celebrity cases, I remember a few years ago, Sofia Vergara, I think is how you say it. She won a court battle because the judge ruled that her ex, Nick Loeb, can't use the embryos without consent. They had underwent IVF back in like 2014 and the embryos were frozen, and he wanted to use them. She did not, went to case. And the legal stuff does so much interest me, but I guess on the most practical level, this is a reality today. So it minimizes some of that hassle. If we live in this world and embryos are viewed this way, let's simplify the process. Fine. But more important underneath this is I think you're right, a sense that this is not just property. This is the beginning, at least minimally in their minds. There's something qualitatively different about this that's a human being. And people saying, I don't want one like me out there. If I'm not married to you and you have the right to do this, whatever you want to, that's different than a chair. That's different than a car. That's different than property we used to own. There's more going on. I think this is an example, Scott, of just how like as much as worldviews are contrary to what you and I think. Life beginning at conception. Even people who hold a different worldview. The truth is going to pop up at times. I think of it like a beach ball. We want to push down and say that things like embryos, we can freeze them and we can use them and they're just property. But the beach ball kind of pops up because of the laws of gravity. Well, this is a case where the truth kind of pops up because we know it's more than just property. So I think you nailed it. Anything else on this one?

Scott: No, I think that, yeah, that covers it. They're just presuming something about embryos that, you know, if they were pushed on it, they might not want to admit that. But I mean, to even have a prenuptial agreement about the disposition of embryos presumes, I think that they're not property. I mean, why would we do this in the first place? And that's the reason couples are so passionate about this. I think they're intuitively, they're onto something.

Sean: Fair enough. Good stuff. Right. Before we take questions, let's go to this last story that just broke somewhat shortly before we're recording this. This one says that LA Catholic Church payouts is now above $1.5 billion with the new record settlement that was of $880 million. This is the Archdiocese of LA had previously paid $740 million to victims in various settlements over the past 25 years. Of course, the Archdiocese are claiming that the churches make great strides to prevent abuse, but it seems that more than 300 priests who work in the Archdiocese in LA have been accused in public records of sexually abusing minors. Now, we won't revisit all the factors here of things that happen of people being, you know, complaints about sex abuse, going through therapy, being put back in another church, and then abusing again. Some of these stories are just horrific, but it's been 25 years. Some of the people have now passed away, which is terrible, whether it's the priests who did the abuse or some of the victims who experienced this. But what's your sense on this? Is it mixed feelings like we're seeing some justice and this is good, but still even no amount of money can fix kind of the brokenness or evil that took place?

Scott: Sean, it's what I would refer to as a rough justice, which in a fallen world is probably the best we're going to be able to do. You know, we're not going to have perfect justice until the Lord returns and sets up His kingdom when we will have a proper ordering of society and all of these, you know, and all of these things that where people are exploited will no longer be part of the landscape. That's what I so look forward to, to seeing the kingdom come in its fullness.

Sean: Amen.

Scott: We just won't have to worry about things like this. So, I mean, absolutely completely heartbreaking. And I do think, you know, we should give kudos to not only the Catholic Church, but some other denominations that have made some pretty serious changes in how they do business with people who work with youth and kids and people like that. I mean, you know, my church, anybody who volunteers in any capacity has to go through a background check and has to, you know, has to go through, you know, regular training on this. And I think you could say, certainly say it's true, you know, Catholic Church, you know, too little, too late. And the too late part, I think, is undoubtedly true. And, you know, these settlements have bankrupted many other archdioceses around the country. And, you know, this is, you know, 1.5 billion, that's a big hit. That's just for the archdiocese of Los Angeles. I can't imagine what it might be for the state of California as a whole. So, I think this is good news. But it's a little mixed because the justice is rough, which is, within a fallen world, that's just, that's part of the package.

Sean: I just have one biblical thought on this. I heard Dennis Prager, who's a Jewish talk show host and commentator, kind of make an interesting argument. And frankly, I'm not sure that I'm totally convinced by it. But he talks about the third commandment, in the Ten Commandments, taking the Lord's name in vain. And it kind of makes an argument that it's when people claim to be speaking for God, a priest, a pastor, somebody else, who then does evil under the authority of God, is undermining the name of God in the most pernicious way. And I thought, that's really interesting. Because sex abuse in itself is horrific and it's terrible. And you and I interviewed Rachel Denhollander maybe four or five years ago, who was the gymnast who really was the first to break the story about Larry Nassar, who is just sexually abusing these gymnasts. And she said, behind war, sex abuse is the second most just damaging kind of PTSD. But it's one thing to be sexually abused, it's another thing to have a spiritual authority, a pastor, a priest, a theological professor, who is the one who does it. Now you have a level of spiritual abuse on top of the sexual abuse, which if it's even possible to say this, I think just makes it worse. So I'm not certain that that's what's in the third commandment, but it got me thinking biblically like, huh, there's an extra authority for those of us who claim to speak for God in a way that it damages the cause of Christ even more than other kinds of abuse do.

Scott: Yeah, I think particularly if the name of God or religious authority is used as a point of coercion to get victims to submit to sexual abuse, then I think it really does fit what Prager is talking about there. Shall we answer some questions?

Sean: Yeah, I wish I had a better transition out of that one, but... That's a sobering topic. It is a sobering topic, but one we need to discuss. And we have a couple of questions that are actually super encouraging to me because this week we get, again, a bunch. We can't write into all of them, but we had two more teenagers write in this week. And one says, "Hello, I'm a teenager that experiences gender dysphoria. I've identified as many different genders, male, demigirl, gender fey, after much thought, prayer, and healing, healthy church teaching. I've decided to put my identity in Christ rather than gender. I'm happy with my decision even if I don't always feel comfortable with a female body. I feel uniquely called to help people in my situation, but many of our friends are not Christian and most identify as LGBTQ+. I recently mentioned them. I still support them as people even though I don't agree with the ideology. In response to one that said, I must have church trauma. I don't care for these friends when I disagree with the ideology. They've made their primary identity and when they think I'm brainwashed." First off, you sound like the most courageous and thoughtful and caring teenager, this issue aside that I've heard from in a long time. So for someone who's been working with teens for 25 years, know that I'm just super proud of you and grateful for your willingness to venture through this, seek your identity in Christ. You have a heart for your friends. One thing I would say is I love your heart for your friends. Above all, the most important thing since you're a teenager is to just keep growing in your relationship with Christ. There's obviously been some trauma and some hurt that's here. And I would say if at any point in these relationships it starts to feel like it's pulling you back from relationship with Christ, step out and don't feel bad about that. For a season you want to get healthy biblically and relationally and psychologically, you have permission to do that. Second thing is people are changed by relationship largely. And so my mission for you would be to just be a better friend than you were before, a more caring person than you were before. It's one thing for them to dismiss you and say, "Well, this just must be church hurt." But it's another thing when you show through your words, through your actions, through your character that this has really changed you. Because one thing I know in many, if not most, cases of gender dysphoria with students is that there's underlying hurt that's taking place and underlying other conditions. Sometimes there's a big factor of autism, which is an interesting element to know, but there's also often loneliness and depression and anxiety and suicidality, and so many people on this issue and others are looking for peace. You said it in your letter itself. And so if you can just show through your life and your patience and your care for people that this has changed your life positively, what a positive testimony that is. And the last thing I'd say is just if somebody says “this must be church hurt”, I'd say, "You know, I can understand why you would maybe think that. I'd love to share my experience and hear yours if you're open to it. Let's get some coffee." That person can say no, but then when they hear your story, they can start to realize, yeah, there's not church hurt here. Something else is going on. Any thoughts on this one, Scott?

Scott: So just one thing. This listener points out that many of our friends are not Christian. And I think because of that, I'm not surprised that they take issue with the fact that you've made Christ your primary source of identity. They don't have that alternative as of yet. And I so appreciate your heart to introduce them to Christ, but I think you just remember that the gender being their primary identity, if you disagree with that, you are seen as attacking them as a person and attacking them at their very core. And so I'm not super surprised. I'm sure you've done it kindly and winsomely and in a good spirit. But I'm not surprised that they think you've been brainwashed and they're holding you at a distance on that. So I think Sean’s right about this. I would be patient and continue to love them and to care for them. And maybe back away from some of the things you might say to them about the gospel, unless you have opportunity. And just for a season, love them, be in relationship with them, and let them know that you're not writing them off because they think differently.

Sean: By the way, I have some friends from high school who've contacted me years later and said they came to Christ and certain things, whether it was in my life or things that my dad said, stuck with him at that point. So you're playing the long game here with these friends as well. Scott, one more. This one says, “I'm a senior in high school studying philosophy with my dad on the side,” and I can't help but pause and say any dad who's studying philosophy with his kid. Incredible. Love it. “We're reading Philosophy Made Slightly Less Difficult by our colleagues, J.P. Morlin and Gary Deweyce.” Wonderful book by IVP. I've actually used that with high school students as well. “I like the book, but I have a question about logic. Moreland and DeWeese say, and he writes, on page four of the second edition,” we have a future scholar here, Scott, who cites his sources. This is great. I'm loving it. “Logic is not above God. In fact, he's sovereign over it, but they also say that the laws of logic were not created by God in the sense that he could not have made them otherwise. Then the key question is, if God is sovereign over logic, can you help me understand why there couldn't be different laws of logic?”

Scott: Well, let me say first of all, I'm so grateful for this father-son combination here. This is awesome. It brings me back to when my oldest son graduated from 911������. He wanted to stay for an extra year basically to study philosophy classes. He audited almost every core class in our master's philosophy program, and right at the very end, he finally got around to taking mine. There was some debate whether he was going to follow through with that. I have never been happier to buy him the books for those courses and to loan him the ones that I had and to have conversations with him about what he was learning from my dearest friends and colleagues. Here's what I would suggest. I think what Moreland and DeWeese are saying with this is that God is not unbound in his sovereignty. He's bound by his character. There are certain things that God cannot do because of his character. And I think that the laws of logic sort of fit under this criteria. It would be a breach of his character to say that God could violate the law of non-contradiction, because God's fundamental character cannot lie. I think that's what they mean. Yes, God created the laws of logic, but there's something inherently truthful about the laws of logic as God created them that to do something different would make them a falsehood. And so I think they're right about that. I think the laws of logic are what they are because they are true. And yeah, God created them that way and that's what makes them true. But I think we also see that even if you don't believe God created them, the laws of logic still are intrinsically true. And without those, we lose meaningful communication, we lose rationality, we lose the ability to have conversations about issues. Because if we don't believe the laws of logic, then anything you say about any subject can be said to be true. And that's the world that gives way to chaos eventually. And God is not the author of confusion, he's the author of order, not chaos. So I would extend the thing, you know, God cannot do things that are unloving or command things that are unforgiving, things like that, because he's bound by his character. And I think this is an extension of that.

Sean: That's a great response. As you know, last week, I had a debate with one of the leading skeptics in the world, Michael Shermer, and we haven't put it here in the podcast, it's on YouTube for two hours. And he raises what's called the "Euthyphro Dilemma," where the idea going back 400 BC, where Euthyphro and Socrates are debating, “Is morality a standard outside of God that he's bound to, or is morality something that's arbitrary that the God simply wills?” On one, it makes there's some kind of standard outside of God that calls the god's sovereignty in question. The other one makes morality arbitrary, but there's certain things that we know are wrong. And of course, the Christian answer is there's morality is not arbitrary, it's not a standard outside of God, so we can split the horns of the dilemma and that God is good, God is just, God is loving and holy and righteous in His character, and His commands reflect that. A similar point could be made in logic. By the way, in that conversation, I pressed Shermer on that a little bit, and I said, "Is this a valid response?" He goes, "I think you've responded to it." I thought, "Wow, we've got a skeptic conceding, we have a good response to the Euthyphro Dilemma that comes up all the time." And credit to Him for just being reasonable and thoughtful in that. Well, the same is true with logic. If we say there's some standard outside of God, then that calls into question God's sovereignty. But it also can't be arbitrary in the sense that we can't get rid of the law of non-contradiction. In fact, we can't get rid of it without using it. And part of the answer is somehow reason itself and logic is grounded in God's character. And we see this in John 1:1. By the way, this high school seniors reading philosophy of this dad every morning with my 12-year-old son were reading through the Gospel of John a little bit and just talking about it, and I'm making breakfast. And we read John 1:1, and I said, "Buddy, do you know what the word is?" I said, "It's the logos, it's rationality, meaning God is reasonable in His character." And so just like God is holy, classically many philosophers and theologians have said God is rational and logic is rooted in His character. So it's not arbitrary and it doesn't call sovereignty into question. We have more questions, Scott, but don't have time to get to them. Good discussion. As always, this one was fun.

Scott: No, lots of fun.

Sean: 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, 911������ University where both Scott and I teach. We have master's programs in theology, Bible, apologetics, spiritual formation, philosophy, marriage and family on campus and fully online. To submit comments and we read all the comments that come in questions even if we can't address them, please email us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu. We would deeply appreciate a rating on your podcast app if you value this podcast even just taking two or three minutes just helps us grow and expand, get the word out so others can think biblically. We'll see you Tuesday when we drop part one of a conversation Scott and I had about the morality of IVF. You have been warned. This is an issue in which we tend to disagree a little bit. Scott, I went to this one with a little fear and trembling going, "You're one of the leading, if not the leading Christian ethicists in the world." I might be crazy, but just trying to raise the issues that are at stake so we can think more carefully about it. I think we succeed at that. That drops Tuesday.

Scott: Yeah. Very, very, very fruitful conversation.

Sean: It was fantastic. I have already been rethinking some answers going, "Wait a minute. Hold on." That's what we want for people is to wrestle with these ideas biblically. Check that out on Tuesday. In the meantime, remember to think biblically about everything.