911������

This week, Scott and Erik Thoennes discuss:

• IVF Mix-Up Drama: A heartbreaking forces two families to navigate moral, emotional, and relational challenges.
• Assisted Suicide Legalization: UK Parliament legalizing assisted suicide, sparking debates on ethics, compassion, and the sanctity of life.
• Faith Amid Chaos: Players kneel to pray during a brawl after the Ohio State vs. Michigan football game, showcasing the counter-cultural impact of faith.
• Hunter Biden's Pardon: Exploring the theological significance of presidential pardons, grace, and justice through the lens of Hunter Biden’s case.
• Supreme Court and Gender-Affirming Care: The US Supreme Court on Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming treatments for minors.
• Parents Deconstructing Faith: How children can navigate faith conversations when their parents appear to embrace progressive Christianity.
• Christian Schools vs. Churches: Differentiating the complementary yet distinct roles of Christian schools and local churches in discipleship and community.

Episode Transcript

Scott: A tragic in vitro fertilization mix-up that left two couples with an agonizing moral decision. The UK parliament passed a bill legalizing medical aid in dying. Players prey on the field while a melee is going on after the Ohio State-Michigan football game, President Biden pardons his son Hunter, and the Supreme Court hears arguments on a Tennessee law outlawing gender-affirming treatments to minors under the age of 18. We'll discuss these stories, the first two in more depth than the last three. In fact, there were just too many good stories this week that we can't leave out. And we'll answer some of your questions. I'm your host, Scott Rae, and sitting in for Sean is my tablet colleague, Dr. Erik Thoennes. This is the Think Biblically Weekly Cultural Update from Tablet School of Theology at 911������ University. Erik, welcome. Great to have you back with us.

Erik: Good to be here, Scott.

Scott: All right, here's story number one, this heartbreaking story. A tragic IVF mix-up as reported in The New York Times. Two couples in California discovered that they were raising each other's genetic children. And the question arises, should they switch their kids? This is about May and Zoe, who were born to each other's genetic parents. May's parents, the Cardinales, were thrilled to have their child, but at two months old for the child, the dad began to wonder when she looked strikingly different from either of her parents. In fact, the dad would often joke about the clinic making a mistake that gave them a child that was not their own. They arranged for DNA tests. Initially, they were pretty ambivalent, understandably so, about taking those tests, discovered that both, it was 99% certain that both of them were not the biological parents. They looked into it a little bit further. They recognized that they really had an obligation to tell the clinic, but they were understandably distraught at the prospect of losing their daughter. Now, they hired a lawyer, contacted the clinic, and they opened an investigation, and eventually located their daughter's biological parents, who ironically lived only 10 minutes away from them in the same community. So Annie, Zoe's mom, the father's name was withheld for the sake of privacy, got an urgent call from the clinic that Zoe was not their biological child. The two couples met, with the newborns now being three months old, and faced a terrible decision. What on earth do we do now? Eventually, they decided to switch the babies, but how to do it was the real issue. That's even more complicated than the first decision.

Erik: Yeah.

Scott: What they decided to do was to gradually switch the babies. They decided to have daily visits together, then visits alone, then kept them overnight. Eventually, they decided to raise them together in what basically constituted something like a blended family. This is a major blended family with two sets of parents for two sets of kids. Since they live 10 minutes away from each other, they thought that was a feasible option for them. Now, Erik, I'll start and give them my comments, then I'm really interested to hear your take on this, too. Now, the first thing that struck me on this is these mix-ups are pretty rare. I don't want to tarnish the whole industry based on these mix-ups. However, I think there's probably more of these than we might know about, because most of these are handled quietly out of the public. They don't go to court, they don't hire lawyers, they don't file lawsuits, they just settle them however they're going to settle them, and they're done with them.

Erik: Or people don't even realize it's happened because there isn't a racial or ethnic difference like this couple.

Scott: Correct, correct. And so, not all of our kids look exactly like my wife or me. And when our second child was born, he came out, my wife and I were both light skinned, light hair. He came out with jet black hair.

Erik: Right, right.

Scott: We thought, well, I know it wasn't the milkman.

Erik: Right. Well, it's funny, that's even an old term people used to use about the milkman. That's so funny.

Scott: Here's my other observation is it seems like the two families tried to balance the rights of adults with the interests of children. And in one sense, I'm heartened because they didn't automatically switch the babies, assuming that the rights of adults trumped everything else.

Erik: Or that genetics trumps everything else.

Scott: That's correct. Yeah. Because you know, that bonding, there's a trade-off for that because the bonding in utero that happened is really important. Very true. But the genetic component matters, that matters too. I think you could make an argument to leave well enough alone, not disrupt the two families, and just go on about their lives. I think you could make an argument that that would have put the interests of children as the trump card in this over the rights of adults. And so I'm heartened that at least they tried to balance those. We'll see what happens when they get to middle school or high school and develop their own lives, their own friends. We'll see what happens to this blended family. This is a marital therapist's dream.

Erik: (Laughing) Right. Job security there, yeah.

Scott: For what, you know, what are the dynamics of this to explore, somebody's going to get some good journal articles out of this if they pursue it.

Erik: Right, yeah.

Scott: So I mean, really interested in your take on this.

Erik: Yeah, well, as I thought about this, I realized, okay, this in part is because of the complexity and depersonalizing of conception. Right? So that is part of the issue. But this problem they've come up with is not new because babies have been mixed up in the hospital.

Scott: Yeah. Maternity wards.

Erik: And even one time, you're not even positive who the dad is. And I have a friend who his daughter was suspicious in her fifties he might not be her biological father…

Scott: Oh is that right?

Erik: …and she stole his toothbrush and got a DNA test and had to break the news to him that he wasn't her dad.

Scott: That's sort of the opposite from the way that's supposed to be.

Erik: But what the beautiful part of that story is, is she, and he said, well, who cares? You're my daughter, you're my dad. And there was a beautiful, even deepening of their relationship, realizing that their relationship was about being a father and a daughter to each other, and not necessarily the genetics being the deal breaker on that in some way. And so it's not new that sometimes there have been mix-ups in this sort of thing. But I do think the medical technology aspect of it is something that is one of the issues that how far do we want to go in using medical technology, even to the point where sexual intercourse and conception are now so disconnected, potentially, where sex is even looked at differently. I think part of the cheapening of sex has been this disconnect between children and sex that the Catholic Church has been really helpful on at times for us to think about, even though our views may not be the same with birth control. But I think there are really significant moral implications of disconnecting through medical technology, conception, and just having babies in general. So that is one of the issues. The other issue is that relational piece relative to the genetic piece that makes the conversation so interesting.

Scott: Yeah. Now you're an adoptive parent.

Erik: Yeah. Four times.

Scott: Yeah. Four times around some, but a couple from overseas.

Erik: Yes.

Scott: What does that have- how does that color your take on this?

Erik: We learned early on in battling infertility that it's not a one-to-one. So there is something so awesome and miraculous and wonderful about all of the aspects of childbirth and conception and nursing and all of that. And so I don't want to see it as a one-to-one thing, but as I was reading the article, I obviously couldn't not think about the bond I have with my children. That is profound. And I can't imagine it being deeper if we shared DNA. And so the problem was in perspective of that. And I was thinking the whole time about foster parents who go into situations knowing they may bond maybe for years with a child with the hope of adopting, and that doesn't happen. And sometimes that child goes back to dangerous situations. So it's not only you hand it back to nurturing, loving biological parents like these couples, you hand it back to really brutal situations. Those are the heroes to me, the ones who voluntarily put themselves through that sort of anguish. I remember hearing a woman, I think she had fostered over 45 kids. And she said, "When one of my kids gets reunited, sometimes after years, I won't get out of bed for nine days and I'll just cry." And then she said, "But then I get out of bed and I realize my child needed this home for that time. I'll get over it." But she or he needed that.

Scott: We have one of our colleagues has fostered several kids and has sort of worked his and his wife's way through the legal system to be able to adopt them. But they've had some gut wrenching experiences where they've had to give them back temporarily to the biological parents, before they, and not knowing whether they'd get them back or not.

Erik: Might be a question for you in this, Scott, this is so much, you're one of the world's leading experts on this kind of things. At what point is our love of life something that becomes unhealthy in our pursuit of it through IVF and medical technology?

Scott: Well, I think there's some red flags that go up. One is, I think, when it's motivated by desperation, now my wife and I went through infertility as well. And we had our times where we were exasperated with God on this because we looked at two teenagers look at each other crosswise and they get pregnant.

Erik: In the back seat of a car. While we were going through it, Madonna decided she wanted to have a baby and she asked her personal trainer to just get her pregnant. And I thought, "Seriously, Lord, I think my wife would be a pretty good mom too."

Scott: But I think, and part of it I think is tricky because the desire to have your own biologically connected child is part of our procreative constitution that God made us with. But we live in a broken world too, where infertility is a result of the general entrance of sin. I do think that some within some limits, we shouldn't rule out medical technology as a way to alleviate some of the effects of the general entrance of sin. And it doesn't matter. IVF actually doesn't fix anything.

Erik: Right.

Scott: It doesn't end run around a problem in the same way that kidney dialysis doesn't end run around kidney disease. Nobody looks skeptically at that. So if desperation sets in, I think if it starts to negatively impact your marriage, your relationship with your spouse, that's another red flag. The other one is if you put yourself in financial jeopardy to pursue the next round of infertility treatments. What couples often don't know, and the clinic's not going to tell you this, is that the success rate for IVF is actually fairly low. It's about 25 to 30% success rate for a live birth. And the success rate gets lower with each successive try. And so it's not uncommon. I've heard a couple taking out second, third mortgages on their homes to finance the next round of this.

Erik: Or surrogacy too, isn't it?

Scott: Yeah, I mean, surrogacy, the bill for surrogacy, that's way up there.

Erik: There are celebrities who didn't want their bodies to be affected by birth, so just had children through surrogacy. That's insane.

Scott: (Laughing) Yeah, I'm sorry. That's a whole nother ball game on that. But I don't have a problem with medical technology in general helping to alleviate infertility. As long as we've got some guardrails so we're not throwing away embryos, we're not getting into places where it's idolatrous. Because I think the desire to have children, sort of give me children or I die type of thing, I think approaches something else taking top place, top billing in our lives.

Erik: And I would hope Christians would at least consider, in light of the fact there are 150 million estimated orphans in the world, consider adoption, not as a one-to-one, but as a wonderful way to be parents in light of that tremendous need.

Scott: Yeah, and I think, you know, I look at the foster parents, the adoptive parents, like you and Donna, you know, those are the folks that are the heroes in my book too, because that's why we say adoption is not procreation. It's a heroic rescue. It's fundamentally different. And I think those are some of the people we need to hold up as heroic folks. All right, story number two. I'm interested in your take on this. As we talked a little bit before we started recording, you've helped me connect some dots on here that I think will be really interesting for our leaders, or for our listeners. Two weeks ago, we pointed out in our cultural update that West Virginia had amended their state constitution to prohibit assisted suicide. It was already illegal, but they amended the constitution so that nothing else could be brought in the future to legalize it. And we said, when we talked about that, to watch what would happen to a bill pending at that time in the UK. Well, it happened. Just last week, Parliament in the UK voted to legalize assisted suicide in England and Wales, and likely to be approved for Scotland as well. It applies to those who are at least 18 years old, have received a terminal diagnosis, have no more than six months to live. Two doctors and a judge have to give their approval, and the fatal drugs need to be self-administered, making it parallel to assisted suicide laws that exist in the US. In the US, it's only assisted suicide, not euthanasia. That is, euthanasia is when the physician himself or herself gives the fatal dose of medication, and that's the way the law is in Europe. In fact, it was modeled after the law in the state of Oregon. And this is different from other countries in Europe, where both assisted suicide and euthanasia are both legal, because they consider them both on the same moral playing field. The bill could still be amended, but it's considered a landmark decision parallel to the bill that legalized abortion in the late '60s in the UK. Opponents of the bill said this crosses a rubicon by involving the state in the death of some of those it governs. It's a fundamental change in the relationship between state and citizen, and between patients and their doctors. Proponents argued that the deathbed for far too many is a place of misery, torture, and degradation, a reign of blood, vomit, and tears. Hopefully you're not about to have your lunch. They added, "I see no compassion or beauty in that, only profound human suffering." Proponents denied that there's a slippery slope that would include others besides the terminally ill. Faith leaders in the UK generally expressed opposition to the bill, and other opponents cited the possibility of coercion to undergo medical aid in dying as a danger to the elderly and the terminally ill. All right, so just a couple of introductory comments on this. We've talked about this at some length before, but if the right to die is considered a fundamental right, and almost every advocate of assisted suicide argues that it is a fundamental human right, if that's true, then no conditions need be necessary, because there are no conditions on someone's right of free speech. No conditions on the right to a jury trial of your peers. You don't have to meet certain criteria of eligibility in order to exercise a fundamental right. So that's why it seems to me that there's a logical slippery slope there to include others besides the terminally ill. Being terminally ill with six months or less to live is an arbitrary restriction. It could be anything. Although I could see restricting to minors, I think that is probably well taken. And I do think there is a slippery slope. We've talked about this too, because everybody who's a proponent of this says that it must be fully voluntary, and explicit consent has to be given, usually repeatedly before this can be done. And I maintain that enforcing that fully voluntary aspect is impossible, because in most cases, it will never even be detected. Because you and your wife, if you have elderly parents or grandparents, could twist their arm over a period of months or even years to exercise their duty to die, get out of the way, not be a burden. And you could coerce them into signing that declaration for assisted suicide against their will, not because they're tired of living, but because you all are tired of them living.

Erik: Right.

Scott: And who will ever know that you've done this?

Erik: That's right.

Scott: And you could even enlist their physician to be in cahoots with you. And that's protected by patient physician confidentiality. So keeping that entirely voluntary. And we've seen empirically in countries in Europe where this has been legalized for some time, that the number of cases of euthanasia without the explicit consent of the patient is roughly 15 to 18% of the number of cases of euthanasia altogether.

Erik: Wow.

Scott: So there is a slippery slope that I think in two different aspects.

Erik: Again, like the first issue, there's such a profound emotional component to this. Because to look at someone who is suffering or the family member of someone who's suffering and would love for the suffering to end and say, "No, we need to have a sacred view of life." It can be a challenging thing. I watched some of the testimonies in the court case they had in the UK. And people were arguing in the name of compassion and the name of mercy for this. I must say, and they were saying you have to have a judge and two doctors as well as the individual all agree to it.

Scott: Correct.

Erik: But as we know, depends on what judge and what doctors you find that you can get to agree with all sorts of things. But there was one mother's testimony I listened to that was so powerful. She said, she had a son who she said, "I lost count how many times they told me he had six months to live. And he lived till he was 27. And he was nonverbal. And he would have fit clearly this opening." And she said, "I'm so glad he wasn't born in a culture that would have so powerfully encouraged his life to end in the way this law will." So it was amazing to hear that. And I do see the Rubicon being crossed and a view of life in its value based on a certain quality rather than a profound foundational sacredness as starting point. The question though, similar to the first one I have for you, Scott, is we are champions of life as Christians, both at the beginning of life and at the end of life. But like the birth issue, like the conception issue, at what point is our clinging to life idolatrous? Because we're deeply concerned about cheapening life with a law like this. But we're also the ones who don't believe this is all there is.

Scott: Right. You know, Erik, I spent lots of years consulting with hospital systems at the bedside. And although I've never said it out loud to families who were in the ICU waiting room, I've been really tempted to say to believing families, "Do you really believe all the stuff you say you do about resurrection and eternity?" Because it certainly doesn't look like it. Now, I realized that in many cases, families authorize invasive treatments for their loved ones, probably against the will of their loved one who can't speak for himself or herself. And they do it not for their loved one's benefit, but for their own. And I've tried, I've told numerous couples and families that for you to administer burdensome treatments to someone else for your benefit is almost always immoral. And we are obligated not to increase by our decisions, not to increase the net level of suffering of our loved ones at the end of life. Now, part of the thing I think that's going on in the UK is that if it's rain of blood, vomit and tears, what they're describing is probably a scenario where hospice is not widely in place, palliative care is not widely in place. I've heard physicians say to me that there's virtually no condition at the end of life that can't be adequately controlled through pain management and palliative care.

Erik: Wow.

Scott: And what you'll find is that frequently, this is one of the first times I've seen lately, the argument for mercy actually be a part of the discussion for this because all it takes usually is a hospice physician to come on and to tell you, we can control most of this at the end. Now, some cases are more challenging than others, but they can control this. And so that's why the argument has been one basically based on autonomy. On my right, over my own body. And I mean, to think biblically about that, I think God has definitely has something to say about that because as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6, we were bought with a price. We are not our own.

Erik: Amen.

Scott: And that God holds the timing and the manner of our death in his hands. Now, that's not to say that everything you can do to keep someone alive, you're obligated to do because theologically there's another side of this too, that if death is a conquered enemy, it need not always be resisted. And under the right circumstances, when treatment is futile, when it's more burdensome and beneficial, it can be okay to say stop the medicine. I actually think that's a profound statement of trust in God because you are essentially turning your loved one back over to the Lord to say, Lord, however many days you have for this person, that's in your hands, and I'm relinquishing that to you. But my loved one is going to live out the rest of their days without medical interventions that are compromising their quality of life.

Erik: Yeah, one of the most godly men I've ever known, he was dying of a terrible disease. And a lot of the people in his life who loved him wanted him to do everything he could do. And fairly early on, he said, "I want to be with Jesus." And he was getting a really hard time from some people in his life. And he took me aside, we were talking about time, and he said, "Erik, you know what was one of the best things about the pre-modern world?" And I said, "What?" And he said, "People used to just die."

Scott: That's right. They get better on their own, or they would die.

Erik: And the hardest thing about dying for him was the people in his life who wanted him to cling to life in this world at all costs, and he wanted to be with Jesus.

Scott: Well, I think we have to admit too, and you've seen this in your role as a pastor, that when a follower of Jesus goes home to be with the Lord, they're clearly in a better place. But the people they leave behind are not. They're usually feeling the loss and the grief that comes from that, as we would expect. And so I understand why family members can have a sort of a wave of self-centeredness come over them in wanting their loved ones to continue to live and want to have more time with them. And this, I think, is a good admonition for both, I think, for kids and for parents or grandparents to make your wishes known at the end of life. If you don't want to have certain things to sustain your life artificially, and really just in essence, just to simply delay an inevitable dying process, tell somebody. Write it down. Make it known. And just to the kids who are making decisions for family members, if they have an advance directive or a living will or something in writing, you don't get to change the terms of the living will. Your role is to enforce it, not to interpret it.

Erik: That's a loving thing to do, to relieve your family of that kind of decision they have to make on your behalf. One of the most godly women I've ever known from our church, she died a couple of years ago. And the morning she died, she rolled over, she held her husband's hand and she looked up and she said, "Jesus, I love you and I'm thankful for this life you've given me, but I want to go home now." And she did.

Scott: I will never forget, I wasn't there, but my brother told me about this when my dad passed. Just before he took his last breath, he put his arms across his chest, looked up. It's like he said, "I'm coming home."

Erik: Yeah.

Scott: We need to move on to the next story before I get teary-eyed here.

Erik: (Laughing) I’m already there.

Scott: All right. Erik, you sent me this. A handful of Ohio State and Michigan players were kneeled in prayer after the game on Saturday as a melee was broken out on the field in response to a Michigan player planting their school's flag on the 50 yard line of the Ohio State Stadium after Michigan had won the game for the fourth year in a row.

Erik: Yeah. Upset for the fourth year.

Scott: Yeah, this was a big upset.

Erik: 23-point underdogs pulled it off.

Scott: Now, we've seen, this happens, players gather on the field after games to pray, both teams, all the time. Nothing unusual about that. Happens in college, happens in the NFL. But obviously, something got your attention about this that made you send me this story.

Erik: I love this story because there's so much going on. I've often thought that in some ways sports is another kind of soap opera. There's always a story going on and all this drama behind the scenes and sometimes they overdo it, but it's hard to argue there's a more intense rivalry than Ohio State, Michigan. And they hate each other. I mean, they're friends, they're coworkers at times, but man, this is an intense rivalry. And so the way it's gone down really did set the stage to this and planning the flag has become a thing now.

Scott: It's the in your face.

Erik: Yes. It's the ultimate disrespect. And so it's one thing to beat a team that was expected to win that badly at home and break their hearts like that, but then that's highly disrespectful to do that. So it shouldn't surprise anybody a fight broke out. There would have been something very strange if one didn't.

Scott: Over that weekend too, that wasn't the only game where these broke out. There were like a half a dozen where brawls broke out.

Erik: Lots of fights going on. And this one wasn't your typical cheap shoving kind of thing. There was pepper spray, the cops got involved, coaches were bloodied, players were bloodied. It was out of control and it was a serious fight. But in the midst of it, somebody had their cell phone and they caught three Ohio State players. And Michigan star Donovan Edwards, who's a solid Christian man on their knees praying in the midst of this fight. And it was a stark difference between what was going on and these guys trying to kill each other. But I wrote a friend who is from Ohio. He actually did his dissertation on Cleveland sports as religion in the state. Yeah. And in culture studies, his name is Ed Yuzinski. And I just texted him this morning. I said, I'm going to be talking about this Eddie, what would you say? And so let me just read some of what he says. He says, yeah, if you plant a flag in my logo after the game, we have to fight. That's come to how the world, that's how the world functions. There really shouldn't be even a debate about that. In a secular world with barbarians and gladiators and tyrants warring over any sort of international insult, why would anyone question the justice in responding to someone giving you the finger at the 50 yard line after you've already embarrassed us and hurt us deeply? Plant a flag, we have to throw down. Media is so funny about that. But the dudes praying, that's called the gospel. It doesn't do what the world does. It gives perspective. It transcends the competition that just happened. It represents another kingdom being unleashed among the gods of this one. And if everyone is still fighting after we say, amen, I may still have to go back and scrum and punch the butter because my sanctification isn't complete. But that little prayer circle says, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven, right in the middle of the most idolatrous aspect of 21st century American culture, some truly bad boys right there. And I said to him, yeah, but doesn't it look bad praying while your guys are getting pummeled? And he said, “heck yeah, it looks bad according to worldly expectations. It's insane as the gospel often appears to be total foolishness. If I'm one of the guys fighting on your team, I'm really ticked off at you. What's funny is every dude on the team goes to the end zone before the game and kneels as their prayer moment and makes a sign of the cross points to heaven, et cetera. That's a bunch of garbage. Guys kneeling after prayer, for prayer after they just got their guts ripped out. Those are some bad boys. And the teammates who are mad at them will know who to call in five years when their lives are falling apart because they're out of football and have no idea who they are.” Is that great?

Scott: That's a drop-the-mic moment. That is so good.

Erik: I love it.

Scott: Now you have a friendship with one of the Ohio State coaches, a staff coach?

Erik: Well, this guy I'm talking about, I just read from him. He's on staff with Athletic Action and he's worked with those guys a lot on Chappell's Forum. He was actually there this semester. There was a revival on Ohio State's campus this summer in August when the football players returned. And the three Ohio State guys who were praying, they were key in what God was doing. They had baptisms, they preached the gospel this summer. It really set the stage for that moment in that game last week.

Scott: Well, what a sight. And it's so encouraging to see the effects of the gospel in those significantly countercultural moments where you are standing up and going against the grain. That's right. When the grain is 10 feet away from you and going out of control.

Erik: And I just want to say SMU is back, man.

Scott: My alma mater, gotta love that. They have finally recovered from the death penalty 35 years ago.

Erik: From your era. You must have been part of that.

Scott: Yeah, I did win a bet over their game last week.

Erik: Oh, nice.

Scott: All right. Here's another story that you sent to me. Although, you know, we don't need to tell anybody about where this was publicized. ‘Cause it was in every news outlet around the world. But President Biden pardons his son, Hunter. He had been convicted of tax evasion and lying about drug addiction on a gun permit application. Now, we are not going to get into a partisan debate over this. That everybody else is doing that. We don't we don't. I'd rather not. But Erik, you made you made some really important theological points that I confess I had not considered when I read this for the first time. So tell us about your reaction to this and why you wanted to say something about this theologically.

Erik: Well, I don't minimize it all, all the debates people are having about it and why it bothers a lot of people. The presidential pardon in general is a strange thing. I'm pretty aware that the history comes from royalty that just has the power to pardon people and doesn't even…

Scott: The king being the imperial presence.

Erik: Right, right. They don't need some justification for it or anything. And the presidential power is something they've had all along. And there are times it's actually powerful and a wonderful writing of wrongs. I was just two of Trump's pardons. One was Jack Johnson, the black boxer who was convicted of bringing a white woman across state lines with a racist law. And he pardoned him for that. That's I love that story. Right. He pardoned Susan B. Anthony for voting and being convicted of breaking that law. So that kind of stuff to me, there's something right about writing a previous wrong that a president has the power to do that I think makes us think, oh, there's something right about that sort of thing. I remember when Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon, even though he had broken the crimes, he didn't have sort of... How is that just? Well, Ford said, I want to help heal the nation. I want to get past this. And he thought that would be something it would do. People even talked about if Biden got elected, if he pardoned Trump for that sort of reason or vice versa. And so if he pardoned Hunter, if Trump got elected, so that can't happen now. But the whole pardon thing is fascinating to me. But what I was thinking about the whole time is, thank God, I've been pardoned by the King of Kings because of his righteousness and his sacrifice in my place. And so I thought about Barabbas and that Pilate has this pardoning ability. So all right, who do you want? Not because it's right or just or rights or wrong, but I'll just let you have whoever you want. And they didn't take Jesus, they took Barabbas and increased the injustice in some ways of that. But Jesus was wrongly convicted in that. And then I thought the prodigal son and coming home and getting that pardon that the big brother didn't want him to have. But I just would hope Christians in the midst of all the political stuff would think about just pardon in general. And that in the gospel, we get a pardon from a king that we didn't deserve. The big difference though is, it's not just sort of whatever, I don't really care. I'm not going to acknowledge the laws. God's righteousness is fulfilled in Christ. It's not that the penalty is ignored; it's paid in Jesus.

Scott: Right.

Erik: And so it's not some gratuitous cronyism that I'm just going to hook you up or act like I don't really care about justice. No, justice is satisfied in Jesus. And we get something we don't deserve because he paid the penalty. It's not that justice is ignored; it's fulfilled in him. And so I've just been appreciating the gospel deeper level with all this pardon talk.

Scott: Yeah, I can see where, I mean, there's a lot of criticism came to President Biden. And you pointed out that not every pardon is one of righting a wrong. There are lots of examples of cronyism in past presidential pardons that have been...

Erik: All of them.

Scott: That have been, or most of them, yeah. And I think people wonder, I think, understandably, about the fairness of pardons just along the way. But I would encourage our listeners, if you wonder too long about that, don't forget about the unfairness of the pardon you've received. And how undeserved that is.

Erik: It is amazing how we love to play the fairness game until we desperately need grace.

Scott: Yes. Another drop the mic moment. Here's another story that we want you to watch. And this has been all over the news as well. And the US Supreme Court this week heard arguments in a Tennessee case. It's a case that was challenging the state's current law that prohibits gender affirming treatments for minors under the age of 18. Things like hormone treatments, puberty blockers, and then other more extreme surgical measures. Now, Sean and I don't usually talk about Supreme Court decisions, cases until decisions are actually handed down. But this is going to be a long time, probably before this is handed down, probably not until next spring. But this one's pretty important. We want you to be aware of this, keep an eye on it for when the decision actually is handed down. So Erik, this is another one you sent to me. What specifically got your attention about this?

Erik: Well, this one is interesting because on one hand it's about parental rights, which Christians, especially in educational contexts, and in general are very for. Most Christians are very concerned about government overreach and these sorts of things and in dictating what parents should do and even how they educate their children. And so on one hand, Christians tend to be people who value parents and don't want the government doing their job for them. But this is a limit on parental rights when there's a perception that this child's rights are being violated by this parental decision in this way. And so again, it's one of those tensions between something we value, but also it boils down like a lot of these discussions to what a human is and how our sexuality fits into that. And I listened to some of the arguments yesterday, which are fascinating. You can listen to them. I encourage our listeners to listen just for the sheer joy of good logic and smart people arguing. It's a wonderful thing to listen to. And the arguments were being made comparing it to racial categories and some real troubling conclusions people were trying to draw from that. But this tension between parental rights, which we typically are really deeply concerned about, but at the same time valuing who someone is and the difference, say, between a boy who's having challenges who gets testosterone to help him through the natural process of puberty as opposed to someone potentially becoming infertile from medications they may get or are permanently damaged by that. And so limiting those parental rights in that situation was the fascinating tension to me.

Scott: Yeah. And I think we would both, I think, agree that parental rights are not absolute.

Erik: Right.

Scott: But it takes pretty compelling evidence, I think, to override a parent's wishes for their children because we assume that parents are acting in the best interest of their children. Now, we know that's not always the case. And I think when those actually genuinely do conflict, we do have the obligation, I think, to put the interests of children ahead of the rights of parents. One of the ways I've often put this, I'd be interested to hear your take on this, is that parental rights are governed by what I would call a child's right to an open future.

Erik: That's a great term.

Scott: A child's right to have as many options available for them to pursue with the gifts and calling that God has given them. Now, I think parents rightly want to preclude some options for their kids. But I think for the most part, if we see our kids as essentially a blank slate, obviously tarnished by original sin, but a blank slate in terms of the opportunities that are out there for them. My two oldest kids all did the sports thing. And we found out really early on that our third was just not wired that way. We had team sports, especially, were just not his thing. And so we put him on a stage and he just came alive. I remember the first time my wife ever took him to a stage show, it was a kid's show that he would sort of preview and whether he'd be involved in it. At the end he said, "Mom, thank you so much for bringing me here."

Erik: Oh, that's great.

Scott: It was just like, I'm home. All our kids are artists. It's not something we actively nurtured, but when it surfaced, we allowed that to flourish. And I think about on the other side of that, the kids who grew up as gymnasts and tennis players and things like that, with parents who pushed them too hard into those sports often get to the end of their playing time realizing how much of life that they've missed in the in-between time. And so I think we, that's, I think something that there's parental rights, yes, but there's a parental obligation to respect that child's right to an open future as best we can.

Erik: Yeah, as you're talking, I'm thinking of, we both have studied philosophy, you far more than I have, but you just think about the different ways even philosophers have thought about human nature, whether it's Locke or Hobbes and where that ends up if you just think, "Well, just let people do whatever they want and everything will be fine," or, "We really need to have serious limits on what people do." And that's why I love a Christian anthropology that acknowledges something wonderful about every human being being made in God's image, which would lead to a conclusion like you're saying, open up the opportunities for someone to flourish as God's made them to be. The other side of that is, well, I don't want my child to think any opportunity, even immoral, destructive ones are good ones, right? So that Christian anthropology drives this. And even you think about the way our government is with democracy, but with checks and balances, in raising children, you've seen parents who just assume the worst with their kids all the time, or only assume good with their kids and they're both disasters. It's so maintaining that Christian anthropology that recognizes something wonderful in the image of God, but also something that needs discipline and assuming a proneness to sin is a vital tension for us.

Scott: Yeah. I think recognizing, I think as well, that part of the development of a child too, into an adult, puberty is a big part of that. And I'd say most adolescents don't resolve their sexual identity once in a fraught until after puberty is over. And so it seems that some of these restrictions on these kinds of treatments and therapies, while people are still in puberty, would be appropriate to be limited as well as at least requiring some sort of mental health assessment. Because I think what we're learning is in many cases gender dysphoria is not the root cause. It's one of the outworkings of deeper mental health issues that we need to pay attention to.

Erik: Abigail Shrier's book, Irreversible Damage, she's not a Christian, but she's deeply concerned about even the social pressures toward sexual dysfunction and increasing the confusion as a social norm now is deeply troubling. And so I don't think sexuality in the Bible is confusing. But we sure are confused.

Scott: Yes.

Erik: So it's important for us to be a voice of clarity on all of this.

Scott: Hear, hear. All right. Anything else on that?

Erik: I don't think so.

Scott: I think just watch for when the decision comes down and watch for the rationale. All right. You want to help me answer some questions here?

Erik: Yeah.

Scott: We got some pretty good questions here.

Erik: We got smart listeners.

Scott: We do. And I think some of these are right up your alley as a, you know, as pastoring a church. So here's one of these. This is, I admit, I didn't, this is one I didn't see coming. This first one. It says, "I grew up in a pretty liberal Christian family. And I would definitely say that my parents are Christians, but they don't have a rich theological background or understanding. The deconstruction conversation is usually directed toward parents or youth leaders seeing their kids destruct, but I would love to hear more conversation about kids seeing their parents deconstruct. I don't think mine are entirely deconstructing, but I do see them slipping a bit into progressive Christianity. A major difference from the perspective of a kid worrying about their parents is that you have less authority to speak into their lives." I would really appreciate hearing your thoughts on this. You've seen this as a pastor with parents deconstructing their faith?

Erik: Yeah. Again, he's not sure about the word deconstructing for which I don't know if I've experienced that, but I have in my time as a prof working with amazing Christian young people and as a pastor frequently come across young people who have a deeper level of devotion to the Lord than parents do. And that's not surprising when the parents aren't Christians, but when they are, it makes it more difficult to figure out what does it mean for me to honor my parents as a Christian when at times that's hard to do and there can even be dishonorable. And yeah, and I think he's right. You don't have that kind of authority. That's why the church is so important because it's not the child's role primarily to move into pastoral role or elder role or calling someone out on theological compromise or devotional compromise. But sadly that is something I have seen a lot. And it's really challenging to try to walk into that, to be a voice of truth, but at the same time not violate the role you have as a child and not a parent.

Scott: Yeah. Erik, maybe my experience will help this listener because I grew up in a fairly liberal Presbyterian church and I never heard the gospel until I was 15 or so in young life in high school. And when I and my siblings came to faith in a relatively short time period, they wondered what on earth have you all gotten into? What is this? They never used the word cult, but I think that may be what they were wondering. What is this Jesus thing with you all? And they came to faith much later in life, I think predominantly as a result of our coming to faith. And they were involved in a great Bible teaching church for the duration. But those first few years they were pretty rocky because we were trying to explain to our folks what had happened in our lives. And we didn't really have much ammunition, that's a bad term. We didn't have much capital. Our reservoir of theological understanding was not particularly deep at the time. And I know we said some things that were unwise and insensitive and we were implying that my folks were not believers, not with the program. And so understandably they did not react very well to that. And it took a long time. It took being around the Young Life folks. And they finally sold on the fact that Young Life was a really good thing. And then I went to Dallas Seminary. They didn't know anything about that. They didn't know what is this outfit that he's going to. And then they came to one of Howard Hendricks classes with me and sat in on that. They were totally convinced that Dallas Seminary was okay. And then they didn't know about this West Coast place called Talbot. They weren't too sure about some of that as well. And they eventually came around. But I basically had to trust other people to bring them to faith. And my obligation, this is what I would tell our listener, my obligation was to live it out faithfully and consistently at home so that they could see that it was real. And once I did that, that's actually what spoke to them more loudly than any other thing I could tell them. And we left it up to, basically left it up to other people to tell them what they needed to hear.

Erik: Yeah. And to speak prophetically into your parents' life when they had changed your diapers is a very challenging thing to do and you need help. And I love when people come alongside and join me in that sort of effort and in an answer to prayer. And I seek to be that kind of answer to prayer in other people too that I can't assume because they have a strong Christian in their family that they don't need my help in speaking truth.

Scott: Well, I hope this is helpful to our listener. I'd encourage you to write it in again if you want to hear more about this.

Erik: Yeah. And the last thing I'd say, I think is we tend to get into political and ethical debates with folks when I think what you were saying is huge, that our treasuring of Jesus needs to be what hopefully people see more than anything else.

Scott: Well, and I'd like to think, my dad's home with the Lord now, I think my mom's still living. I think they would say that how we lived it out had something to do with that. At least maybe it covered up all the insensitive things we said to them initially.

Erik: Gotta love the zeal of a new believer.

Scott: Hear, hear. But you know, preference zeal with knowledge. All right, here's another one, Erik. I think this is right up your alley too. I'm a former pastor, and by the way, I'll say this, this former pastor had a lot of nice things to say about the podcast, which we really appreciate. Who recently moved from church ministry to the world of Christian K through 12 education. “I love what God is doing through Christian schools, but I'm still trying to navigate this new calling. I've been particularly wrestling with how to distinguish a Christian school from the church. On a recent cultural update, when discussing the Bible being taught in public schools, Sean referenced his journey of navigating the issue of church versus school distinctives and roles. I would love to hear more on this issue as I feel that Christian schools and local churches should support one another while staying in their respective lanes. How would you define the different roles of Christian schools and local churches?” I mean, particularly, I think you hit the jackpot today with Erik being with us because he is both a professor in a Christian school and a pastor in a local church, which is in the same community as the Christian school.

Erik: Which I absolutely love and I love that overlap and I see them as incredibly helpful in working together. But I must say, even though I love my role here at 911������, my local church is the place where my primary authority is. I mean, Scott's one of my bosses and I answer to him and submit to his leadership. But my spiritual authority, my actual personal authority is in the elders of my local church. And I think that's a helpful place to start that local church authority is the only place that exists the way it does, that can carry out church discipline if need be. That can actually say you're not welcome to the Lord's supper. I mean, 911������ doesn't have the authority to do that sort of thing. We have authority structures, but not like the local church, which is what Jesus is talking about when he talks about the keys of the kingdom being exercised in that sort of way. And so church authority, but the reformers said the true signs of the true church are the authoritative preaching of the word, the right administration of sacraments and the carrying out of church discipline. And that sort of thing where a group of people raise their hand and say, "We are the church." And that means all the responsibilities, all the authority that the church has comes with that. That means sending missionaries. It means caring for the poor. It means carrying out church discipline. It means preaching the word in the way we do. It means disciple making holistically. A place like 911������ or a Christian school is a para church organization. It comes alongside the local church to encourage and equip people to serve primarily in that context. And it's a very narrow slice of what the church is. And that's why I say to my students, please, when you go to your local church, first of all, go. And second of all, don't hang out with all the other 19 year olds because you'll pool your ignorance and you'll just let the old people get more and more cranky.

Scott: (Laughing) Don't sugarcoat it there, right?

Erik: That's right. And go because you need the broader body of Christ. And what happens sometimes, I'll see my students, they'll think, "Ah, Christianity is kind of cheesy." And I say to them, "Well, if the only version you get is the 19 year old version, that's pretty cheesy." But if you have the broad body of Christ represented with folks in their 80s and 90s and little kids and folks with disabilities and people who could never get into 911������ or pay for 911������, then you're not getting the broad rich experience that the local church should be. And so everything about the local church that takes on all of those responsibilities and privileges is a para church organization, whether it's Gideons or any group that has a more narrowly defined goal. And our job is to help equip the local. That's why I love preaching in a place like Hume Lake and Forest Home, because they clearly say, "We're here to help the local church. We're not here to take over for the local church." And the problem is, is college and camps, it's exciting, it's an adrenaline, but it's not real long haul life like local churches where people annoy you for years sometimes.

Scott: (Laughing) That's right. Yeah. And it's typically not multicultural, it's not multi-generational, which is so valuable. You're so right to point that out. Schools have a specifically educational mission. And that mission is slightly different than what's in the local church. We aim to disciple our students, but we're also preparing them for life in the world after they graduate from college and preparing them to have an occupation and to fulfill their calling.

Erik: Yeah. It's fascinating. As one of the elders at my church, sometimes I'll have students from my church in class and I'll say to my students, "You know what? I don't really have any spiritual authority over interview, except for you five over there who are part of my church." (Laughter). They're all like nodding, "Yeah, I know, I know." And so it is an interesting dynamic to be in both places like that.

Scott: Yeah. Well, I hope that's helpful to our listener. I think we'll keep you in our prayers as he navigates that tension between what the school can and should do and what the local church is about. So appreciate your perspective both as a professor and a pastor on that. Super helpful. So thank you for being with us. A lot of these conversations, we go on for a long time, but we're out of time for today. I really appreciate you weighing in on these subjects and for the stories you sent along. They're great stories. And thank you for helping us Think Biblically about the issues of the day.

Erik: Thanks, Scott. I love it.

Scott: This has been an episode of the weekly cultural update of the Think Biblically podcast, Conversations on Faith and Culture, brought to you by Talbot School of Theology at 911������ University, offering more programs in Southern California and online than we know what to do with. We have more stuff in Bible and theology, apologetics, philosophy, Old and New Testament, theology, pastoral ministry, marriage and family therapy. We got more. Visit biola.edu/talbot in order to learn more. If you'd like to submit comments, ask questions, or make suggestions on issues you'd like us to cover or guests you'd like us to consider, please email us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu. If you enjoyed today's conversation, please give us a rating on your podcast app, and please share it with a friend. Thanks so much for listening and remember in the meantime, think biblically about everything.