911������

Topics this week include:

• Reflecting on , focusing on maintaining relationships amidst .
• Discussion of a recent exploring the challenges and necessity of unity within the church despite diverse political beliefs.
• Insights on balancing truth and grace in conversations, especially when discussing sensitive issues like abortion or differing political opinions.
• Analysis of a controversial U.S. startup offering , raising ethical questions around genetic enhancement.
• Addressing listener questions about intrauterine devices (IUDs) and their effects, as well as guidance for teaching about the Bible’s reliability to young students.

Episode Transcript

Scott: How can we live with one another post-election? This is perhaps one of the most important questions Christians can wrestle with today. How can we think biblically about our polarized, over-politicized cultural moment in which relationships are being broken by how people voted? And yes, the world goes on after elections, so we will discuss an important and disconcerting story that came out this week about a U.S. startup that screens embryos for IQ. And of course, we'll take 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, it has been quite the week, emotionally, intellectually, one that you and I and our listeners will probably remember for the rest of our lives. Our hope here, as always, is just to maybe give some biblical reflections to help people think through post-election how we process this.

Scott: I think you say too, we don't care that much about how you voted. That's not going to be the point of this, but we do want to talk about how we move forward in terms of faithfulness to Christ and to the gospel in our politicized particular political context.

Sean: Amen. So if you want further post-election analysis on the results, you're going to have to go elsewhere. That's not our lane. All right, will you send me this piece, which I thought was really interesting, Scott, by Bonnie Kristian, who's been on our program before. She has a fascinating book on kind of celebrity culture in the Christian world. It's called After This Election, How Do We Live With One Another? And she says, "This is a question all of us need to ask, but especially people of faith, and even those who live in a more politically homogenous area." And her point is, if you live in a politically homogenous area, you're still online and there's still people around you. You see the world differently. How do we live with one another? Now she frames it by saying that the wish for depolarization will probably go unfulfilled in the foreseeable future. Now our culture has been more polarized, America at least has been, maybe the Civil War, going back to Vietnam, but this is not going to change in any foreseeable future. But second, this shouldn't be cause for despair. Now she does say, "There are lines across which a fellow Christian's politics would lead me to question her faith and whether we ought to go to church together." She says, "There are lines where we ought to draw." But she pushes back and says, Maybe we've been too quick to draw those lines and not extend some grace to other people who vote and see these issues differently for the sake of unity within the church. That's kind of the argument she's making. She says, "For example, I understand why disagreement over an issue like abortion feels like a good reason to end a friendship. It's a matter of life and death from any standpoint. I get it." But then she talks about her beliefs, her Christian beliefs in which she is against violence of any kind being brought on by a Christian. And she says, "This is a serious issue of life and death." And if she's right, the vast majority of the church has been wrong on issues like war because she's a pacifist. So a ton is at stake for her, but she also realizes it's really important that we look at unity beyond some of these differences. She dropped one point that I thought was really helpful. I think about this a lot. Is she cites C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity where he takes up the mystery of Christian behavior and somebody says, "If Christianity is true, why are not all Christians obviously nicer than non-Christians?" And you know, it's an interesting question. He says, "Our standards shouldn't be Christians versus non-Christians, but it should be Christian A versus where Christian A was earlier in his or her life." And especially if Christianity, you have to humble yourself and recognize you're a sinner. Maybe Christianity invites more broken people that have areas where they need significant growth. So we should be careful to judge people practically and theologically where they're at when we don't know their backstory. I thought that was just helpful to bring to this. She says, "In our family and friendships, we must love each other deeply." As the apostle Peter said, "Because love covers a multitude of sins." I do appreciate she says here, she says, "This doesn't mean we never confront wrongdoing or wrong thinking," but I love this quote. She says, "It means weighing what's worth the confrontation and what can be left covered." That's a wise question. Now she doesn't draw it out in this article, Scott. Maybe you and I will. It looks very differently with family than non-family. Work with non-work, Christian with the non-Christian. Where we draw those lines and what we risk, all those factors have to be kept in play to do so wisely. But she says, "Sometimes just the way we communicate is significant." So if somebody says, "I don't like that we argue so much," that's probably going to land better than, "Here's why I think your politics are bad." Like obvious point, but it's so true that that's a better way to communicate with somebody. And then at the end, her point is she says, "Well, never let love override truth. We must prioritize truth." But she's talking about the lengths that we go to to be gracious and kind and understand people in a spirit of love. Now a lot more is in this article, some things I want to pull out, but you send this to me. Do you find it helpful? Do you push back in certain areas? Give us your thoughts.

Scott: Well, I found it really helpful. And I think for just two fairly obvious observations follow from this, we have to talk about how to live with one another because roughly half the people in the country voted differently than you did and probably out of very strong convictions. And the other thing is I think for some people, this is probably not an issue. And the reason for that is because they probably don't have friends who think differently than they do, or at least you just don't go there with people who you know you disagree with. For the sake of peace, you just don't even go down that road to begin with. Now I think both of those can be problematic. If you don't have anybody in your life who disagrees with you about hardly anything, I think you may need to be a little bit more diverse in your friendships…

Sean: Agreed.

Scott: …and seek out some people who do think a little differently because I, for myself, I don't want to go through my life living in an echo chamber because there's a big world out there that thinks differently on a lot of things. And that's, by the way, the world that we're called to reach as believers. I think the other thing I would suggest is sort of the first step in this, how to live with one another. If you're candidate one this week, there's no place for dancing in the end zone, football speaking. No place for spiking the football after you've scored a touchdown. And be aware that half the country thought differently. Be sensitive to that. I think if your candidate lost, don't despair. You may feel like there's work to do, but God is still sovereign. He has not left his throne because of the results of any particular election. So that I thought was really helpful. Lewis’s point that you raised, Sean, I think is also, let me raise a different point that she made from Lewis on this that I found particularly helpful. Lewis reflects on politics specifically. He said, what can you ever really know of other people's souls? Of their temptations, their opportunities, their struggles. And as a result, we give them grace and seek for it yourself. Now, Lewis here was speaking of behavior, not so much thinking, but we have an obligation to conform our thinking to the truth just as we have an obligation to be kind and be gentle. When we believe ourselves to be correct and others in error, I think we need to remember how little we know about their souls, their temptations, their opportunities, and their struggles and how likely it is that we too might have serious mistakes that are lurking undiscovered in our own mind. That's the way she puts it, I think is particularly helpful. This I think reflects what the Bible teaches from 1 Peter 3:15 about being always ready to make a defense for the hope that's within you. I think that refers to more than just the gospel. It refers to the hope that we have some of the things that are outworkings of the gospel as well, but to do so with gentleness and respect. And it seems to me in our political discourse, those two things have gone out the window pretty quickly. And there's the way I put it too, regardless of which side of the political divide you find yourself on, that having strong convictions doesn't give you the license to be a jerk about how you express them. Because how you represent your convictions is a moral issue too. And I think what Bonnie's right about this is the moral life is not necessarily the combative life. I like the way she puts that. Now there's a place to be combative. When people bring a point to you with some horseradish on it, I think it's okay to return that with some horseradish too, to return strong convictions with strong convictions, but always doing that with respect, not with condescension, not with this thinking of you must be an idiot if you believe such and such. Because usually there's a backstory as we've talked about before behind people's strong convictions about a whole host of issues. And so exploring that backstory I think is really helpful. Tell me why you are so passionate about this. Because it seems like it's not just another political view for you. I think it's some of the questions that we want to be asking folks. So I thought she had some really, really helpful things. You know, she says, if you take these things seriously over abortion, immigration, things like that, that the moral life will be a combative life. And if you're true to your convictions, you will end friendships, ostracize family, change churches and jobs and disagree it becomes too great. There may be some places where that crosses the line. But I suspect that for most people who name the name of Jesus, that may be too strong. But I think there are some people who would leave their church before they would leave some of their political views. And I'm not so sure that would always be justified. Now, there are certain churches you want to leave over your theological views. But some of the political views, I think, may be a little bit different. Some of these places where the Bible may not speak directly or address the issue directly, where we make inferences from scripture and have really strong convictions based on that. Those may be some of the things where we want to be a bit more tentative and hold our convictions a bit more loosely with the realization that we might be wrong about this. And I think for some people, I think we would say, sometimes wrong, but never in doubt is how they would characterize themselves. And I think I probably want to take that a little bit differently. Your comments on that?

Sean: Yeah, those are great takes from this article. One thing that jumped out to me, I'd love to know what you think about this, is she does make the point that there is a time, like you said, to break relationship. There's a time to break fellowship. And then she leans in and says, "I understand why disagreements over an issue like abortion feels like a good reason to end a relationship. It's a matter of life and death from any standpoint. I get it." Now, for me, that's interesting. There's a big difference between saying a Christian and a non-Christian breaking fellowship over something like abortion, to use her example from this article, and saying a church that teaches it that abortion is fine or pro-choice, I shouldn't leave. Those are very, very different questions.

Scott: Completely different.

Sean: And sometimes we don't separate those. So Tim Muehlhoff, our friend who I wrote a whole book on cancel culture with, sent me an article this morning, and he drew it to my attention, a tweet from Christina Applegate. Now, she's a famous actress, well-known, who not long ago came down with, she announced publicly that she has multiple sclerosis. And from what I saw, which is some real anger at God that this happened to her. And she sent out a tweet and said, "Please unfollow me if you voted against female rights, disability rights. Yeah, that. Unfollow me because what you did is unreal." I saw that and thought, wow, I don't think a Christian should break fellowship or friendship with a non-Christian like her over difference on this. I think we should lean in relationally and try to be present to the hurt and pain that she's gone through. There's an article in USA Today about how she reached out to somebody else who had breast cancer and cared for her. And I thought, "Where are the Christians in Christina's life?" And they may be there, I have no idea. Where there's obviously hurt behind this, for any Christian to say, you know, to cancel her because she has another view seems ludicrous to me. Now, we can't stop if she's going to cancel somebody for voting differently. But my suspicion is, is if you know somebody personally who votes differently, and you've listened to them and you hear their backstory, you might and should have as firm of convictions as you would otherwise, rooted in scripture and thought and ethics. But you're going to talk about the issue differently. You might be less likely to cancel somebody if there's a relationship that is there. So I just want to invite our audience to make that distinction between what issues churches should die on. And again, since it's the issue she brought up, life is one of those issues. I would not go to a church that said, "This is an issue we can agree to disagree on." But a friendship with a non-Christian? I hope and pray we are intentionally doing that and not canceling them for voting differently. Now's the time to lean in more rather than to pull back.

Scott: I would say that's true also for relationships with our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. Because if the goal, Sean, as we've talked about repeatedly, if the goal is to win a person, not necessarily win an argument, then breaking relationships is like the equivalent of shooting ourselves in the foot. And I don't have any intention to break friendship, to break relationship with somebody who thinks differently even on really important issues. Now, whether it's a church, I agree. That's completely different. And I think I would definitely not be attending a church who believed that abortion was something we could agree to disagree about. There are a handful of other issues that I would say that crosses the line as well. So I think that's a really helpful distinction. But I think what we want to be known for is reaching beyond our disagreements and being able to maintain a relationship while at the same time being clear about the places where we disagree. That's really important. And I love what our friend Dennis Prager says about this, that clarity for him is more important than agreement. And I think that's right. And so I don't want somebody to have continued a relationship with me under a false pretense thinking that I hold to something that I actually don't. That's not doing either of us any favors. So I think there's wisdom, I think, in maintaining relationship with someone as far as it depends on us. And I think that's very clear as far as it depends on you, be at peace with your neighbors and recognizing that sometimes it doesn't depend on you. And that's something that in a fallen world we have to live with.

Sean: That's well said. I'm going to draw our attention back to, she says, "It doesn't mean it's never wrong to confront wrongdoing or wrong thinking, but it does mean weighing what's worth the confrontation and what can be left covered. Because love covers a multitude of sins." That's the right question. I don't always have the answer to that, Scott. Some of the most common questions people ask me are about how do I balance grace and truth with my kids? How do I balance it in the classroom? How do I balance it? And partly I say, I don't always know the answer to this. We're going to have to live in that tension. And if we're not living at that tension, trying to balance the value of the relationship with speaking truth, then probably we're erring on one side too far than the other. We're speaking truth too much, not weighing the cost of the relationship, or we're not willing to speak truth enough and valuing the relationship apart from the truth that sets free. We're in a moment now, we're going to live in this messiness, and her calling us to ask that and weigh specifically what's worth confrontation, what can be covered, I think that's where we need to rest. Now I've got a few other thoughts here, but one of the strengths of the Christian worldview is that there's a range of different philosophies we can take on political engagement. Throughout the history of the church, some people would say, "Why are there so many denominations and so many differences?" And I actually see it differently. I say, "Amidst some of the essentials of the faith, there's a free range of differences that we can have with other Christians." That's a strength, I think not a weakness. I'm less concerned, although to me political engagement and political philosophy matters a lot. I'm as concerned, if not more concerned, with how we treat other Christians who view these issues differently. So someone asked me this week, "Should Christians vote?" I gave my answer. And Scott, I'm an apologist and I'm an evangelist. That's my lane. I don't speak to telling people how I think they should vote. That's not my calling. Other Christians do that. There's some professors at 911������ that speak more to that. But I've thought about this a lot, maybe it's influenced by my father who was and still is with Campus Crusade for Christ. I'm just an evangelist first. That's my calling. So I gave my answer and somebody commented on YouTube and just said, "What a weak, kind of unmanly response," and just insulted me. I realized it's just a comment online, I don't want to get too lost in that. But I thought how quick this person is to judge, how quick this person is to insult without thought about, you know, we're going to be held account for the words that we use and the lack of charity towards other Christians. I just want to give pause and say, disagree, debate, know your stuff, tell people they're wrong. But the spirit in which we do it, that matters profoundly in our polarized age. I don't know that as I see many Christians online, we do that in a way that is distinct from our culture.

Scott: Well I think it's a long-held maxim that people will not care so much about what you have to say until they know how much you care about them. If we start off being jerks, nobody's going to hear anything that we have to say. And so that's what disturbs me a bit so much about our polarization, is that good reasons and strong rationale seems to have gone out the window because somebody will identify their position and then it eventually, pretty quickly, devolves into name-calling and ad hominem arguments and how can you believe a position like that as opposed to really engaging someone at the level of good reasons and rationale. The other thing I suggest on this is that, I mean, I'm right with you, it matters a lot to me how we engage people who disagree with us. But I think it also matters how we derive our political views from scripture because there's a lot that the Bible gives us, which for training in righteousness, like the 2 and 316 suggests, but there's a lot that the Bible doesn't give us in terms of public policy and political positions. Remember the political world of biblical times could not have been more different than the multi-party vibrant democracy that we have today in most of the Western world. It's totally different and the Bible was not written to a democratic culture. The Bible was written in the midst of, in the Old Testament, in a theocracy where the law of God was the law of the land, which we're no longer under today. New Testament was written in the midst of Roman tyranny, which makes, I think, some of the worst dictators around the world maybe look rather tame by comparison. And so I think asking the Bible to speak to things that it doesn't directly address is, I think, a major hermeneutical error that we need to avoid making. And I think there are lots of things the Bible speaks to, directly addresses, but things like what our specific immigration policy should be. The Bible speaks to broad general principles, but not to specific policies on hardly anything. And so I think that we can have legitimate disagreement on how we apply the broad general principles that the scripture gives us, or the ends of a particular public policy, but we can have a lot of room for discussion about what the best means are to accomplish those. And I think sometimes we equate, or we put biblical authority on the means as well as the ends. And I think that, in most cases, I think that's a hermeneutical mistake. Now I'm sure there are exceptions to that, but as a general rule, the Bible doesn't give us the kinds of specifics that we would want about what our public policy should be on hardly anything. I mean, the Bible gives us a moral position on abortion and assisted suicide. It gives us quite a bit less on what the law should be regarding those two things. And I don't want to assume that just because the Bible takes a moral stand that we can automatically deduce what the law should be. And now in some cases, the law should be involved, but that takes an additional argument from simply the fact that the Bible has a moral position on it. So I just want to be clear about how we derive our political views and what the Bible does give and doesn't give us in respect to those.

Sean: That's helpful. So the basic difference in people's minds is that the moral position a Christian holds say about the value of life. Scripture is clear about that. But that was written 2000 years ago, not in a modern day democracy. And of course, you're electing people for a state position, a government position, a presidential position, a judge. How that life, that value for life then translates to law is another step and an additional argument that needs to be made that the scripture in itself doesn't answer. That's the only distinction that you're drawing out for people to see. Is that fair?

Scott: Well, yeah, maybe another one too that would be helpful. The political arena is not the church. The political arena by definition is the realm of negotiation and sometimes compromise and settling for limited objectives in a fallen world. And so we don't have the option of leaving the political arena when it comes to public policy. And so I don't think we should not expect the same kind of moral purity in the political arena that we have in the local church. And I would say to the folks who are considering more involvement in the political arena, if you don't have the stomach for at times settling for limited objectives as the best you can get in a fallen world, then don't enter that arena in the first place.

Sean: Fair enough. That's helpful. Good stuff. There was another article that you sent to me. Did you want to pull out some stuff from that article and kind of unpack it?

Scott: Yes. This is again from the dispatch, the same place that the first article came from. What if your candidate loses? Obviously written a day or two before the election. And I think in general, I think it's okay to be disappointed if your candidate lost. I think to despair, I'd say maybe not so much. Think hard about despairing. And one of the things that came out to me is it was highlighted that there are a number of people who, some well-known celebrities who have suggested if the election didn't go their way, they were going to move to another country.

Sean: Which is nothing new.

Scott: Yeah. But the reality is virtually everyone who says that out loud never does it.

Sean: Right.

Scott: And if they do, they go with their American passport held firmly in hand so that they can come back if necessary. But what really stood out to me in this piece is the quote from a person who had one particular political angle on this. Sean, I'm interested to hear what you make of this statement where this person says, quote, "I think President Trump was chosen by God to fight this fight for us." Now, I'm interested to hear your take and particularly, would you say the same thing if a different candidate had won?

Sean: So that gives me real pause. The way that's stated is this person knows whom God has selected. And we should put our stamp on that candidate because this person believes God has selected them. That gives me pause with any candidate. Now, of course, God is sovereign and he's working the heart of the king, the direction he wants to move the heart of the king. He's going to move our country and move individuals where he needs to do so according to his sovereign plan. But that just gives me pause and gives me concern that someone claims to know that with such certainty. Now, I suspect this person would argue, well, the difference in candidates is Trump moves his head at the last moment, would have gotten assassinated and there was a second one. Like pointing to certain things that this person would probably argue are miraculous. I'm still not convinced that tells us we know this is God's man for this moment. Through those things alone. I think what Christians have to do is just look at the platforms of both candidates, where their positions are, where they're going to vote, their record, their character, a whole bunch of different things. And then after doing their homework and their conscience before the Lord, vote according to what they think is best for America. I think that's a much more biblical way to approach this than assume to know. So yeah, I guess it gives me pause Scott and it concerns me that someone says that with such confidence about any candidate because then biblical discernment can start flying out the window where we don't look at issues and all sorts of things according to biblical standard and then just start to follow what anybody, whoever that leader might say without discernment. I think that's where I would have some pause. So do you have the same pause? Do you reject it? What's your take on that?

Scott: I do. That makes me a little nervous and I think you're right. The degree of certainty with which that conviction is held is a little bit troubling because I think you're absolutely right that the kind of discernment that we need in the areas that you describe does tend to be minimized if that's the case. And I think we've said this numerous times. It's a good place, I think, to remind our listeners of this, that no political agenda or political platform or political candidate is going to be perfect. Nobody's going to meet all the specifications. Not even the kings in the Old Testament met all those specifications. And I think there's a sense in which the Old Testament kings were chosen directly by God in a sense that's different, far different than today. But the no political agenda or platform was designed with biblical faithfulness as its goal. No candidate I'm aware of that's out there makes all their decisions based on biblical faithfulness. So there's a degree of pragmatism that I think places can be morally neutral. So there's a lot of different things that go into the mix on this. But I think in fact, no candidate is going to be ideal. And we have to look with discernment upon both character and policies. Now how you weigh those I think can be a point of discussion. But I think to take both of those things into account, I think is really important. And here's Sean, I think the bigger issue on this is that politics is not ultimate in God's economy. God's kingdom is what's ultimate. And no political candidate is going to be a savior. Last time I checked there was only one of those. And he died 2000 years ago and was raised from the dead and is still living today. And I think the only way a country gets saved is by spiritual renewal that politics is incapable of bringing about. And that's why I suspect you're a lot like me on this. I'm pretty sanguine about election results. I tend not to get overly excited or overly depressed about the outcomes. So traditionally that's been my stance. And I think we have to recognize that God's kingdom does not depend on the flourishing of any particular country. We're not a theocracy like Old Testament Israel was. And God's kingdom transcends political affiliation. It transcends national identity. We've said before, I am a citizen of God's kingdom first, an American second, and then third is my political affiliation. And to take it in that order. So I think that's the bigger element to this. And I think people who are looking for political candidates to save the country, I think are looking in the wrong direction.

Sean: Again, well said. Back to your point before, here's what I think gives me pause. When I hear pastors say, "Look, this isn't me speaking. This is God speaking." I kind of go, "Ooh, you just set yourself up as the divine authority." And not just pastors, speakers can do this. I'm sure professors can do this. Now if you just read the gospel of Mark and say, "This is God speaking," fine. But the moment you start to interpret it and you say, "This is God speaking," there's somewhat of a power play. That's what concerns me about saying, "This is God's man or woman, whoever it may be." That has nothing to do with the person of Trump in principle. When somebody sets them up that way, barring clear divine revelation, then it concerns me. That's how discernment can go out. So I'm sure that person's well-meaning, but I think those of us with biblical discernment should have some pause and call a timeout on that one. Now as your perspective on this, my pastor, I took a picture of it, go to a church in Southern Orange County, and he's a Talbot grad and just such a wonderful, I think, balance of politics. And he said this, so this was last Sunday. He said, "After Tuesday, we may experience the thrill of victory or the agony of defeat, but it will not change the fact that we are exiles in America, away from our heavenly home. Our job remains the same. Multiply disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ and work towards the peace and prosperity of our location." From of course, Jeremiah. "Keep on praying to the Lord for it because it's where we are called to flourish by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ no matter what. Politics matter, elections have consequences. But our greatest task, every single one of us, is to make disciples. To make disciples." And that hasn't changed one bit after this election. Now one more thing I'd throw in here, Scott, that I've been thinking about is you mentioned back at the beginning, I forget how you phrase it, but something effective like, "Don't dance on the grave of your opponent." Like no over-triumphalism on this. I actually would invite Christians at this stage, now that the elections are done, to do some soul-searching and ask if there's ways that we need to repent during this election season. Now there could be a lot of things that could come up from this. Maybe we turn politics into an idol and it dominated our thinking, it dominated our emotions, it pulled us away from trusting God. That's possible. Maybe we had certain conversations or made comments to people. Conversations that are not helpful. For some reason I was thinking about it this week, and 20 years ago in the 2004 election, Scott, it was the Kerry Bush elections. And my neighbor had a sticker on his car of the candidate he was voting for. And when it was done, his candidate lost. And I made a statement to him. It was intended to be just kind of fun poking, but later I thought of it, I was like, "You know what, I think it was more than that. It was a little bit of a jab at him. Probably given that he had a sticker on his car, this meant a lot to him. And he was probably not feeling good at this moment." And I kind of threw out that comment. And it just got me thinking, if there's any of our listeners right now, if we've said stuff or not said stuff or just haven't acted in a Christ-like fashion, I think this is a great chance to hit pause and repent of that. Go make those relationships right. If it's just a small comment, maybe just a text is okay. I don't know. Oftentimes it's better face to face. But 99% plus of people will appreciate that. You'll gain more respect in their eyes. And it's just a Christ-like thing to do. Family, friends, coworkers, this is a chance whether your man won or your woman lost, whatever it is, wherever you stand on this, maybe we as Christians could take stock and just repent of times we haven't acted in a Christ-like fashion during this and make those relationships right. And I think about when Jesus talks about, don't even go to the altar. If a brother has something against you, that's a really powerful reminder for Christians. So let's repent and get our lives right and move forward.

Scott: Well, that's a let's close in prayer moment. That's a great word on that. And hopefully our listeners will do some of that soul searching. And that's a good word for myself as well. And particularly because the person you cited 20 years ago, he was going to have a pretty difficult time taking that bumper sticker off his car. That's not going to come off easily.

Sean: It lasted a long time. I actually remember that now.

Scott: Hey, before we leave this subject to the election, let me just, I like to read some reflections. My wife and I attend an Anglican church and we have a bishop who is over our denomination and he's had some reflections on the election. I thought were really helpful and very pastoral on this. So he put it like this, “We all woke up this morning in a specific political context. No matter who won the presidency or majority of Congress, half of America would have been worried about our future, scared of worst case scenarios that we replay in our imagination. Is there a way for the kingdom to come in America in the aftermath of the loss and grief that half the church feels while the other half celebrate?” And he says, he says the title of the piece was Yesterday We Gave to Caesar the Future we Give to God. And he says, “what is God's, what is God's is our heart and calling to be ambassadors of his kingdom. Our true and lasting home is somewhere else and our true leader is someone else. But the stability of our home and our father allows us to be unwavering agents of his kingdom in an unstable time.” He closes the piece with this. “I will get up tomorrow, not in the midst of winners and losers, but in the midst of human beings created in the image of God, people I am called to love regardless of any difference or diversity. I want to be like Jesus to have meals with all manner of people and as need requires, serve them in Jesus name.” I thought that's my goal moving forward.

Sean: I love it. Thanks. Thanks for reading that. What just wisdom and perspective that was shared. I think that's great, Scott. Good stuff. Well, you and I were kind of discussing, debating if we wanted to share this next story or not. And the reason I want to is because things have been so dominated by politics and yet the world has gone on and continues to go on. And if your person one or lost, if it lost, you can't give up and go, "Well, we lost the country. I'm done." If your person one, you can't say, "Well, we won," and not keep moving forward, advancing what we think is a Christian case and Christian understanding. This story, I mean, I don't know what to do with this, but this is right in your lane of bioethics where this US startup screens embryos for higher IQ. And here's essentially what it said that a US startup company is offering wealthy couples the chance to screen their embryos for IQ. It's raising huge ethical questions about genetic enhancement. And according to secret video footage, the company Heliospect Genomics has already worked with more than 12 couples doing IVF. They market its services for up to $50,000 and they've worked that this was for clients seeking to test 100 embryos. And they claim that they can get results of six IQ points or higher. I guess this is, it's based in the UK, but they cannot, they have stricture laws in the UK, but it's legal in the US where embryology is less regulated. During secret meetings, the team showed couples could rank their embryos based on traits like IQ, height, obesity risk, mental illness risk. One of the senior staff who's defended, he calls this liberal eugenics. And this suggests that parents should be free to use technology to improve their children's prospects. Holy cow. What do you make of this? What is going on here, Scott?

Scott: Well, in fact, Sean, some people who support this actually will say that we have, that couples have a moral obligation to do this kind of screening. So much for accepting some of the givens of life as grateful recipients receiving it from the hand of God. Yeah, I think screening for IQ, I think may be more complex than this article is leading on because there's no, as far as I'm aware, there's no single gene link to intelligence. It's the interplay of a number of genes sort of working together that create intelligence. And the aptitude is one thing, but developing that, just because you have the genetic component for it doesn't mean that you will actually end up being an intelligent person. That's something that's, those are traits that have to be nurtured as well. So I think what I would suggest is this is a, we're a step closer to designer children, things that I remember saying in classes when you were a student that will never happen in our lifetime. And this, you know, just so people are aware, I do have the capacity to say I was wrong, that I was clearly wrong about that. But it comes at a really high cost because what happens to those, say those hundred embryos, what happens to those that are screened out for slightly lower intelligence? So, you know, six IQ points or more, you know, that, you know, for one, that's not much margin to spend $50,000 to ensure. But what's going to happen to those otherwise normal embryos that are being screened out for having slightly lower genetic inclinations toward intelligence? That's a lot of normal human beings, normal human persons who are going to be discarded simply because they don't meet the specifications of the parents. That's a scary thought to me. And that's different than discarding embryos that have genetic diseases. Now, I'm not for that either, but these are perfectly normal, genetically speaking, human embryos. And some of the things that they cite are risks that they are identifying, not links, right? Because, John, many genetic factors don't give you a specific certainty that you will develop whatever the trait it is. They just give you risks or prospects, probabilities of seeing those actually work out in the bodily and mental characteristics of a child. So this is a really sizable cost to this, not just financially for the couple who's got to do IVF to begin with. And you can add probably another 20 to 30 grand on top of the 50 for the screening part. So this is, I think, getting us a step closer to a world that I think is going to make it tougher and tougher to accept children for who they are with their flaws and limitations and make it, I think, harder for parents to parent children with the kind of unconditional love that's required for children to flourish. And it's as though parents are saying to their children in embryonic form, "We will love you and accept you as long as you meet these certain characteristics or as long as you meet these certain genetic traits," of course, of which the child has no control over. So I think it actually could have the effect of impacting the way we parent our children. Because our children are not...we don't have our children for our fulfillment, ultimately. And anybody who's been a parent of young children, I think, knows how true that is. Because once you start to have children, the things that matter most to you, they change radically. And the things that you thought were most important go down sort of to the bottom of the priority list. So the other thing I wonder, Sean, this is sort of speculating out there, but what would happen with these parents if they don't get the things that they're designing their children for genetically? Would they actually come back and sue the screeners for not doing their job? I'm reasonably sure that that will happen at some point. So this I find really troubling. It's one thing to screen for genetic abnormalities. It's another to screen for things that we would be enhancing otherwise normal traits in our children.

Sean: I think that's well said. Can you imagine the kid doesn't get into Princeton or the kid doesn't do as well on the SATs as the parents want? And the thought in the mind of the parents is, "I spent $80,000 on your creation, and you're not doing better on the SAT. What's the matter with you?" Of course that's going to come to their mind. Of course it is. So it really turns, rather than what parents, the way God designed it, you and I have talked about this, we don't get to pick our kids. Our job is to love them for who God gives us, and that's best for our kids, and that changes us. We have to learn to go, "Wait a minute. These are my expectations for my kids. This is not fair. I want them to be the person God has designed them to be." This does the opposite of this. This says, "Wait a minute. I get to design my kid for the result that I want." And so the pressure that puts on a kid and the way it turns a person into a thing that you use to get an outcome is so dehumanizing and unfair. Can you imagine being that kid and finding out, "Wow, parents spent this amount of money, so I would be smarter or taller?" That tells the kid, "I don't love you because of who you are. I love you because of something you do, some way that you function." So I think downstream it's just devastating. I can't believe, I thought it was a joke, that they said the term liberal eugenics is accepted in the field of bioethics. Have we lost our minds that anything tied to eugenics should not be? But these ideas just keep creeping back in. Well, we'll keep tracking the story. Let's shift. We get some great questions here, Scott. Let's make sure we do due diligence to at least a couple of these that come in. First question says, "I'm a student applying to med school working at an OB/GYN clinic. I believe life begins at conception and I think the use of contraception is morally permissible within marriage as long as it prevents the creation of a new life not destroying it. One friend expressed concerns that intrauterine devices are abortive. I never heard that perspective. I thought IUDs merely prevent fertilization. As I read more, it seems they do also make the uterus inhospitable to implantation as well. Trying to research this topic, it was difficult to find unbiased sources to just get the facts. I'd love to hear your thoughts or any sites you have to offer.” Now, the debate about contraception is for another time, but tell us what we should know about IUDs. Well, my understanding, and I'm not a physician, but my understanding, I think it's fairly widespread, is that IUDs function at least in addition to preventing fertilization, but maybe their main function is to prevent implantation. She's right. They do make the uterus inhospitable to implantation. They induce "natural miscarriages" of already fertilized embryos. That's why we distinguish between birth control, the contraceptive, and abortifacient. I would put IUDs under the heading of abortifacient. Because life begins at conception, you have a living, distinct human being separate from the mom, preventing implantation is immoral. We would argue especially on a Christian understanding, even though it's not just rooted in Christian theology. By the way, this is true for certain kinds of IVF. Some have made the case that you're not destroying life because until it's implanted, it's not alive. Any kind of IVF, even though you and I have had that discussion and debate, we would agree that destroys embryo before implantation is still wrong within itself. It's not implantation that makes something human.

Scott: That's just a change of location.

Sean: Good stuff. Okay. I think we have time for maybe one more apologies to the many questions we just couldn't get to. This individual says, "I'm a mother to a preteen boy who is starting confirmation class at a Lutheran church. Passionate about apologetics. I've been asked to lead one of the confirmation classes about 40 students. The topic is on the reliability and accuracy of the Bible. Most students are students in the church school, which is a biblically solid K-8 school. Uncomfortable with the topic. My hope is you can help with the how of presenting the material, thought-provoking and convincing manner. I don't merely want to lecture for an hour. What advice would you give?" I've got some thoughts on this one, Scott. I'll jump in. I would say first off, stories, stories, stories. People remember stories. They love stories. They relate to stories. So maybe that's telling the story of if you have a personal story and encounter with maybe a skeptic or your own search for truth and what you uncovered, tell personal stories about this. Tell Lee Strobel's story. You could tell my father, Josh McDowell's story. Tell stories. Kids will relate to this and they pay attention to it and they'll remember it. So use stories. Second thing is I would pull something from culture. Maybe pull a TikTok video and you could have a kid help you out if you're not on TikTok of somebody saying the Bible's full of contradictions or the Bible's not true. Maybe just play it and give your response to it. That's going to get the attention of young people and I think plant the idea that these ideas are coming through the world in which they live. So maybe it's a TikTok video or maybe it's an Instagram reel or something to that effect. I would do. The third thing, don't feel like you have to communicate everything within that hour. Sometimes less is more. I've seen eager parents. We've had some grads in our apologetics program who do presentations and feel like they've got to drop every piece of evidence they learned in class because they only have an hour. And I say, you know what, give one or two. Your job is to make it relevant to people, interesting to people. And really in this hour, what you want to implant in the minds of these students is really there is some good evidence. And if you're willing to seek further, you can find answers to your questions. You don't have to solve it all in that hour. In fact, it's an introduction to it. So give them a little evidence, make it interesting, try to make it memorable with stories. And to me, that's a win. Now by the way, if you email in to think biblically and send it to me, I have a PowerPoint that I use for Evidence that Demands a Verdict and has some really cool graphics. I'll send that to you. I don't want it on the internet, like just being spread to anybody in the world. But if you remind me of this conversation, I'm happy to send it to you and you could use that if it's helpful. Anything you'd add to this, Scott?

Scott: I'd say it's okay to actually, if you don't have a story to tell, do something that's hypothetical, make up a case, something like that. And instead of maybe just launching into your response, ask the students how they would respond to that. Let them talk about that in a small group and then let's try to make it more of a conversation than a lecture.

Sean: Good stuff. I thought you were going to say if you don't have a story, it's okay to make up a story. But of course, that's a whole separate issue entirely.

Scott: You tell them that this is hypothetical.

Sean: Exactly. Of course. All right. Good word about that, Scott. Great conversation.

Scott: I've enjoyed this too. I hope it's been helpful for our listeners to think through some of the way they have reacted to the results of the election.

Sean: And I can say we probably will be not covering a lot, if any, political issues for a while to take a breath and focus on the other big cultural changes. And there's some big ones we're going to get to that we need to think biblically about. 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 philosophy, apologetics, Bible, spiritual formation, marriage and family, and more, fully online and in person. To submit comments or ask questions, please email us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu. We would love to hear from you. And please take a moment to give us a rating on your podcast app. Every single rating helps. If this episode was helpful on just kind of how to think post-election, please consider sharing it with a friend. We appreciate you listening and we'll see you Tuesday when we bring on fellow philosopher and beloved 911������ professor Dave Horner to talk about a new book that he has out on how we can think biblically about ethics and morality. In the meantime, remember to think biblically about everything.