Cultural Update: Genetic discrimination; Banning social media for minors; Listener questions

Topics this week: 

• Scott & Sean dive into genetic discrimination, exploring gaps in U.S. laws that leave people vulnerable to genetic privacy violations by insurers. 
• Australia plans to ban social media for minors under 16, sparking debate on mental health vs. freedom and enforcement challenges. 
• Justin Welby resigns as Archbishop of Canterbury amid allegations he mishandled abuse reports, raising questions of accountability in church leadership. 
• Listener questions on vasectomies, moral obligation to fight terminal disease, and if Presidents are placed by God. 

==========

Think Biblically: Conversations on Faith and Culture is a podcast from Talbot School of Theology at Biola University, which offers degrees both online and on campus in Southern California.

Find all episodes of Think Biblically at: https://www.biola.edu/think-biblically.
Watch video episodes at: https://bit.ly/think-biblically-video.

To submit comments, ask questions, or make suggestions on issues you'd like us to cover or guests you'd like us to have on the podcast, email us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu.

Transcript

Sean McDowell: 0:02

Is genetic discrimination coming for us all? Australia will soon ban social media for all. All minors, 16 and under. And Justin Welby, the head of the Church of England and the leader of the Global Anglican Communion, resigns after an investigation finds he failed to inform police of serial and physical abuse at a Christian summer camp. These are the stories we will discuss, and we will also address some of your questions. I'm your host, Sean McDowell.

Scott Rae: 0:31

I'm your co host, Scott Ray.

Sean McDowell: 0:33

This is the Think Biblically Weekly Cultural Update, brought to you by Talbot School of Theology, Biola university, Scott, forward, jump in the stories. We are one week out of the election after the election, of course. And I was at a church this past Sunday and I said, now that the election is over, we can move on. And like people just kind of cheered regardless of where they stood. But this week, politics has continued to dominate the conversation. And I think with Trump, whether you like him or not. That's going to be the case. So one of my encouragements to our viewers, and this is something I keep telling myself to our listeners, is to not let politics dominate our lives and move us apart from what it means to make disciples and not to fall for that bait, so to speak, as important as politics is. Any quick thought on that before we jump in the stories?

Scott Rae: 1:28

you know, it's sort of what we mentioned last week, that politics is not ultimate. it's important. It's a, fundamentally a moral enterprise because it's how we order our lives together. But it's not the ultimate thing, and I think we treat it as ultimate to our peril, and I think to some who treat it as a savior, it runs the risk of idolatry. And so I want to stay away from that, but I want to stay away from the fear and anxiety that so often comes when we treat politics as ultimate. The kingdom of God is ultimate. that's our highest allegiance, and that is going to keep moving forward regardless of how the political winds may shift or change.

Sean McDowell: 2:08

Amen. Well said. With that, let's try to think biblically about an issue that's coming up that is actually personal to me in some fashion. I know many of our listeners, this is from the Atlantic and the title was genetic discrimination is coming for us all. The story's about a man by the name of Bill who's his father and his grandfather both had ALS. So he ordered a DNA test and found out that he, tested positively for the mutation and shared the news with his insurance agent who dealt him another blow saying, I don't expect you to be approved. Bill doesn't have ALS. He's a healthy 60 year old man who spends his weekends building his home. by hand, but this mutation suggests he has a 25 percent chance on average of developing it. Now, what happened to bill is happening to dozens of other people whose experience have been documented by diseases, advocated advocates on social media, but this is totally legal right now. There's apparently gaps in the U S genetic non discrimination law, mean that life Long term care and disability insurers can obligate their customers to disclose certain genetic risk factors for disease and deny them coverage or hike prices based on the resulting information. Now, as more people get their genomes sequenced, a growing number of people are finding themselves targeted and in this Dilemma. So the article walks through the details, how there was this genetic information, non discrimination act that was signed into law to protect people. But lawmakers are finding a host of exceptions and ways of working around this. So to speak, one of the things article says it means people now as a result of this kind of dilemma might avoid seeking out life saving health information. And research has found that concerns about discrimination are one of the top reasons people will now not get DNA tests because it could be held against them. Now, interesting in this, I'm not a medical doctor, obviously, Scott, but they said some genetically linked diseases like ALS and Huntington's disease, there's apparently nothing you can do about it to prevent onset. But there's a range of other conditions they list that you can do certain things to reduce its onset. Now, employers, which must adhere to some of these rules, apparently might be able to hire and fire some people based on certain genetic risk factors. Factors, that's where this gets concerning to people. And at the end of the article, one of the things they pointed out, I mean, this is crazy. They said if consumer facing DNA testing companies such as 23andme change their longstanding privacy policies or go bankrupt or sold to somebody else, more companies could have access to these genetic risk profiles. So people who think that these things are private could soon be made. Public, and they actually in the article, they said a person they talked with an expert said they can imagine scammers targeting people at risk for conditions like Alzheimer's just as they target other people who may fall for a ploy out of confusion. There's a ton of angles in this Scott, but I'm really curious your takeaway of this given kind of your expertise in ethics and bioethics.

Scott Rae: 5:47

when the Human Genome Project was completed. That was the effort to map the entire human genetic code, which was a huge success. And not surprisingly. out of that emerged a handful of diagnostic tests to determine whether you had the genetic link for certain diseases. And most of these, I want, I want to add, are not, are not certain links where you will automatically get the disease. Most of the genetic links just raise your risk of contracting a specific disease. So one of the first ones that was developed was what's called the BRCA1 and 2, which was the test for the genetic glitch that made a woman 85 percent likelihood of developing breast cancer in their lifetime. And now my wife, I may have mentioned this to our listeners before, BRCA1 but my wife had a huge history of breast cancer in her family. In fact, her oncologist said her family was the largest extended family he had ever treated in his 40 year career.

Sean McDowell: 6:47

Holy cow.

Scott Rae: 6:48

As almost, I mean, almost every woman in her family, except for her sister, has either had breast cancer and some have died from it. so this was really personal, and so when the diagnostic test came out, I said, I just, You know, not one of my better bits of advice to her, but I just suggested, you know, why don't you just not even bother with the test and just assume that you're positive? which understandably did not go over real well. but what's significant about this is that her physician at the time, this was probably in 2002 or three, strongly suggested that she do the test anonymously, so there was no way that the information could get back to anybody who might do her harm as a result of that. Now, concerns about genetic privacy have always been morally non negotiable. From the very start of the human genome, it was just assumed that the law was going to protect genetic privacy. But, it wasn't until 2008, when the law you describe The Genetic Nondiscrimination Act was passed, and at the time it only applied to employers and health insurance companies, which were obviously, at the time, the two most pressing needs to be protected.

Sean McDowell: 8:02

everyone.

Scott Rae: 8:12

relevant for that. And so this is an area where genetics could be taken into account, and I've always wondered, you know, how, how is this genetic privacy always going to be enforced? That was always seemed a little sketchy to me, and it was just, it would have been very challenging to do. but one of the ways it's being enforced is, is these insurance companies are requiring disclosure of genetic information, for patients, in order to be considered for whatever insurance policy you are, trying to get passed. the thing that I think is so significant about this is that One of the promises of the Human Genome Project was that someday everybody will have their entire genetic profile in your primary physician's medical chart on you. And the benefit of that, I think, should be pretty obvious. Because with your genetic profile, your docs say you have the genetic predisposition for heart disease. Now your doctor could tell you, you know, Sean, you know, it's bad for most people to eat a lot of red meat, but you shouldn't even come close to sniffing it. It'd be so harmful to you, you know, or fried foods. You should never be eating fried foods or somebody who's got a, predisposition to lung cancer. should never even probably be in the room of secondhand smoke, much less take up smoking themselves. So you're able to say these things are bad for the average person, but with your genetic profile, they are really, really bad for you. And the downside of this, and which was really problematic, is that If people are concerned about their genetic privacy, they're not going to undergo some of these genetic tests that are going to be essential for them to manage their health in the future. You know, if I've got a, if, I mean, and we all, to be fair, we all are at risk of something genetic. And nobody, nobody out there is genetically perfect. but knowing what you are at risk of and what the degree of risk is, that's really important to managing your health. In the long term future. So that's the part. I think that really is troubling to me about this trend toward not respecting genetic privacy.

Sean McDowell: 10:28

That's really helpful. I haven't walked through this. Let me ask you just kind of some practical questions. As far as you know, can people get a lot of these tests anonymously? Was that unique for breast cancer? What's the possibility of even doing this without the information getting out there further? And besides, if I got information, I need an expert to break it down and explain it to me because I couldn't understand some of the information as it is.

Scott Rae: 10:56

Yeah, most people will need some sort of genetic counselor unless you are doing something very specific, like my wife's test was specifically for this one genetic link, and so her physician could tell her whether she had it or not. And by the way, it just, you know, it took her almost three years to decide whether to get the test.

Sean McDowell: 11:17

Oh,

Scott Rae: 11:18

three years to decide what to do with the result of it, and it raised the question, is this, you know, do we really want to know all this about ourselves? And a lot of people are saying, no, we don't. you know, Sean, you may or may not be aware, the vast majority of people who are at risk genetically, have history of Huntington's disease, choose not to get tested because they don't want to have the knowledge that they're walking around with this genetic ticking time bomb. so a lot of people just don't want to know, and this is certainly, exacerbating that trend, and that's bad news for public health.

Sean McDowell: 11:53

do you have any sense, like just biblically how we think about the fact that we can have information that the biblical authors obviously could not have known and the wisdom in that? I mean, is it a question of just personal preference, whether you get that test or not? Because I could understand someone saying, I don't want to know, and I just go, I completely respect that. I can also respect somebody saying. I want to know this information. It helps me plan, helps me navigate this. It feels like it's personal. I don't want to make it all subjective.

Scott Rae: 12:27

It's not all subjective. Here's a good guiding principle on this. when the welfare of others is significantly affected. by your choice on this, then the default position, I would say, ought to be to get tested. So, for example, say a couple has a, this is a couple I sat across the table with not too long ago, they have a history of genetic, of Huntington's disease. A terrible degenerative disease where onset's usually in the 30s, which is about where he was at this time when they got the word on this. They were just thinking about starting a family and he didn't want to get tested. And I told him, you know, for your wife's benefit, you need to get tested so she can have the assurance that it's okay for you all to try to have children naturally or whether you should opt for adoption. Because she had said pointedly, she said, I don't want to get to age 50. and find out that you're not going to have Huntington's disease and realize that we, we had foregone the chance to have children naturally. So I said, I think you're under an obligation to do this, not for your benefit, but for hers. And if there are other people who would be significantly impacted by having this information. I think we're obligated to do that for the benefit of our loved ones.

Sean McDowell: 13:44

That's a good principle. It's not always black and white because how much will it affect our loved ones? In what way will it affect them? And that's where we just have to have a principle and. Make some wise prayerful decisions. My suspicion, Scott, and this is really just a suspicion that some of these loopholes are not going to be able to remain and that the law will move towards not giving this power to employers and others. Would you agree with that or do you see

Scott Rae: 14:11

you know, I think that's right. although it may be challenging to put the genie back in the bottle on some of these things. But I think employers are already covered under the 2008 law, and the employees have actually been sued for genetic discrimination and the plaintiffs have won, those cases. So I, I think, I think the law is the law. Protects people from being fired from their jobs. what it doesn't protect them against is having, their insurance rates affected, being denied long term care, things like that. they could give them care. They say, we're not discriminating against you, but in order to cover the cost of this, we are raising your premiums that may end up being dramatic. I think there's a principle of fairness to I think for the insurance companies that they need to be able to fairly establish the risks that they are taking in the risk pool of their customers. but There's something, other than your soul, your genetic code is probably as basic to your biological identity as anything else. And so I think there's something, I wouldn't say sacred, but something pretty close to that, about your genetic code that feels like it ought to be inviolable.

Sean McDowell: 15:25

So last question on this, obviously the tension is between these companies have to stay afloat and certain individuals would just add a massive amount economically to the payoff. out, which I understand from an economic perspective. But then of course there's a Christian perspective. It's like, wait a minute, these are individuals and we can't be cut throat towards individuals just because of something completely through no fault of their own. Seems like we should take a corporate perspective on this. How do we balance that tension?

Scott Rae: 16:01

Somebody's going to pay for it, you know, we're not going to throw these people to the wolves and deny them care. So if the insurance companies aren't going to cover these long term care plans, then, you know, Medicaid, Medicare, the state will end up paying for it one way or another. and I think you can ask about the fairness of that, but I think we are obligated as part of being members of a society, a civil society, we're obligated to do what we can to provide a safety net for those who can't provide it for themselves.

Sean McDowell: 16:33

Hmm.

Scott Rae: 16:34

So, biblically speaking, I think we're obligated as a culture to care for the most vulnerable among us, and certainly the people who contract these horrible genetic diseases go pretty much to the top of the list of people who are the most vulnerable among us.

Sean McDowell: 16:49

Hmm. I seriously have like a dozen more questions for you in this, but let's track the story and maybe if this keeps popping up and things move forward, we'll do a full episode really unpacking this and personalizing it for, for people. You sent me this next story to kind of shift gears here. As I looked it up, it's been talked about all over the place this week that Australian kids under 16 will soon be banned from social media. So this popped, I did not see this one coming. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced this week that the age limit for his government's controversial social media ban is kids under 16. Now this will be the highest age limit set by any country. No exemption for parental consent. And no exemption for pre existing accounts. this would include things like Instagram, TikTok, et cetera. Now, tech companies will be responsible for enforcing the ban. So this will not fall on kids. This will not fall on parents. Tech companies are to use new technology to at least keep kids off or reasonably show that they've done all efforts. To do so, of course, the government is arguing that the band is necessary because social media is harming young people's mental health. what's interesting is there's no debate about that. The debate is about whether or not this is too draconian or going too far. Now, it was interesting to look a little further into this. France last year passed a law requiring parental consent for social media users under 15. In the U. S., I didn't know this, Scott. Texas requires all social media users Under 18 to first obtain parental consent. That's fascinating. Now they give a couple arguments here in this article that I'm referring to that I thought were kind of weak. They said social media positively enables young people to engage with educational institutions, potential employers, and health services. I mean, my response is figure that out another way. That's kind of a weak argument to me. It said kids may be grappling with issues such as sexuality and they need access to appropriate communities to help them. That's actually reason to enforce the ban. That's the very thing. I don't want kids getting these other voices weighing into their lives, leading them astray. As we've seen frequently in rapid onset, gender dysphoria, for example. But this would include Twitter again, LinkedIn, some gaming platforms with the social media element. one of the other arguments put forward here, they said, I mean, this argument, this article you and I are referring to on Mercator was trying to defend it. And they said, I'm sorry, they're critiquing the ban. And they said, young people learn about the news through tick tock, you know, 40 percent of those under 30, get it from there. And I'm thinking, this is not a good news source that we want that you're going to have to come up with a better argument than that. Now, I think the real challenging is that enforcing this ban itself is going to be challenging. How on earth can Do they do this? one thing in this article that did get my attention, this seems to be the tension is it says many parents have expressed concern via talk radio and through social media about government intervention in the way they raise their kids. So my quick sense of this, Scott, and I want your take is that more and more we're seeing bubbling to the surface. The evidence on the effects of social media is clear. And people are feeling like they need to do something, whether or not this is the right move. I'm not convinced, but I think we're going to see in real time Australia trying this experiment. And they'll probably have to walk back a few things and adjust, maybe parental consent, et cetera. But I think it's becoming more and more clear the negative effects of social media, not just on individuals, but on the public as a whole. And Australia thinks it's leading the way, so to speak, in how they're addressing it. Your thoughts on this, on this article?

Scott Rae: 21:09

Well, the first I confess, the first thing that came to mind is, Sean, how many parents are going to have the backbone? to enforce this in their own home, or will they be complicit in helping their kids get around the law? Okay, now think about how you, I think you're right, this is going to be really tough to enforce, and it's going to force the tech companies to engage in age verification for all their users, not just for kids, because, you know, they're going to have to verify this for everybody. At least their Australian users, they will, but, you know, kids can use their parents social media accounts. you can create ghosts, social media, I mean, there are a lot of different ways to get around this that I think are going to be really challenging to enforce. And at the end of the day, I think it will rest primarily with parents to be the ones who enforce this. And I have serious doubts that most parents will have the backbone to do this.

Sean McDowell: 22:09

Hmm.

Scott Rae: 22:10

Uh, and you may see that, you may see that a little differently. Uh, you know, you think about it, technology companies, they have no incentive to enforce this. You know, other than, maybe the public shaming that would come from a tech company that flouts the law, they're gonna lose customers. This is going to hurt them financially. and so I, you know, I'm not, I'm not holding my breath that this is going to be all that helpful. Uh, honestly, I would love to be shown to be wrong, but I think to think biblically about this, the Bible is really clear that especially for kids, we are to manage our intake of imagery, information. The things that we focus our minds and attentions on, affect the output in our lives. Jesus was very clear that, you know, out of the mouth speaks that which fills the heart. if social media is what's filling the heart, then it's not a big surprise that we have some of the mental health issues that we do. Um, now here, um, here's what I wonder, and I'm, I'm sort of, I'm curious to get your take on this. Uh, I would agree that, people getting their news from TikTok is utterly terrifying to me. surely we can do better than that. and I wonder, have we gone so far down the road with social media that it's basically a bell that we can't unring? And we're just gonna have to manage this the best we can? or maybe something this draconian might work. I'm not holding my breath on this. But I do think we have an obligation, and it's a parental obligation primarily, but also for individuals, for teenagers, for young adults, to manage the input that you are taking into your life. And whatever you take in, from sources outside of God's Word, be sure and balance that, at the least, balance that with a regular intake of the Scriptures. so you can have a filter to assess what you're taking in on social media. and don't be naive to think that what you take in doesn't affect you, because there's too much empirical evidence out there to dispute that, it seems to me. So I'm curious, one of the things that did strike me, I know a lot of your ministry is through social media,

Sean McDowell: 24:31

hmm.

Scott Rae: 24:32

and you're trying to impact kids, you know, for all for the good. So, this could put a serious crimp in the kind of impact that you have on teenagers, that you're trying to impact for the gospel and, you know, and for morality. so I'm, I'm really curious, you know, how, how, how does this sit with you? And is our commitment, is our, the way we view social media, is that the genie that we just can't put back in the bottle and the law shouldn't try to do that?

Sean McDowell: 25:04

Well, I think you're right that Romans 12 talks about do not be conformed to this world, but be Transformed by the renewing of your mind. That's a biblical principle We need to bring in that responsibilities on the church and that responsibility is on the family I was speaking to a hundred youth pastors earlier today before we recruited this and I said on social media through both the medium and the message I use this word intentionally. I said, our young people are being discipled. They're being discipled.

Scott Rae: 25:36

It's absolutely right.

Sean McDowell: 25:37

such a negative effect on society. I want to now, I think the data's pretty clear. It's out there at the negative effects. But what moved them to take what I consider such almost draconian, strong measures that surprised me would go this far. I want to know if they know something else that we don't know. As far as social media, the cat being out of the bag, so to speak, I don't know that we could go back. I mean, students will find a way around it. They'll find other means I don't know with the availability of technology and how much of it is just social media versus just staring at our phones and not engaging people individually that is at the root of it. So some of the articles here cited concern with the. Boys about kind of the negative images of masculinity that speak into them and girls, it was body image issues. That's what they argued. That's not all it is, but that can be some of it. Those issues are going to be at play through modern technology. We have, whether it's social media. Or some other medium. So I don't know that that's going to fix it and have things go, back to the way they were before. Now you had one other question for me and my mind just went blank. You were asking me

Scott Rae: 26:59

what about, what about the impact of your ministry?

Sean McDowell: 27:02

Oh gosh. So I hadn't even thought about that, Scott. It's funny until you asked me that because partly I'm an evangelical and what that means for better or worse is we use technology. Evangelicals are often the first. And so, if this medium doesn't work, my team and I, and they shut it down, we will work to find another medium. To reach this generation and there will be some medium to do so. And so I guess for me, that's somewhat downstream from saying, you know, what is best for kids in terms of their mental health? That's the primary question for me. And so, yeah, I mean, I still quick youth leaders, if I had to focus on 16 and up, I mean, the amount of, My ministry that's 13 to 15 some read my book some I speak to it's probably a smaller Percentage that really follow what I'm doing I just focus on 16 and up and find other mediums to try to reach this generation So my first concern is what's best for him. So I guess to sum up the story. I'm somewhat encouraged That governments are taking this seriously and that they're recognizing how much damage this causes. I mean, even my kid's private school where I used to teach, they have this year for the first time, a no cell phone policy at all. If it's seen it's supposed to be taken the front desk, parents have to come pick it up and kids were not happy at the beginning, but then they've kind of adjusted to it, settled in. And I completely support that. So I like to see this pushback of people saying, we need to see face to face. We need to have community, get our faces off our phones, but there's going to be times where we go too far and maybe have to pull back. We're kind of in a societal experiment right now, trying to figure out what will work and what won't. So I applaud on one level, Australia. Trying to address this seriously. I just suspect maybe they're going too far and this is going to be too hard to manage That's my suspicion But it's really hard to know because there are certain elements on Australian culture that I just don't know as an outsider looking in

Scott Rae: 29:19

Yeah, fair, fair enough. Okay.

Sean McDowell: 29:36

head of the Church of England and the spiritual leader of the Global Anglican Communion of over 85 million members in 165 countries. He resigned Tuesday. After an independent investigation found that he failed to tell police about serial, physical, and sexual abuse by a volunteer at a Christian camp that went back, by the way, to the early 80s. Pressure was building on him. Initially, he refused to accept responsibility for his failure to report the crime. Report abuse in England and in Africa in 2013, uh, obviously that kindled some anger and by Tuesday He acknowledged the mistake and he said which I appreciate it's very clear that I must take personal And institutional responsibility for the long and retraumatizing period between 2013, which is when he took that leadership position in 2024. So just on Thursday last week, they released the results of an independent investigation into someone by the name of John Smythe, I think is how you say it, who's a prominent attorney, who the report said sexually and psychologically and 30 boys and young men in the UK. 85 in Africa. Oh, I, I mistakenly said early eighties. They said from the seventies until his death in 2018. So that's like 50 years or so this went on. It was a 251 page report. And the conclusion was that Welby failed to report Smythe to authorities when he was informed of the abuse in 2013. Shortly after he took the leadership position. What's interesting about this, Scott is Welby said he didn't inform law enforcement agencies about the abuse because he was wrongly told that police were already investigating this. So no one that I could find is charging him with abuse. Nobody's saying he intentionally saw it and just ignored it. They're saying he was aware of it and didn't pursue it enough. And that could have. Stopped it. So he took responsibility for the allegations that were not because he didn't presume as energetically as they should have been pursued. Some of the outcry, which broke my heart that he wasn't going to step down until one of the victims spoke up and really just pushed back. And then eventually, He stepped down, made this announcement. Now, the other piece of the story, Scott, which is just harrowing is church officials were first made aware of the abuse in 1982, which makes me wonder if this is just the tip of the iceberg and there's going to be further accountability. they were, there was an internal investigation going way back. and a report that there was an active coverup to prevent findings from coming to light in this review, which is just terrible stories like this, they just keep coming scott. We've seen this in the southern baptist convention We've seen it in the catholic church and every time it's just a gut punch and it's heartbreaking I'm curious your take on this one

Scott Rae: 32:47

John, maybe what struck me might be a little different than what struck the average person. Obviously, the abuse that Mr. Smythe had perpetrated on these boys is horrendous, and it wasn't just sexual abuse. I mean, he was, I mean, he, as the article described, delivered savage beatings physically to these boys as well. but what struck me on this was that The person at the top resigned

Sean McDowell: 33:17

Mm.

Scott Rae: 33:18

for failing to oversee and investigate abuse claims. I think he could easily, have covered this up, and escaped accountability for it because this went on long before he ever became the Archbishop of Canterbury. That happened in 2013. He did become aware of it at that point and did not investigate it as aggressively as he should have. and then in 2017, he admitted he did not meet as promptly or quickly with some of the victims who had come forward. but, it wasn't until basically, this was made public on the BBC, earlier this year that the pressure mounted for him to step down. now, again, I think the sense I got from reading a number of different news sources on that this was, this was largely voluntary, though there was some pressure applied to him. But I think the notion that the person at the top would take responsibility for the fail for. Yeah. you know, for years and years of failures before he got into the position and take responsibility for the failures of some of his underlings. that struck me as remarkable. So I did a little digging on this and I tried to, to see, you know, of all the denominations that have been involved and had allegations against them, where, where were, for example, for Roman Catholics. Where were cardinals or archbishops who stepped down from their positions? And I only found a handful, you know, the one, one of, and these were people who were, not accused of sexual abuse themselves, but of covering it up and not reporting it. At least not reporting it timely. One was a French archbishop, the other one was, Cardinal Bernard Law, who was the archbishop of Boston. Uh, who was the, basically the film spotlight is what highlighted that coming to light in, in his archdiocese. And there were there, so there were a handful. of cardinals and archbishops and, and more, more, but not a lot, but some, you know, you know, several bishops who were, over local diocese who stepped down for failure to oversee. But the person at the top, you know, the cardinals, the archbishops, the one who, and even the Pope, who has ultimate responsibility, most of the time, they're the ones that stayed in place. Uh, you know, the Southern Baptists, they're You know, they don't have a similar hierarchy, the way that, you know, Anglicans and the Catholic church does. So you, that's sort of, that's different. You wouldn't be expecting some of that from them. And a number of pastors where this went on in their churches, did resign I didn't see all that many where the youth pastor, for example, was the perpetrator, the senior pastor did not step down. Uh, so I just, I, in my view, this was, You know, and I may be, I'm open to the fact that I'm being overly charitable to Archbishop Welby, but it seems to me that this is a bit unusual that the person at the very top is the one who takes the responsibility and is, and is, and is, holds himself personally accountable for these. I found that to be a somewhat encouraging thing. Okay.

Sean McDowell: 37:13

kind of adjustments are made but not really digging in saying we're going to take full transparent accountability for this. I hope this is just the beginning. I have no idea. I haven't read the 251 page report how many other people knew and did not do something about it going back to the 70s. But what. To add to your case, if the top guy, who at least according to what I saw, knew about this, but was told people were investigating it, still says, you know what, I'm at fault. I should have done more. I'm the top, so I take responsibility. It makes me hope that even more people will say, you know what, I knew something. And so I think, based on what I know so far, this is a positive step, and it also helps the victims to move forward as well. And so the

Scott Rae: 38:14

This is the person that says, this happened on my watch, and I'm accountable for it. And you know, often it gets covered up because people want to protect the church's reputation or even the reputation of the gospel. But invariably when it comes out, both of those things take a huge hit. And that's that, hopefully some of that's forestalled here.

Sean McDowell: 38:35

I hope this is an example that others will follow when these kind of abuse cases come forward, where people say, I'm gonna restore the victims and do what's right. So the Anglican Church moving forward. They need to just say, we're going to open up our books. We're going to do an exhaustive study on this further. I love that they brought in an outside independent investigation. This cannot be handled internally with integrity and then just follows the advice of these experts and says, we're going to cross every T, we're going to dot every I, we're going to favor healing and restoration for the victims. And there may be more. Who knows what Alpha's been, and I, I'm not saying there is, I'm just saying in a denomination this size, there could be more. Are they gonna go find that and root that out? I think that's what Christ would, would call us to do. So we'll be tracking the story and see if they do that, do that further. But, you know, honestly, Scott, Like, when some of that stuff first came out about RZIM, I mean, I was not inside the organization, but I dismissed it. I didn't believe it. I was like, Ah, I'm not gonna look into it. There's no way it's Ravi. And I look back and I'm like, Wow, I wish I had been more curious. How did I miss that? Why didn't I lean in? I never want to make that mistake again. And so I appreciate that he steps down, takes personal and institutional responsibility. And I just hope and pray these victims will get the care that they need. You'll never forget what happened, but doing the best they can to restore them and hear them out. So further victims don't have to be the ones to say, Hey, you should step down. They shouldn't be the ones that have to do that. Well, we'll keep

Scott Rae: 40:26

some questions. Let's answer some questions, shall we? Okay.

Sean McDowell: 40:39

about sexuality, gender, birth control, abortion, and IVF. This person says, he is unashamedly pro life from womb to tomb. But apparently we've opened his eyes on IVF. And that conversation we had, Scott, he says has caused me to think about ethical, spiritual, and moral implications of having a vasectomy. My wife and I have three children, all six and under, and I'm currently at home on disability with an autoimmune condition that has significantly changed the dynamic of our family. My wife and I stay at home while I worked. And now that has flipped. We will consider whether I should get a vasectomy because the difficulties that more children would add to our family. I'd appreciate any input you have in this matter.

Scott Rae: 41:20

Well, we may, I don't know, we may see this differently, but I think this would be a case where, this kind of birth control will be justifiable. I think this is a wise choice. I don't see any problem intrinsically. With, more permanent birth control measures, if your quiver is full and, having more children would put, others at risk or it would threaten your ability to care for them adequately. so I don't have a problem with this. Obviously, if you are opposed to birth control in the first place, you'll have a big problem with this. But I think as long as this is done with wisdom. And with the recognition that reversing this is not a sure thing by any stretch, and that you have the full consent of your spouse, I don't see any problem with this in this case. Okay.

Sean McDowell: 42:39

the nature of the autoimmune disease. If it's temporary, it's permanent. Like there's just factors. I don't know. So I always hesitate to speak too much into this, but this certainly sounds like a lot closer to the kind of exception that somebody has thought through. There's real physical limitations. Health concerns at play, not getting a vasectomy for the reason why many people do. I would think this is an exception. Now, am I mistaken or would probably many Catholics agree with that here, given the circumstances? Do you have a sense of that, Scott?

Scott Rae: 43:16

Well, I think in general, they would see this as justifiable if it's the woman's health that's threatened. By bearing more children, not so much for the family dynamic, though I think that's a reasonable extension. It's a reasonable extension to make. When I was consulting for Catholic Hospitals here in L. A., we did, you know, we performed tubal ligations in our hospitals, but, only if the physician determined that the mother's health would be threatened by an additional pregnancy. So I think that's justifiable, and I suspect there might be some Catholics who would say, yeah, this is a valid extension of that. but some might not.

Sean McDowell: 44:00

Hmm. That's helpful. I just hesitate to say much more without knowing a lot about it. This is not the case of many people who get vasectomies who just say, I'm done. Want to focus on other things and then later look back and many regret it. That is clearly not the motivation that's here. Um, so maybe we'll leave it at that. Let's go to the third question here that we have. We got, it's actually the second one, but we got more than we can take every week. Here's what the person writes. He says, if a Christian is diagnosed with a life threatening disease, such as cancer, for example, what moral obligation do they have to fight the disease as opposed to not fighting the disease? What do you think, Scott? Thank you, Scott. Okay.

Scott Rae: 45:06

if the costs to the physical and emotional costs of the treatments outweigh the benefits, then, or, and leave the person with a severely compromised quality of life just for the sake of fighting the disease. I think that's a condition, if that condition is met, then I think it's okay to say stop to medicine. I mean, some of this, you know, there, there's a lot, a lot of questions we need to ask this person. so, you know, they mentioned that they're single with no kids or dependents, that makes it different. so it's just all about the individual and what's in his or her best interests. I don't think we are obligated if we're obligated to keep everybody alive at all times and all costs, then we're saying in effect that earthly life is the highest good, which it's not, our eternal fellowship with God is the highest good. Now, earthly life matters. It's a penultimate good, but because death is a conquered enemy, it need not always be resisted. I think those are the biblical sort of principles that I would take with that, that under the right conditions, if treatment's futile, if it's more burdensome than beneficial, if it gives you such a depleted quality of life simply for the sake of fighting the disease, then I think it's okay to say enough to medicine. and I think in doing so, what we're essentially doing is we are entrusting ourselves back to the Lord. for him to give us the days, the number of days that he sees fit for us, but without the interventions of medicine to delay an inevitable dying process. I think if the cancer can be cured, then I think that's different. then I don't, it's harder to say that, You know, God really has me at the end here, if that's not the case, and I think some people who have had serious heart problems, have opted not to have open heart surgery. the columnist, Art Buchwald of the Boston Globe, famously refused all, treatments to deal with his congenital heart disease because he's seen what other friends went through and how it left them. I remember going to see my dad for the last time when he was dying of cancer and he had had a huge 12 hour surgery at age 81

Sean McDowell: 47:21

to

Scott Rae: 47:22

kind of one last stop to arrest the cancer and it came back with a vengeance, and I think he would have been okay to say, you know, that's enough. He tried experimental treatments that just wiped out his quality of life. I think he would have been okay to refuse those as well after a good faith effort to try and get on top of it. and I remember saying to my wife, I went up before I went to visit him for the last time. I said, I sure hope I don't have to give up my principle of opposition to assisted suicide based on what I see. and it turned out I didn't, and I think, you know, if he's really at the end and the burdens clearly outweigh palliative care, I think would be the appropriate next step.

Sean McDowell: 48:06

That's good stuff. Very pastoral and philosophically makes sense. Before we wrap up one quick comment, we got a multi layered question on our discussion on politics and kind of faith last week. And someone pushed back on those who say, I think President Trump was chosen by God to fight this fight for us. But Romans 13 says all those in authority have been placed there by God. Is there a contradiction? And I'll just quickly say there's a difference between saying God is sovereign over the direction of history and God allows. Any king or ruler to be on the throne versus God has supernaturally in a different way selected this candidate and we see miraculous signs of it. Therefore, you should get behind this candidate and what this candidate is fighting for. That's a different point, regardless of what that candidate is fighting for. So, difference between saying God is sovereign and moving history where he's taken it as we see clearly in the book of Daniel versus God has selected this unique ruler and we know it. Here's the signs. If that's the case, I think God's going to make that need to make that very, very clear. And we often see that in the scripture. So a ton more could be said, but just one clarification. That might help on that one. All right, Scott, great conversation. As always, my friend, already looking forward to next week. This has been an episode of the podcast. Think biblically conversations on faith and culture brought to you by Talbot school of theology. Biola University where Scott and I both teach. We've got master's programs in theology, apologetics, marriage and family, spiritual formation, Old Testament, and more online and in person. Please keep your comments and questions coming. You can email us at thinkbiblicallyatbiola. edu. Please consider giving us a rating on your podcast app. Each one helps. And we hope you'll consider sharing this episode with a friend. Thanks so much for listening. And we'll see you Tuesday when a regular podcast airs in which we have an interview with Katie Faust, who's written a book called them before us that talks about putting kids before adults that I would describe as a game changing insight to me. And she has a new book about what this looks like as it applies to policies. We unpack it. You won't want to miss that Tuesday. In the meantime, remember to think biblically about everything.