Cultural Update: Cancel Culture Resurfaces; Surveillance State in New York

This week's topics:

• Police surveillance in New York – Sean and Scott discuss the rise of citywide tracking, privacy rights, and biblical perspectives on government power and personal freedom.
• Graphic killings on social media – They reflect on how viral videos of violent deaths, including Charlie Kirk’s assassination, can deaden our souls, dehumanize victims, and reveal troubling cultural values.
• Cancel culture resurfaces – A look at employees fired over mocking Kirk’s death online, raising questions about free speech, company reputation, and the lack of forgiveness in cancel culture.
• Spiritual chatbots – Millions are turning to AI-driven faith apps. The hosts consider whether they nurture spiritual hunger or risk replacing biblical truth with feel-good validation.
• Listener questions – Advice on handling a child’s relationship with a transgender partner, leaving a church where the pastor embraces progressive views, and whether combat sports like MMA are ethically problematic.

==========

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

New York and other cities are now tracking everyone, every day, forever. The social media turned two brutal killings this past week into, quote, cheap snuff films. Should workers get fired over social media posts celebrating Charlie Kirk's death or other such deaths? And millions of people are turning to spiritual chatbots. These are the stories we'll discuss and we'll also address some of your questions. I'm your host, Sean McDowell.

Scott Rae

I'm your co-host, Scott Rae.

Sean McDowell

This is the Think Biblically Weekly Cultural Update brought to you by Talbot School Theology, Biola University. Scott, as always, there was a lot of stories this week, tough to pick from. The stories related to Charlie Kirk just continued to dominate the news for a range of reasons. And it occurred to me that there was a number of elements related to his assassination that are larger cultural ethical issues we just haven't discussed. So kind of gave us opportunity to weigh into these issues. And the first one that I don't think we've talked about is police surveillance. And of course, this was big after 9-11, but now with a number of deaths recently and assassinations, It's kind of launched back into the cultural conversation as well as the technology that we have. So this is a piece in the New York Times that says basically, wherever people go in New York City, there's a good chance the police are tracking you. Entering a subway system and for instance, your identity, baking information, location can trickle into databases. Walk down a street, you're likely being recorded by one of thousands of security cameras that'll go to the New York Police Department. Drive into the city and traffic cameras will automatically photograph your car, capturing your vehicle's license plate, make, model, color, distinctive markings, and even passengers. Post something on social media, and that will likely be stored and kept up from the city as well. A few things this article says, says more than a decade of observing traditional police work, this writer says, did not prepare him for what the department is doing today. He says, quote, building vast hidden repositories of data it collects on everyone in the city with no boundaries on how it can be used. Now, this kind of surprised me, Scott. I never thought about it in numbers, but it says the city's police force alone. so this is just New York, has spent more than $3 billion amassing information of all details about where people are, how they spend their time, in a way that's aiming to kind of predict the future of their behavior because people are, let's just say, creatures of habit. A couple of the points that it says, it's interesting that we can get into this. It says, even if you regard widespread surveillance as a reasonable precaution against crime, there's no way to be sure how this data could be used in the future and no system in place to regulate it. So that it's not only being stored, but potentially kept for the future. The example that was given that's meant to kind of shock and surprise the New York Times is one of abortion. I mean, this is the one example they use, Scott, and this is telling in ways we can get into. But since it's legal in New York City, but not in other states, what if somebody was tracked and it was made known because of their data that they went and had an abortion? And then this article is really saying the only way to protect ourselves is to push certain laws. Is there a way to think biblically about police surveillance like this?

Scott Rae

Well, Sean, I think there are a couple of things we need to be clear about right at the start on this. And with any time somebody claims a right, like a right to privacy, we have to ask ourselves, what kind of right actually is it? Is it a negative right, which is a right to be left alone? Or is it a positive right, which obligates someone else to pay for it and to provide it? This guy we're talking about here is a negative right, which is true of most of our rights enumerate in the Bill of Rights. They are rights to be left alone, to order your life as you see fit. Now, I think you're right. Since 9-11, I think it's fair to say that that negative right to privacy has been eroding for some time. And now with digital technologies and social media and street cams ubiquitous, I'd say it's eroding even further. And I think to think biblically about this, I mean, in one respect, you know, we've said for some time, if you're not doing anything wrong and have nothing to hide, then concerns about privacy may be overblown. And I think today, however, there are lots of innocent things that can look problematic as law enforcement might be connecting dots that aren't actually there. Now, I think it does, I think, take a somewhat pessimistic view of human nature, which may be entirely warranted that I think the idea is that unless we are watching, we can probably count on people being up to something that they shouldn't be. And I'm not sure I like the idea of preemptively anticipating crime. This reminds me a little bit of the film Minority Report.

Sean McDowell

Yeah, that's right.

Scott Rae

They actually arrest people prior to the crimes that they've committed because the algorithm was so certain that they were going to do that. But I think there is, I think, a reasonable expectation that your private life is your own. And I think that that comes out of sort of a biblical notion that you have the right to determine what happens to your own body with some limits on that, of course. But I think in terms of a virtue approach to this, I think if we are committed to cultivating virtue and the fruit of the Spirit and becoming more like Christ and following after the character of God, then I think privacy concerns become less significant. Because if we are about righteousness, if we are about developing the character of Christ, then why should we have anything to be concerned about? Now, the only thing that would trouble me on this is if I was doing something that the scriptures considered virtuous that the state did not. You know, like protesting at an abortion clinic, for example, or, you know, or something else, you know, that would like in the UK, you know, public prayer is has been scrutinized. And in Canada, somebody was recently arrested for praying in their head in public. so things like that if there are things that the scripture considers virtuous and mandated that the state is saying no you can't do that then I think we have reason to be concerned about that but otherwise I'd say I'm not losing a lot of sleep over this Sean because I mean I don't feel like I have all that much to hide if you know but I I recognize the potential. And again, I think this has to do with the fallenness of humanity, that if too much power is concentrated in too few hands, the chances of that going off the rails are pretty significant. And I think Lord Acton, you know, put it right when he said, you know, power corrupts. And this much data in the hands of a handful of people, I think has a corrupting power that we ought to be careful of. But I guess in terms of my own sort of individual response to this, I'm not losing my sleep over it. I think I tend to agree with you. I imagine a critic might say,

Sean McDowell

Scott, you've got too much confidence in the benevolence of our government to not use this improperly. And you might say, well, I have some confidence in the existing government, But if this is forever, we don't have any idea in the future how this could be used. Is your confidence in the U.S. because we have a written constitution that in itself separates us from other nations? Is that the main thing that would give you less concern about this?

Scott Rae

Well, I think we also have a rich tradition of a right to privacy, which, of course, is not absolute. And I think that, you know, the ethical dilemma that's created here is between, you know, preventing crime and national security versus the privacy of citizens. And I think essentially for the last 20 years or so, the trajectory has been to weight that in favor of law enforcement and national security and privacy continues to be chipped away. Now, I think, you know, should we end up in a, you know, in a system that is much more prone to abuse that, then I think we have cause for concern. Or if government or law enforcement decides to use that in ways that have, you know, having an agenda that would be destructive to Christian faith or destructive to religious freedom, then I think there's reason to be concerned about that.

Sean McDowell

You really hit on the tension that in some ways we want both. We want privacy. Leave me alone. Don't keep my data. But the moment somebody like Charlie Kirk or the United Healthcare worker CEO was shot by Luigi Mangione, we're like shocked that it takes 33 hours to catch this person because we expect all the data and information to be there. So we can't really have it both ways. That's where it's going to be some give and take, I think, for us. For me, the one thing that hit me on this is it's amazing. The government is moving more so, and it's far greater in other countries like China. I recently interviewed John Lennox, and one of his biggest concerns about AI is in draconian countries, especially Marxist ones, that are just using this to regulate all the behavior of their citizens in a way, punishing people. And many times, Christians and those who resist the government, that's where it becomes deeply abusive. But that kind of like God type, you know, you're being watched all the time is moving towards the kind of thing that only God can really do. And it just reminded me in the Old Testament, we're often told, you know, and fear God. Like God is watching everything that we do. And we see in the New Testament, the same kind of thing. I'm reading the gospel of Luke and Luke says, as you're obviously quoting Jesus, where he says, everything that has been done will be made known. So my fear is less in the government or somebody observing me in the way you described. I don't have anything to hide. Now, I don't want all my information out there. But if you have a clear conscience and you're living right, there's far less concern with this. Our deeper concern should be that every action we do, every word we speak, even in privacy that's not recorded, will be held for account before the Lord.

Scott Rae

One more thing on this. I want to be careful that we watch out for the hypocrisy that could easily come out of this. Because I want privacy for me, but I want everybody else being surveilled. Because I trust myself. I don't trust everybody else. So, I want to be, you know, that's completely hypocritical. But I think that's, in large part, I think that may explain some of the ambivalence we have culturally about some of this.

Sean McDowell

That's fair. Good stuff. So, this next story is one that just, this week was tough. I saw two deaths on X was not looking for them and they just pop up right there immediately. One was the girl from Ukraine and just was harrowing to see the way she was stabbed in the subway station, started crying, her body collapses. And then the Charlie Kirk death, two in a week really affected me. And it made me start thinking, do I want to get off social media? Now, it didn't happen on Instagram, didn't happen on YouTube, but on X made me think there's a tradeoff here between seeing the horror of something and understanding what evil is, but seeing too much of it and it becoming just kind of like, I don't even know a way to describe it, the way that pornography can function for people, that you look at something you shouldn't look at because of the lure.

Scott Rae

I can tell you what it is. It deadens your soul.

Sean McDowell

Yeah.

Scott Rae

Is what it does.

Sean McDowell

I think that's right. And I think that's what this article gets into. So when I saw this in the New York Times, the title was Social Media Reduced to Horrific Killings to Cheap Snuff Films. That was the title of it. And I was like, that's exactly my experience. And the article says that both of these, and it was talking about Iriana Zyrutska and Charlie Kirk, and both struck terror and countless Americans fearful for their own safety and for the safety of our public spaces and democracy. It says, today with more cameras than ever, which of course we just talked about, we're drowning in videos documenting the last breaths of victim after victim. But instead of making us all the more sensitive to the horrors that our fellow humans experience, Instead of functioning as tools for understanding, graphic images like the videos of these two turn into something closer to viral snuff films. And they reduce it. Here's a good word. Reducing tragedy to voyeuristic content. They end up dehumanizing not just the victims, but all of us. I think that's well said. Now, this article mentions a few things. Some people have been widely and wrongly identified as Kirk's killers. There's been a lot of false information spread as a result of this. somewhat of a separate issue here, but important. Some mass shooters, interestingly enough, also depend on people who've been able to see this and their name being known, motivated by this. So that's another element here. So what do you make of this? What is the role? Should we see this to know the horror of it or is it deadening our soul, Scott?

Scott Rae

Well, I think it is the latter. I think it's deadening our souls. And, Sean, the question I raised initially is what kind of person would post or watch these? And then more broadly, what kind of culture are we becoming that allows these things to go viral like they have? And what kind of company, if I'm working for one of these platforms, what kind of company are we that we facilitate this? See, those are questions not so much about right and wrong, but they're what we describe in a Christian ethic as a virtue ethic for evaluating these. That basically asks, what kind of person would do X? And I think for something like this, I would say our traditional way of thinking about ethics and morality, about principles and consequences, are not good enough here. And this is one of the reasons why we need an ethic of character, an ethic of virtue, to counter some of these trends. You know, the article, I love the way the article puts it. It says, nor is there much cultural decorum left to hold most people back from playing someone's tragedy for the sake of their own audience engagement. and what kind of company are we that we would think this is a good thing to do? So here's, I think, just to paint this a little more broadly, Sean, principles and consequences do matter, but they're not enough. And we need virtues as well. And a Christian ethic here is a blend of principles that come from God's commands, but also virtues that reflect deeper moral principles that are grounded in the character of God. And the reason that those are ultimate, the reason we have the principles and the commands of God that we do is because God is the type of God that he is. You know, I mean, the reason God commands us to love our neighbor is not because love makes the world go round, though it does, it's because he is that kind of God. And the reason we're mandated to be forgiving is not because it heals fractured relationships, though it does that, It's because God is fundamentally a forgiving God, which all of us have been the beneficiary of. And so I'd say the moral principles that we have follow from the virtues, from God's character. And ultimately, that's the final source for our moral reflections. You know, the fruit of the Spirit are essentially the character traits of Jesus that we're called to produce in our lives. And it just raises a different set of questions. You know, what does that say about our character that we would watch this stuff and then we can't turn away? Like watching a train wreck, we can't turn away from it. What does it say about our character of our culture that these things go viral? Or the values of our company, our company platform that houses these, that we would allow this to go as viral as it has? Those, I think we just need to ask a different set of questions here that I think helps get us more to the heart of this. And it just illustrates that a firmly grounded Christian ethic takes those things about character really seriously. And with the character of God being the ultimate source for morality, you can't neglect those.

Sean McDowell

The virtue ethic approach makes a lot of sense. How is this forming me? How is this forming society? And you're right to say character. The thing I would throw on top of that is not only what does it reveal at my character, but what does it reveal about the state of my heart? Where is my heart at? And of course, that's interlocked with character because we speak from our hearts. We act from our hearts. So what does this reveal about us? Now, let me throw kind of a wrench in this because there is a time and place to see graphic images to teach a moral lesson. So probably everybody listening to this has seen the passion, which is meant to portray on film as much as one could, the grotesque nature of crucifixion, so we can understand the sacrifice that Jesus made. The Holocaust, the images are often used. Abortion. Now, you and I actually haven't had this discussion, but I think personally, we don't have to have this discussion now. I think everyone should at least see an image of what abortion is so they understand what we're talking about and it's not sanitized. But what's lost on the internet is when I was in Israel, I think it was 2019, we went to the Holocaust Museum and there are images there that are forever in your mind, But every image is so carefully posted out of respect for the victims. And they've thought through how do we show the horror of this to teach a moral lesson, but respect the victim so it doesn't veer into voyeurism. On social media, it is the wild, wild west. And it creates a certain like, ooh, if I retweet this early on, people will like it. People will click on it. Even the smallest 1% of that can be built into the system that's not when you're visiting a Holocaust museum. So I think there's a way we can recognize maybe there is a time and a place to see the death of Irana or Charlie. I don't know. We could have that conversation. It makes a point. But when it's on the wild, wild west, very quickly people come to conclusions without information according to their narratives and start running with it. I mean, a friend of mine, Frank Turek, you know Frank Turek. He was with Charlie Kirk. He was like a father to him. He was 30 feet behind him on the right. And when the shooting took place, I saw a video and people were like, look at this guy. He grabbed his hat. He's doing a signal right before he shot. I was like, oh, that's kind of interesting. I didn't even know that was Frank. Later I saw it, you know, on social media, it was blowing up at least with thousands or tens of thousands of views spreading this false narrative. And I'm like, oh, okay. I mean, maybe let's wait for information to come in. And in the moment I was like, oh my goodness, that's Frank. Zero possible chance that happened. And so on social media, people don't have information. They fill in the details according to their narratives and frame it in a certain way, that's where it becomes destructive. So the idea of seeing certain violent things that teach a moral lesson, I think we have to maintain that, but social media is not the place for that to happen. Yeah. I think your point's well taken,

Scott Rae

I think, on that. Although I would say, you know, I don't have to go back to the Holocaust Museum repeatedly. And I don't have to see, you know, the remains of an abortion repeatedly for some kind of voyeuristic value that's, I think, inherently disrespectful. So I think there, yeah, there's a place for that. I mean, I've seen really grisly images of, you know, among children post-abortion. And I've been to the same Yad Vashem in Jerusalem that you've been to. it's pretty chilling stuff. But I'd say, you know, once or twice was enough on that. And the fact that they've gone viral suggests to me that we've got people looking at this over and over and over again for, I think, basically voyeuristic purposes that you're describing. I think you're right.

Sean McDowell

That's fair. I'm reminded of one biblical passage and we'll move on. Like in the book of Judges, which clearly, as far as I can tell, has some of those grisly details in it. And in Judges 3, 21 through 22, it describes that Ehud reached in with his left hand, drew the sword from his right thigh, plunged it into the king's belly. Even the handle sank in after the blade and his bowels discharged. Ehud did not pull the sword out and the fat closed in over it. Like, why on earth are we given these details? And the answer, of course, is in the purpose and focus of judges, that everyone did that which is right in their own eyes. And the violence here is meant to advance the idea that when we reject God as the authority and we enter into kind of this relativistic age, this blood and death and gore results from it. So it's in there and it's jarring, but it's to teach a moral lesson. and in many ways forms character, like you said, again, totally lost on social media.

Scott Rae

Yeah. I don't think I would put that episode on film.

Sean McDowell

That's an interesting question. We could have that discussion and debate how one would portray that, but let's keep moving on. I've been eager to get your thoughts on this one, Scott. There's been a lot of conversation. Cancel culture has been back on social media this week with a vengeance. This article is in the Wall Street Journal and it says, workers are getting fired over posts mocking Charlie Kirk's death. So from American Airlines to the NASDAQ, workplaces such as restaurants, schools, and law firms. Employers have ousted or suspended staff in recent days for gloating, deriding, or making otherwise contentious posts about the conservative activists' killing. Many are getting flagged to the post by online activists who've collected the names of commenters. Here's an interesting quote from J.D. Vance when he was filling in on the podcast, the Monday podcast for Turning Point USA, where Charlie Kirk worked, he was ahead of it, said, when you see someone celebrating Charlie's murder, call them out and hell, call their employer, he said very boldly. One challenge that's raised in this article for employees now is deciding which posts cross a line and should result in employees termination. Human resources are now wrestling with this. And of course, online campaigns have wrongly implicated certain people who've been dragged into this as well. What's your take on this story and this phenomenon?

Scott Rae

Sean, a couple of things struck me right off the bat. One is that I think it's fair to say free speech has taken a hit this week. And you're absolutely right. Cancel culture has come roaring back. And what used to be the domain of the left, I think, now has shown itself to be an equal opportunity offender. Second, the irony of this is that Kirk was a passionate defender of free speech. And he, I mean, he was, this is one of the things that our listeners may be familiar with this, but he said, hate speech does not legally exist in America. He said there's ugly speech, gross speech, evil speech, and all of it is protected by the First Amendment. Now, we can debate whether hate speech exists or not, but that's another point. Now, I think to be sure, the people who danced in the streets when they heard about Charlie Kirk's death deserve, I think, to be vilified. And I think it deserves to be shamed. Because sort of back to our virtue ethic, I would say, you know, what kind of person actually celebrates this kind of thing? Regardless of what you think of his views, and we brought this out last week, that this is a tragedy that we got kids and a wife that are without their father and their husband. But I think canceling someone for being critical of his views or firing them for that reason, I'd say that's another matter altogether. And I think, Sean, as a general rule, I would say we are a much healthier place when free speech is protected and when we're not silencing people with whom we disagree. Now, to be sure, some speech can incite violence. That clearly crosses the line. But free speech is specifically designed to protect offensive speech. Because if that were not the case, why would we need the emphasis on free speech to begin with if it only applied to speech with which we agree? And just no additional charge for this, but another question that we can pick up another time. Is it, you know, on what basis is there a right not to be offended? I'm not sure such a right exists, and I'm really unclear on what the grounding for that would be. So that's my initial response to this. And then just one other point, and I want to kick it back to you. Sure. To be clear for our audience, too, the First Amendment only applies to government. It applies to government restricting or penalizing speech. Now, it also applies to other public institutions like public universities. And, of course, free speech is not absolute. But I think we need to be aware private organizations technically are not bound by the First Amendment in the same way that government is. So I think we can talk a bit more about some of the ethical dilemma that this creates for businesses and companies that have employees that are saying things that they find that they are in sharp disagreement with. But I'll get to that in a minute. Let me hear your initial take on this.

Sean McDowell

Yeah, this is a tough one because I think you're raising the point that we don't have a right to not be offended. And this is something that conservatives have said oftentimes when it comes to holding views that are considered hate speech by certain narratives. We have to make sure that our anger and desire for justice and to call out evil doesn't undermine us on another issue as well. I think that call for kind of balance, I think, is very fair and interesting. I thought about even for us, say, at Biola, this sense of public versus private has just been eviscerated. Like Biola, clearly, we want to allow people to have free speech, but people aren't working for us just while they're on campus or from nine to five. If somebody gets online and celebrated the death of somebody on the right or the left, and their bio says they work for Biola, clearly that's going to raise concerns and issues that we would want to address. So companies have to have the right to regulate based upon that their reputation, just given the cultural climate that we live in, that things can take on a life of their own online and potentially damage an institution. So that's one piece of it. I was trying to think about where does the Bible talk about one's reputation? And 1 Timothy 3.7, it's talking about elders and qualifications for elders. One is a good reputation with outsiders. Now, in the day of, in biblical times, that was your local community. There was nobody else outside of your local community that would have any word about who you are or anything you said. It couldn't be recorded. Well, now it's literally a global culture that we have. So the community has just expanded. So there is a responsibility for Christians to be wise in terms of what we say, how we say it. So that's another wrinkle in this. The other thing that I'll throw in there, we mentioned this a little last week, is the thing cancel culture lacks is forgiveness. It's you've done something wrong and we will squash you and we will hammer you and this will follow you around for the rest of your life, there has to be consequences for people. I mean, some of the stories that came out are just harrowing and they're terrible. And I think some, I think, and we don't have to get into particulars, I think some people should at least lose a job over things they've said. And the way they celebrated this is just, I mean, it's terrible. But on the other hand, we've got to have a willingness to forgive people and learn from it and move on and not forever be marked by this. How we balance that is easier said than done. Now, I have one other point I want to throw on this, but let me throw it back to you to see what

Scott Rae

you think. Well, Sean, the first thing that struck me biblically on this is the biblical statement that out of the mouth speaks that which fills the heart. And James 3 is very clear on the power of our speech to destroy, to build up, but to also destroy. And that reflects what's in our inner life, our inner wisdom or lack of it. And I think in our culture today, my confidence in morality to put guardrails around free speech is diminished. And I think that when the founders enacted the First Amendment, they did this so out of an ethic of virtue that had basic trust in the people's ability to regulate their own sense of self-interest and to regulate their speech in ways that would be mostly uplifting. Now, I think what you've described is a huge area of discussion in business ethics, how we balance that. Ever since, you may remember about 10, 12 years ago, Brendan Ike, who was the CEO of Mozilla. I do remember that. Was fired for a financial contribution to an organization supporting traditional marriage. And it raised the question about what rights companies have to regulate speech in the workplace. And as you mentioned, even more controversial, what right do companies have to regulate employees' private behavior off the job, including social media activity, you know, outside activities and associations. And I think, Sean, as a general rule, businesses are not doing anything illegal for firing people for things they say. I say sometimes justifiably so, sometimes not so much. For example, the employee who on their off time is trashing the reputation of their employer should not expect to stay employed for very long. And if you post on your YouTube channel that you believe the bodily resurrection of Jesus did not occur or that Jesus was not God, you'd probably be having a pretty short conversation with somebody who'd be terminating your contract.

Sean McDowell

Probably is an understatement.

Scott Rae

Yeah. And thankfully, I'm not worried about that. But, you know, at Biola, as you mentioned, we can't speak out against our public theological convictions and expect to stay employed. And I say a business is not a forum for expressing your political views. That's not its purpose, especially if it disrupts the culture or causes division. In the workplace, employers have the right to regulate workplace behavior in ways that—and when employees cash a company's paycheck, they are essentially saying to the company, I will do my best in my working hours to promote the best interest of my employer. So people who post things irresponsibly, they can bring harm to a company's reputation and they illustrate their character. But I think in general, I think this is, I think the line that most companies have come to, the more privacy can be reasonably respected, it's better for morale in an organization. if you have some reasonable expectations of privacy. What's particularly troubling to me about this part is when government gets involved in encouraging, regulating speech in private organizations or prosecuting speech in private organizations. It seems to me that that steps way beyond the intent of the First Amendment. I find that very problematic.

Sean McDowell

And we saw that in cases like Masterpiece Cake Shop in Colorado where Jack Phillips was running his company according to his convictions and wouldn't bake cakes that were for Halloween, pornographic, or for same-sex weddings because he viewed cakes as an expression of his – who he is, what his beliefs are, and a kind of speech. And so –

Scott Rae

Same for the florist Baronelle Stutzman.

Sean McDowell

Yeah, that's right. In the Northwest. West, exactly the same. Yep.

Scott Rae

Now, part of the difference is both of them were the employer, not the employee.

Sean McDowell

Yeah, good point.

Scott Rae

So they can call the shots for their own organization. But they were essentially, the state treated them like a company would treat an employee. And I think that goes beyond the bounds of the First Amendment.

Sean McDowell

Biblically, one thing that went through my mind before I move to the next story was Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, when he moved adultery and murder to the heart, not just the action. So an unjust thought, you're guilty of murder. A lustful thought, guilty of adultery. So if somebody in their heart or mind was like, good, I'm glad that guy's dead on the left or somebody on the right, when you hear about Nancy Pelosi's husband getting attacked a while ago, if there's 1% that's like, you know what? They deserve that. That's something that needs to be repented of before the Lord that God sees. And that's an expression of our hearts. It was Clay Jones, who was at Biola for 17 years. And he would talk about like, if you have a thought about murdering somebody, but the reason you don't do it is fear of getting caught and the consequences, really your heart is no better. So if somebody had enough self-control to not celebrate, but their heart was still like good, that's a reaction from your heart about the death of a 31-year-old in front of thousands of people, a father, a husband. There's something wrong with your heart and character that needs to be repented of, especially if you're a Christian.

Scott Rae

Yeah. And I'm glad they had the self-control not to do those things, but what it reflects, what that desire reflects is, I think you're right, something that needs to be repented of.

Sean McDowell

Scott, this last one's interesting. We can just kind of look at this briefly, but this was also in the New York Times, and it's kind of a trend about the title was Finding God in the App Store. are turning to chatbots for guidance from on high. It says people are confessing to spiritual chatbots, their secrets, their deepest worries. Trained on religious texts, bots are like on-call priests, imams, or rabbis offering comfort. And on some platforms, they even purport to be channeling God, interestingly enough. So Bible Chat, a Christian app, has 30 million downloads. Pray.com has a website and now it's rolling out chatbots, 25 million downloads. I mean, this is really exploding. One claim Rabbi Jonathan Romain said is spiritual apps are their way into faith. There's an assumption here that people are going to start with spiritual apps and move into more spiritual practice. That's said a few times here in this without any evidence, by the way, I think is interesting. uh one point you and i talked about a couple weeks ago is that even these chatbots they're based on foundation models like chat gbt and gemini that are designed to validate users which is really interesting and potentially concerning way to think about scripture and spiritual things there's a story in here on hallow about a woman who asks a chatbot how to prepare herself as well cousin, mother for going to be with God, asking a chatbot something as intimate as that. And one reason she cites is that she expressed some health struggles with her congregation and people stopped talking with her. So she turned to a chatbot. What's your takeaway from this?

Scott Rae

Well, I agree, Sean. The yes man feature of these is very troubling because what a counselor will do, what a pastor will do if they know what they're doing is oftentimes challenge where our thinking is wrong or where we've missed it biblically or theologically. And these are not designed to do that. You know, the chat boss not using spiritual discernment and it's not challenging the person's status quo, but it's reinforcing it. Now, I would admit here, I would say it's a big problem when people find more acceptance with a chatbot than in a church. You know, and one woman put it like, she put it like this. She said she faced judgment when she once shared her health struggles with her congregation. People stopped talking to me, she said. And so, you know, the lack of judgmentalism actually, I think, is a good feature of this. But, you know, can it lower the barrier to someone coming back to faith? I'm open to that. I think the jury's still out on whether that will actually lead someone to get involved with real people or a real congregation. Because, you know, like my mentor used to say, if you ever find the perfect church, don't join it because you'll ruin it.

Sean McDowell

Right.

Scott Rae

And, you know, churches are full of flawed human beings. Pastors make mistakes too. And I think the only, the other thing that troubles me about this is that the site chatwithgod.ai is, I think, I think that's a pretty brazen claim that the chatbot claims, you claim to be, it claims to give you an avenue to talk to God through those. And I would label that idolatry among other things. So it's, you know, I think we'll see where it goes. I'm not surprised at the demand, though it may be a bit of an indictment on some of our churches.

Sean McDowell

There's a few takeaways I have from this. One is if I choose to see it positively, and I do, this does show a spiritual hunger that we have for the divine that has not been snuffed out through technology or snuffed out through moving in a secular direction. We've seen a number of indications of a spiritual yearning existing and maybe even growing today. I think the point you made earlier that it says chatbots are based on foundation models that are designed to validate users. So someone thinks about their spiritual life goes to a chatbot, and it's designed to kind of tell them something or lead them in a certain way where they will have a positive interaction and come back to it. I'm not sure that's how we should think about spiritual things. I want to have a positive interaction with scripture, but I don't go to church to just say, I just want to feel good for the day. I mean, the Bible describes in Hebrews 4.12 that it's just sharper than a double-edged sword. And it convicts us of sin and it challenges us and moves us beyond our comforts. That's an attitude we should have for scripture. And I think this could undermine it. It reminds me a little bit of just kind of the movement of finding the need or felt need in a community and filling it that was so popular in the 90s. I remember my dad saying to me one time, he said, the key is not to meet a felt need. The key is to find a real need and make it felt. The real need we have for community, the real need we have for forgiveness, the real need we have to understand and get into scripture, that's the key. And I think this has a little bit more of kind of the felt need approach that concerns me. You're absolutely right to question this. One of the last lines in the article, it says, the US where around 40 million people have left churches in the past few decades, the apps may lower the barrier to reenter spiritual life. I'm really skeptical that that's going to be the case. There's not a shred of evidence here. And maybe it's too early to have that evidence, but if it's feeding people what they want and rooted in arguably bad theology, and I don't want to throw all these chatbots under the bus. I haven't studied them. I don't know what systems they've built into it. If Talbot made a chatbot and we contained it internally to certain information, you construct it in a way that would avoid and miss some of these kinds of concerns that are here. If somebody's doing that, go for it, but I don't get the impression that that's the case. What kind of theology are people being trained in? How are they thinking about the spiritual life? Is this a direction towards biblical Christianity or is this a direction away from it? I don't think there's any evidence that this is making people reenter the biblical spiritual life that they should.

Scott Rae

Yeah. Now, if we wanted to increase our audience, this might be the way for us to go.

Sean McDowell

I know. Never really thought about it.

Scott Rae

I think maybe not. let's answer some questions yeah let's do it and before we do so let me just remind

Sean McDowell

our audience that this is brought to you by talbot school of theology bio university we've got programs online and offline and in person in old testament in leadership in apologetics we would love to have you study with us part-time or full-time think about joining us here at talbot All right, Scott, we've got three questions here. And the first one says, I have a son whom I believe is involved in a relationship with someone who appears to be a woman, but we have our doubts. This person is an outspoken leader and advocate for trans people and has had a legal name and gender change. When asked, my son says that he was told this person was born with both genders and is biologically female. We'll be meeting with them in two weeks and know that we need to treat both with dignity and respect, but realize in our conversations, this person may choose to not reveal the biological

Scott Rae

truth to us. Any words of guidance? Yeah, two things. One is I would not expect them to reveal anything of that sort in a first meeting. That's quite an intimate detail to reveal to strangers upon a first meeting. I would accept the person. I would love the person. And I would, you know, if the person brings it up, have a conversation about it. But that's probably one of the last things I would expect to be brought up. And I would, as the parents, I would definitely not go there on the first meeting. Because if you want to alienate the person and wipe out any possibility of having a relationship with the person, that's probably a pretty good way to do it.

Sean McDowell

So play the long game rather than feel like we're going to settle this thing in the first meeting. I think that's wise. That makes a lot of sense. I had a couple of things that really overlap to that. One is there's some information we don't have. I don't know how old this son is. Sounds like he's out of the house. So this isn't a 17-year-old son, maybe 27-year-old son. I don't know if this son is a Christian or not or identifies as a Christian. These kind of factors can shape our expectations and the way we frame a conversation. So I would want to know those if possible. And it sounds like efforts were made here, but just not as successful as it would like because I would try to talk more with the son ahead of time and probe a little bit more into it. So if the son says, well, this is what I was told, if you can press and go, I understand you were told this. You're moving into a relationship with this person. And as your parents, we're concerned. I think you could express that with your son if there's the kind of a relationship and in the kind of way it will be received. But I wrote down exactly what you did. Don't expect to settle this in the first meeting and probably take a longer term perspective here as well. I think that's wise. All right. This says, we have attended a conservative church for over 10 years. For the past seven or eight years, the lead pastor has become increasingly more political and seems to be strained from the Bible. He states that scripture can change based on culture and express his own political views in sermons. He drives a car with LGBTQ advocacy sticker, has posted pictures of himself on social media wearing gay pride hat shirts. When confronted, he states that these things are all his personal views, but do not reflect the church. We along with some friends feel like we can no longer attend this church anymore since the authority of scripture and a biblical sexual ethic are called into question. Are we wrong in

Scott Rae

choosing to leave the church instead of sticking it out? Sean, if this is my church, I'm out. Okay. And I would say there are two pretty lame justifications for this from the pastor. The first one is that these are his personal views, but don't reflect the views of the church. Well, I think he's a little bit misunderstood what his role is, because the pastor does represent the church, whether he likes it or not. That's right. And if these are the pastor's views, it will likely become the view of the church at some point, as long as that pastor stays. Now, second, that Scripture can change based on culture. I would suggest that the application of Scripture can change with culture, but not the interpretation, because the interpretation is governed by the intent of the original author to the original audience in that original culture. And that's really, that's the only culture that matters for interpretation. Now, the application, you know, that can look different in different cultures. And so, but that's the distinction I think that's important to make. I think what the question seems to imply is that the pastor views that the meaning of Scripture can change based on the culture that you're in.

Sean McDowell

I think that's right.

Scott Rae

I think that's a hermeneutical error. It's a sort of a fundamental one in my view. And it doesn't distinguish between interpretation and application.

Sean McDowell

I think that's right. I'm with you. We're back to kind of the first story about, can I separate my private life when I'm not nine to five as a pastor, what I wear, what I post, what I put on my car? Well, one point we didn't bring out in that first story is there are different jobs that somebody has, and some are more consequential what they do outside of the work hours. And to me, and presumably you, a pastor is about as consequential as one can be, especially when 1 Timothy 3 talks about, for an elder, of course, your reputation. And so it is a part of who you are. And frankly, I don't want a pastor who's going to compartmentalize what they really believe. I mean, I want a pastor with some conviction, willing to sacrifice for what they believe and to stick with it. It sounds like based on this, the pastor's like, well, I'm living my life and I'm just showing up doing my job like I'm showing up and being a bank teller. I'm like, no, this has to be an extension of who you are and studying scripture and a sermon from being in prayer. I mean, when I speak at my home church, when I preach, I spent like 30 hours preparing a sermon that I'm in prayer and study. And I think, how can I challenge the congregation to move towards understanding and following scripture? And if you don't really believe this stuff, how can you do that? The only other practical thing that I would throw in there is, is there a board above the pastor that you could potentially go to and just as respectfully but firmly as you can express your concerns. So if you're out, just make sure you've done your due diligence and you leave in a wise way. And it sounds like maybe you have, but that will just be my encouragement to do so. One last question, Scott. This one's really interesting. This person says, How do we think about high contact combat sports like boxing, MMA, UFC, etc.? These sports require a very high degree of athleticism and skill, yet the main aim is physical harm. Tennis requires great athleticism and skill, but involves no physical contact between players. Football, while requiring great athleticism and skill, involves constant aggressive physical contact, but even football, the aim is to get the ball in an end zone or through a goal post. Physical contact, potential harm from that contact is a means to an end. Boxing, MMA, and UFC are completely dedicated to physical harm of the opponent. Does that render them ethically problematic?

Scott Rae

Well, let me say that I play a lot of tennis, and I've been hit with tennis balls in the face, in the chest, and other areas too. But I think even the difference would be I don't think that – I'm not sure it's right to say that bringing great bodily harm to someone is exactly the point of the UFC and MMA cage fighting. Now, I admit some of it makes me a little nervous, especially initially when the referees didn't police it quite in the same way they do today.

Sean McDowell

Yeah.

Scott Rae

But in my view, the MMA is refereed much more closely than a boxing match is. Because once an opponent is vulnerable and in a place where they could really get hurt, the referees step in really quickly and end the fight. And I think the point of that is to get your opponent into a place where you are the victor in the fight and recognized as such. I don't think that the point of it is to break bones or give concussions or inflict otherwise great bodily harm on someone. So I think that description of it, I think, is not quite accurate. And the referees, I think, step in really quickly if the opponent can no longer defend himself or herself.

Sean McDowell

It's interesting you went that direction because you're right with football, the aim is to score, as they say. And then they say that main aim in MMA, UFC is physical harm. Actually, it's to get the person into submission and to knock them out as one way of doing so or to get them to tap out. So technically, that's the goal. Now, it's probably going to take more harm to get there than it does in football. but there is a little bit of a different goal that's taking place. Even in boxing, you have gloves on to at least try to resist some. I'm not a huge fan of MMA and UFC. I don't follow it. I don't frankly enjoy it.

Scott Rae

Neither do I.

Sean McDowell

But I think that's a fair nuance that you're bringing in. At least understand what the goal is first. And in fact, this week, we're going to release our next episode on navigating youth sports. We don't tackle, or actually not youth sports. We did that one before. We're going to talk about with competition specifically with Eric Tanas. And so it'll overlap with this question. So I think it was a great segue that's here. Good stuff as always. Well, I'm looking forward to next week and I'm pretty confident there's going to be plenty of stories for us to discuss.

Scott Rae

I think we might get a few good questions too.

Sean McDowell

I suspect they're coming. Good, good call. Well, 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. As I mentioned before, we would love to have you think about joining us. Scott, the news this fall of more students coming up, 10, 15% is really exciting. I think there's a hunger for theological training. We'd love to have you join us. Please keep your comments and questions coming. You can email us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu. Thanks so much for listening. And we would love it if you'd consider putting a rating on your podcast app or sharing this with a friend. We'll see you Tuesday when we have the episode drop about thinking biblically about competition. In the meantime, remember to think biblically about everything.