Biola UniversityRelational Discontent: Sean and Rick discuss a on growing unhappiness in modern relationships, exploring how dating apps and individualism have replaced duty and community with self-focused fulfillment. They contrast fleeting “happiness” with the deeper pursuit of meaning.
Gambling and Sports: They unpack the and the rise of legalized gambling in America, warning how it’s reshaping sports culture, eroding integrity, and fostering addiction. The conversation highlights the moral and pastoral need to address gambling in the church.
Bill Gates and Climate Change: The hosts examine , noting his call for pragmatic solutions that help the developing world. They discuss how doomsday rhetoric has replaced thoughtful stewardship and how Christians can respond with wisdom and balance.
Listener Questions:
- On Israel and the Palestinians — Sean clarifies biblical promises to Israel and stresses the need for justice and compassion on both sides.
- How Christians and churches can thoughtfully respond when accused of being unloving or intolerant, emphasizing careful communication, listening, and clarity about biblical beliefs.
- On Bible reading — Sean and Rick share their personal Scripture study habits and tips for staying consistent and engaged.
Episode Transcript
Sean McDowell: [upbeat music] Have we entered a new era of relational discontent and disillusionment? In the wake of the NBA gambling scandal, people are asking if gambling is killing sports and consuming America. Microsoft founder Bill Gates surprisingly seems to shift his views about climate change. These are the stories we'll discuss, and we will also address some of your questions. I'm your host, Sean McDowell, and sitting in for Scott Rae, who got sick this morning, is the one and only Rick Langer. This is the Think Biblically weekly cultural update, brought to you by Talbot School of Theology, Biola University. Now, Rick, I have no intel on this. Quickly, I suspect that Scott is not feeling well, 'cause he stayed up all 18 innings of that-
Rick Langer: [chuckles]
Sean McDowell: ... World Series game, and it just did him for the rest of the week. But we'll find out. Get him back on next week, but thanks for filling in.
Rick Langer: Yep, glad to be here.
Sean McDowell: Well, I love this first story, because this is something you've written on, something you teach on related to relationships and marriage. And this doesn't surprise me, 'cause there's been so much talk about marriage and relational discontent, but the way this article is framed, this opinion piece in The New York Times, is fascinating. And it's a conversation, so I'm picking and choosing kind of voices back and forth here. But one of the people points out how there's just so much podcast and deep dive into how women are feeling just a malaise about romantic relationships, the problem with marriage, how dating apps are leaving people feeling hollow. The number one place it says where we are seeing discontent is online dating, and they argue it's dehumanizing, soulless, and unfun, which I didn't know was a word, but I guess it is now.
Rick Langer: [chuckles]
Sean McDowell: They said something interesting. They said this is the first generation, basically those 40 and under, where marriage is not compulsory for some people. Now it's an option, and we'll come back to that. They point out that the idea that you don't have to get married to have a fulfilling life, now that it's just a choice and an option amongst others, is partly what's driving this discontent with relationships, but also a shift financially, where it's harder to become self-sufficient, and people are delaying marriage for later. So in other words, this shift in marriage is driven by cultural ideas, but also financial realities kind of in our present moment. They talk about how women now are able to kinda tell their stories or create their own narratives, and as a result, marriage as a goal is diminished, that people can find happy, satisfied lives in other venues. That's a piece of the story. Fascinatingly, this data... I'm a data guy, Rick, you know this, is that a recent Pew Research survey, 48% of women said that being married was not too or at all important for a fulfilling life. Half of women, compared to 39% of men. Now, there's a lot in this article that we can unpack and discuss, but what stood out to you? What do you think about the relational discontent [chuckles] going on in culture today?
Rick Langer: Well, it's kind of an interesting article, 'cause it condenses a whole bunch of problems into pretty short... I mean, I think it's a podcast transcript.
Sean McDowell: That's right.
Rick Langer: I- And it's very dense that way with the kind of things that are going on. Yeah, so let me just comment on a couple of things that really hit me. One was the, you know, kind of the no need for marriage because it isn't, there's other ways to get fulfillment. And I think one of the things that's really deeply embedded in our cultural thinking these days is a kind of, let me call it an anti-complementarian egalitarianism. [chuckles]
Sean McDowell: Okay.
Rick Langer: And, and here's what I mean by that. The, without getting into an egalitarian/complementarian debate-
Sean McDowell: Of course
Rick Langer: ... The, version of egalitarianism that I'm worried about is the idea that men and women are fundamentally interchangeable, number one, and number two, there's no need for a man to have a woman and no need for a woman to have a man. There's some Viking show, I can't remember which one it is, but I saw a poster advertising that said, "A real queen has no need of a king." And, you know, that is a really provocative statement. It captures an ethos of our culture, but in the biblical accounting of things, a male without a female is incomplete. A female without a male is incomplete. We, we don't- we bear the image of God jointly together, so to speak, and not in a, as isolated or even interchangeable parts. We're meant to go together like, you know, pl- electrical, outlet and an electrical plug. They... The one- you can't make sense of one without the other. They, they need each other that way. It's hard to tell which one's more important or whatever. The point is, nothing works if you don't bring them together. And that is what you can- the feeling I get reading this whole article is that that is a completely foreign notion to whatever is in anyone's, imagination as they're talking about this. Everything is just kind of a free-floating choice. There's no such thing as complementarian with a sense of a necessity of the one component is not adequate without the other component. That just doesn't even darken the door of their minds, so to speak. And I think they're... I don't think they're particularly bad. I think they're simply reflecting culture, and I see this- ... A fair bit even in Christian conversations about this. So yeah, I think that was one of the big things that hit me in this article that was, obviously, it calls into question, how bad do I need marriage? Well, there's no need involved. The question is, how bad do you want it? That's all that matters. But there's no need for marriage.... And that's a thing that I would also, you know, we can discuss. I'll, I'll send it back to you-
Sean McDowell: Sure
Rick Langer: ... But we can also pick up some threads on marriage and the need for the next generation, which seems to be missing from this whole, you know, discussion as well.
Sean McDowell: When I read an article like this, I am asking, "How does this reflect the society, and in p- and in particular, kind of a New York Times left-leaning [chuckles] secular audience that primarily l- reads the New York Times?" And a few things, kind of the worldview behind this, stand out to me. So why are less people committed and trying to get married and value it? And half women say you can have a fulfilling life, so to speak, without women. Well, they say it right here. They say, "Women are able to tell their stories or create their own narratives. It diminishes marriage as the goal. Essentially, allows women to explore other avenues that are satisfying or more satisfying to lead a happier or more fulfilled life." So what we're seeing is this shift from you have a duty to get married as a whole because of, say, God or for society in the way that you came out of a marriage. We ought to pass on... You know, have marriage for the sake of growing society in the future. That's gone. We're not looking at marriage through that lens anymore. Now it's through the lens of, "Does this make me happy? Does this fit into my narrative and the story that I want to tell?" So there's no duty to anybody except the self, and I only get married if marriage makes me happier. And you see this later in the article with a comment about kids, and one of the people being interviewed is like: "Should I have kids or not? Well, in my case, I want kids, but it's perfectly okay if somebody gets married and doesn't have ki- have kids or doesn't even get married at all." These are all life options, which I think points out the root of at this, at this article is kind of like people are discontent with dating apps. Because when you get an app, you just swipe through and process somebody through the lens of like, "Do they make me happy through the moment?" And that's how we kind of live our lives through these apps, and so this malaise in dating through this social media self-focus is really a larger problem with society, that we're just approaching things through the lens of trying to make ourselves happier. Now, what's ironic about this, [chuckles] and you know this data, Rick, we've, we've had on, the book Get Married by Brad Wilcox. He says, "If we're simply gonna ask about happiness in terms of contentment and meaning and satisfaction, it's actually people who are married who are happier as a whole than people who aren't married." And it's people who are married who have kids that are happier than those [chuckles] who are married-
Rick Langer: Yeah
Sean McDowell: ... Without kids. And even getting married in your 20s before you've actualized yourself and have it all figured out makes you happier. Now, I don't think somebody should get married simply because it's going to make them happier. That could be a recipe [chuckles] for disaster. But ironically, if we just take the lens they're looking at and say: What does it mean to have a meaningful life? What does it mean to have a powerful just existence and contentment? Marriage would be a part of it. So I don't even think the authors of this realize how much they're undermining their own case, because they're kind of approaching marriage through the lens of, "Well, it's an option. I can take it or leave it. I have no duty to anybody else. All I gotta do is make myself happier." But it's actually that approach to reality that is a part of the problem itself, and I don't even think the authors of this see it.
Rick Langer: I... So I agree with you on that. I think there's a lot that's just assumed here, and as you pointed out, this issue of, you know, happy- let me, let me put it this way, and this is using a little different language than they use in the article. But let me make a distinction between pursuing happiness and pursuing meaning in life.
Sean McDowell: Okay.
Rick Langer: And I think the way we talk about happiness, in another generation, the word happiness meant, almost living the way you were meant to live. We don't do that anymore. Happiness is now just what makes me happy. It, it's a very, emotional sort of a thing. And pursuing happiness is a very fleeting thing, and it's very non-durable. Life happens to you. Suddenly, life asks you a question you don't have an answer to, through suffering, through loss, through all these kinds of things, through hardship, through just plain difficult times. And happiness, the way we use that word, is not durable that way. A, a good example of this, I, remember watching the Band of Brothers, and they have this whole scene there where the 101st Airborne is hunkered down in the Ardennes Forest in the middle of the coldest winter they've had in a century. And, the bummer is that they took off with no notice in October, and they didn't have any winter clothing, and they're not only hunkered down in there, but they can't be resupplied, and so they are basically living in their summer rig, their summer gear, in the middle of the coldest winter that, you know, Belgium's had in a century. And, they have this one scene where the medic is kind of hopping from foxhole to foxhole to check on the guys, and he'll ask them, "Are you changing your socks? Are you doing all these things to keep them from getting trench foot?" And all this kind of-
Sean McDowell: Yeah
Rick Langer: ... Basic stuff. And then he hops out of the foxhole, 'cause the Germans are up there with 88 millimeter howitzers, so if you stay out long, you get blown up. So he scampers over to the next foxhole, drops in, and so he's asking all these kinds of questions about... In effect, about what the army might call morale. How are you doing? Are you still fighting fit? And all that kind of a thing. You know the question he never asked them? "Hey, guys, are you happy?" [laughing] And it just... It, it's inconceivable- ... To ask a person are you... Of course, they're not happy. Dropping in that foxhole and ask, "Is this- Are you living a meaningful life?" ... Guys, for the next 60 years of their lives, if they lived through the Battle of the Bulge and lived through that winter, would look back at that time to say, "That was one of the most meaningful times of my life-
Sean McDowell: Wow
Rick Langer: ... As difficult as it was." And that illustration helps to see how different happiness and meaning are. And I worry that this article, and we commonly talk about it, we kinda conflate happiness and meaning as if they're the same thing, and I think they're profoundly different. I think we are much more- ... On a path to human flourishing and becoming the kind of people God would have us be, and for people who pursue meaning rather than people who pursue happiness.
Sean McDowell: And by the way, Jesus said, "Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and all these things shall be added unto you." Happiness studies actually show when we seek meaning, when we live for something bigger than ourselves, which should be the kingdom of God, we get happiness, generally speaking, thrown in, because we're wired to be happy as a result of doing good things, and being [chuckles] good people, and living meaningful lives. We want happiness today while skipping the meaning and sacrifice that marriage often offers as a way of finding that. Now, I've got three other things that jumped out from this article before we move on, but I think one of the things they're critiquing is how, the, these dating apps... And I've never used a dating app [chuckles] post-marriage in the year 2000, so this is all somewhat from a distance for me. But they say you're not having real-life experiences. It's like responding to a person in a magazine. There's no reality in it, and part of me goes, "Well, just go to church. That's a way to fix this." Now, I'm not saying you should go to church to get a date, and that's your primary reason. That's problematic. But it just struck me, of all of these problems emerging in the way they frame it from dating apps, it's kind of built in a healthy solution to real relationships, face-to-face, having meaningful interactions together in church. It's not an accident that you kinda have that built into what it means to be a Christian, because relationships matter. The other thing I found so interesting is I read articles like this, and I always ask myself: What's the worldview behind it? And listen to these words, Rick. They say- they're talking about how you can get married if it makes you happy, basically. It says, "If you're a person in pursuit of partnership, particularly if you're a person who wants to be married and have children, which is a completely valid option."
Rick Langer: [chuckles]
Sean McDowell: We've arrived at the stage where getting married and having kids is not just an option. They've got to assure us that it's a valid option, and make sure nobody downplays this. So again-
Rick Langer: Yeah
Sean McDowell: ... In the option of your life, I wanna make sure you know that getting married and having kids is one option you can choose. It's valid if you want to. That, to me, is like, wow, this article's talking about relational discontent, but you don't even realize that you talk about marriage as just one valid option. Well, of course, [chuckles] if that's how you view marriage, you're going to have a state of just discontent and disillusionment. And the last point that jumped out to me, Rick, is it says, at towards the end of the article... And these are different individuals, we're probably somewhat conflating out of fairness to them, since you said it's a podcast. But this person talks about how women can now choose not to get married, and says, "Just the idea that there's a slice of the population, even in America, who's able to support themselves outside of marriage in a way that they enjoy or find satisfying, or is in some way aligned with how they want to live, is striking us as an enormous- as enormous, 'cause it really hasn't existed in any way before." And they're right. This is the first time in history it's kind of a life option. But then they said, "That's something to keep in mind as we continue to see these panicked articles," which would be podcasts like yours and mine-
Rick Langer: [chuckles]
Sean McDowell: ... ӣƵ people not getting married or not having kids or whatever it is. In other words, they think our concern about people not getting married and having kids is that people just won't be happy and live fulfilled lives. Our concern is for society as a whole thriving and surviving, and having a sufficient replacement rate, [chuckles] and the disaster that comes economically if people aren't getting married. Not to mention, marriage brings happiness, and Dennis Prager argues that when people are happy, they're more likely to be moral. So this entire article is through the lens of individual happiness, and they've completely stripped it of duty, and sacrifice, and care for other people. It kind of reminds me when C.S. Lewis talks about the abolition of man. It's like we castrate and then bid the gilding be fruitful. That's what I think is happening in this article.
Rick Langer: Yeah.
Sean McDowell: Anything else you notice or wanna highlight?
Rick Langer: No, I would really agree with that. I think that's... I think that is a huge part of what sits behind this. And, and the one, the one thing I might amplify even is just that issue of the need for us to have community. I think what sits in people's minds is we need a nuclear family of some type, and you can define family any type you want, but we haven't denigrated family as long as we can define it any way we want. And then we need a job and a career. The thing that's completely missing is what you might call the middle-sized community, a community, a self-sustaining, ongoing community. And we think of church life, we think of all these other places you can be- have a web of relationships. And not just, plug-and-play relationships, but what you might call relationships of mutual obligation.... Friends who care for you, and you know as they care for you'll be obliged to care for them. We shy away from anything that might constrain us from what we might call radical libertarian freedom. If we have a constraint, if we have a c- obligation, ooh, that's bad, be really careful. And I would argue that part of the key of meaning in life is meeting and sustaining mutual obligations, living in a web of obligations, meeting those obligations, having others meet them for you, suffering the pain that happens when someone fails to do that. Those are things that make for human wellbeing. We are not meant to live, not only alone in the sense that we need one other person, we're not meant to live without society and without our surrounding culture- ... That we're embedded in and are, and are an engaged, relational part of.
Sean McDowell: Amen. And one thing arguably undermining that relational dynamic in our culture today brings us to our next article- ... On gambling. You noticed that transition? I'm working on it here.
Rick Langer: That was-
Sean McDowell: Trying to be smooth [laughing]
Rick Langer: ... That was pretty slick. That was pretty slick, Sean.
Sean McDowell: I'm, I'm trying, working on it. After eight years of doing this podcast, I'd like to think I'm getting a little bit better. Now, this story dropped last week about the NBA kind of gambling scandal, but now it's like this week, people are starting to talk about it and say, "Okay, what does this mean for sports and for society as a whole?" And this article in The New York Times is called Gambling Is Killing Sports and Consuming America. It's an op-ed, and they point out that gambling doesn't just sponsor sport events, it says it shapes them, deciding which match-ups are worth watching and how players are covered. Gambling doesn't just buy ads, it owns sport networks, producing shows that fans, to bet ever- that prod fans to bet ever more. Some data in this, a 2025 survey found that 25 per- 21% of sports bettors say they've verbally abused an athlete in person or online because presumably they've cost them money-
Rick Langer: [laughing]
Sean McDowell: ... And they've lost because of a kind of performance. So it's shaped the way we treat athletes in our country. Six in 10 Americans, and I would include myself in this number, now express skepticism about the integrity of the sport, wondering whether players, referees, and coaches are throwing games, it... Which is disturbing on so many levels. This person who did the article says, "When I talk to people who work in sports, they'll all publicly assert that legal gambling helps catch the bad actors," which I'll just state it out there, I think that is complete nonsense. I don't buy that article argument for half a second. But they say, "Off the record, they quietly admit that gambling touches everything." Now, I didn't quite realize this, I guess I was... 1989, I was 12 years old, Pete Rose, baseball's hits leader, was ejected from the sports for life for betting his own team would win. I mean, if you just let that sink in, part of me, I don't gamble, Rick, but part of me is like, if you want to put money on yourself winning, like, go for it.
Rick Langer: [laughing]
Sean McDowell: That just raises the stakes. Like, now obviously they didn't want any gambling in sports, I understand that, but that's such a different metric than what we're seeing happening today. They talk about stuff in here we won't get into, the companies like FanDuel and DraftKings, which are titans of the sports betting world, when they started, and how they're shaping and bringing like casinos to our TVs, in our homes, on our smartphones. They lobbied leagues hard for this, and in 2014, the NBA signed a partnership with FanDuel, giving the company, like the video game makers before it, access to the NBA logo and the legitimacy that came with it. Adam Silver, the commissioner, and this in particular bothers me, [chuckles] I'm an NBA fan, he wrote an essay for The New York Times arguing that legalized betting would protect the integrity of the game, protect minors, and help leagues spot corruption before it spread, which I might comment, was similar to what people said would happen with marijuana. "If we make it legal, it'll bring it to the light," and it's actually the opposite is the case. So now if people who don't bet, and again, I don't bet, so I'm guessing a lot of our audience is aware of this, maybe they bet, you can bet on virtually any moment in nearly any game happening almost anywhere, on anything. You can bet even the smallest detail. Now, some of these companies, like the NFL, has committed 12 million over six years to the National Council on Problem Gambling. It's like they're aware of this, and they're doing [chuckles] a little bit of PR, I think, to cover their butts, so to speak. And then, I mean, my goodness, they go on and on in this article. I would really encourage people to read it, but they're making a point. Here's the takeaway, is they say... This guy says, "Walking through Manhattan the other day, I passed a digital billboard showing live odds for the New York City mayor's race, updating in real time and displaying live trades." So the culture of betting isn't limited to sports anymore, it's everywhere, and I think he's right. What's your take?
Rick Langer: Yeah, so this is one of those articles that, So I haven't lost a night's sleep over it yet, because I didn't read it till this morning.
Sean McDowell: Okay.
Rick Langer: However, I'm worried about how I'll do tonight. The magnitude... And, and there's l- I should point out, there's nothing particularly insidious. There's not a, you know, mafia running behind the, you know, the casino or this kind of thing that we often associate with some kinds of gambling, you know, organized crime things.
Sean McDowell: Although by the way, I do have to jump in. When it came to one of the NBA coaches, they were rigging s- rigging cards games with the mafia behind it. So one of the concerns-
Rick Langer: Yeah
Sean McDowell: ... Is we're now giving a foothold to the mafia, like, hello? So you're right in terms of FanDuel it's not, but the larger picture, it is.
Rick Langer: ... Yeah, the, and that's correct. And, and I think the argument has always been you start at one level, and the other level comes w- comes with you, and I think that's very true. But, you know, without worrying about, you know, a bunch of crazy things going on in the, in the dark, so to speak, the magnitude of what they control is just breathtaking. You just talked about, you know, the NFL kicking in $12 million for, you know, gambling, you know, helping people cure their gambling addiction. Same article mentioned that the, NFL just signed a, contract with, one of these groups for a $1.5 billion, five-year-
Sean McDowell: Wow!
Rick Langer: ... You know, payment, licensing fee, in effect, whatever. They're getting a billion and a half dollars over five years, and they decide to kick in 12 million for, you know, gambling addiction problems. And-
Sean McDowell: Which is 1%, roughly, by the way. [laughs]
Rick Langer: Yeah, I mean, actually, it's less than 1%. It's a 10th of a percent.
Sean McDowell: It's a 10th of a percent?
Rick Langer: Yeah. 99.9% is going in their pocket-
Sean McDowell: My goodness
Rick Langer: ... But they decided, "Hey, what the heck? Let's kick in a little bit down here." I believe that. I- anyhow, whatever it is, it's crazy, and I think that's what happens, is people realize there's something problematic about it, so let me do something to kind of appease the conscience, have a good look. But the like I say, the thing I was completely unaware of is how big, how entrenched, how much money is going to shaping the league itself. It isn't just... I've always worried about how much money people are losing by making dumb bets and thinking somehow that they're winning. I mean, if these guys are doing the kind of advertising they're doing, I watch NFL football, I watch sports, I see, you know, FanDuel and, all these betting companies advertising. I know they're, they're spending, you know, billions of dollars on advertising. Where do you think you get it? If, if they want you coming back, I think the article mentions this, they have identified you as a sucker. The only reason they're sending you an email is because you make them money by losing your money. So that had been my entire preoccupation, but I hadn't really thought about the idea of these guys saying, "Look, the reason we're giving you all this money is so we make money, and we'll make more money if the Chiefs end up playing the Cowboys in the Super Bowl- ... Than if we get the Texans and the Seattle Seahawks," or, you know, whoever, you know, whoever it is who pays more or less. "So let's just work on that. I don't care which games. I don't care how you do it, but let's just make sure that these guys end up in the playoffs, these guys end up..." You can see the momentum for that. It doesn't even have to be done with an iron fist. You just know when you sit down at the table with these guys next time around, if you haven't delivered the income goods by having people betting on the teams, 'cause people don't bet equally on all 32 NFL teams, right? There are more- ... Teams that drum up more action, and you want those guys in those big games. And I... Yeah, the way the pressure that puts on the league when you're in bed with the betting organization is kind of, very unnerving, and it was really shocking to me. I was just unaware of how much the money interchange at the organizational level was taking place.
Sean McDowell: Oh, okay, humor me. Maybe my math brain isn't working. The NFL committed 12 million over six years to the National Council on Gambling Problem Gambling. 12 times 10 is 120 million, times another 10 would be 1.2 billion, right?
Rick Langer: Yeah, okay.
Sean McDowell: So if they got 1.5 billion, it's less than-
Rick Langer: It's-
Sean McDowell: ... 1%, roughly, and I think that... And 1% or 0.1%, whatever-
Rick Langer: Yeah, right
Sean McDowell: ... It doesn't really matter. I think that's a way of easing their conscience and doing a little bit of PR work to try to say, "Look, we're helping. This isn't really a big deal." But I think we're seeing that it is, and I'm curious, Rick, have you ever heard of a s- heard a sermon on gambling? I've heard one message I can think of. It was by J.P. Moreland when I was an undergrad at Biola. It was an alternative Talbot chapel- [laughs] ... And I remember it 'cause he was talking about how there's two ways to approach gambling, two concerns. Those who are more liberal are concerned about the social effects, that it tends to... When these gambling companies are making money, individuals are losing money, and as a whole, things like the lottery tends to be poor Americans, who they do have choice to do this, free will, but it does target them, and it puts money in the pocket of the government at the expense of the poor. But then he said, on the other side is, we don't wanna be legalistic, and we have a conscience before the Lord. Is it okay in some times to gamble in certain ways? And he was kind of helping us think through that issue, which I think biblically is a helpful one. As I think about it, we've never- I don't even think we've done a full episode on gambling, the morality behind it. Maybe we need to do that on a Think Biblically podcast. But tell me, have you heard a sermon on gambling in a church or a chapel, and where do you land on kind of the moral side of whether it's okay in any circumstances to gamble?
Rick Langer: I haven't, I haven't... I can't recall hearing a sermon on gambling. Yeah, I must confess, I've heard a fair number of sermons in my life, so I might have. But, I have not heard people talking about that. It is... It's not a
Rick Langer: Flagrant sin, let me put it that way. It's not one of those things that, everyone pulls the fire alarm for, so it doesn't get the same momentum when it comes time to preach or, you know, mobilize people against it or something like that, as something like abortion or other things like that might automatically push the trigger. So I think it is one of those things that we tend to automatically neglect. There's kind of two reasons we ignore major sin problems. One is, it's because it isn't flagrant. It isn't... It, it may be devastating, but it isn't an easy thing to-... To notice, and there's a lot of graft and things like that that go on, less in America at this point, though I worry, you know, if we'll be able to maintain this. But in a lot of third-world countries and places like that, a huge amount of- ... Destitution and poverty is just a byproduct of just ordinary graft. People are, you know, cheating on things. But it isn't flagrant. It doesn't look like stomping boots, and concentration camps, and machine guns, so it kind of goes under our radar. Gambling fits that profile, I think, for us here, by and large. The other thing is what you might call the fondness problem, and there's certain things that we're just fond of. And I look at these statistics, and I... You know, I have no interest in gambling, so, it doesn't push my buttons, but I think it was, about half of men age 18 to 49 have an online sports betting account.
Sean McDowell: Half of men?
Rick Langer: Half of men in that age group, and I'm just kind of thinking, "Well, what percentage of people in the church have that?" And, we're- I would guess we're a little lower, but my bet is that you've got a lot of people who are Christians in that number. And the bottom line is, they're, they're fond of betting. It adds juice to them. That's why they do it. It's a pretty emotional, trigger kind of thing. It's an ador- endorphin sort of a thing.
Sean McDowell: Oh, yeah.
Rick Langer: And so we're fond of it, and so we don't really wanna go leading the charge against it, and that wouldn't be true for most people regarding abortion. I'm not fond... Even if you defend abortion rights, it's hard to be fond of it. Sometimes I'm amazed. People do manage to do that, but-
Sean McDowell: Yeah, they do
Rick Langer: ... There's so many of these things, sexual transitions and things like that, if you're not, you know, a person who struggles with their sexual identity, you look at this as a kind of thing, the last thing in the world I'd wanna do. It becomes very easy to activate and say, "This is wrong, and we need to change it." But things that are convenient, things that are pleasing, things that we like, we fall silent. And so it doesn't surprise me that we don't get a lot of preaching about things like this, 'cause I think the people who do it like it, and it isn't so obtrusive or flagrant that everybody else gets worked up in arms.
Sean McDowell: By the way, Rick, when you said between 18 and 49, I think it was about half, roughly, half-
Rick Langer: Yeah
Sean McDowell: ... Have an account. You said, quote, "I bet it's less in the church." Do you wanna put $5 on that?
Rick Langer: [laughing]
Sean McDowell: I'm just kidding. [laughing] Kidding aside-
Rick Langer: No, because I'm not in favor of betting, but I get what you're saying. [laughing]
Sean McDowell: [laughing] I couldn't resist, but the... You know,
Rick Langer: You could have resisted, Sean.
Sean McDowell: [laughing]
Rick Langer: You just didn't.
Sean McDowell: No, I can't, I can't. Having a little bit, little bit of fun this, you know, Friday morning, whatever it is. So it- one of the things you're pointing at is certain psychological means of fulfillment that draw us to gamble, so like the, you know, endorphin hit that we get, which could be like playing a video game, or looking at pornography, or something else gives you that kind of hit. In this article in Christianity Today, it says, "When you place that long-shot parlay and you predict all these things, you feel like a genius, and there's nothing better in the world than that feeling." It's so interesting to think of the underlying motivations and reasons why we're drawn. Some might be because we're competitive. Some might be it just fulfills these deeper psychological needs that we have. So if somebody's struggling with gambling, to really stop, you gotta address some of these underlying reasons, ties to your identity, and who you are, and the kind of way you see yourself, to minimize the power that this has over us. You know, I would encourage... My last thing, I'd encourage, pastors to preach on this. It's one thing, probably, gosh, 20 years ago when I was at Talbot gambling, before, like, the internet was just starting, and now the end of this article says, "And the deeper the rot goes, the more it misleads fans that gambling isn't just part of sports but part of being American." If you're a pastor, and half of 18 to 49-year-old mens have- men have an account, you gotta minimally help them think biblically about that. What biblical principles of stewardship apply, temptation apply, and all the other issues? I gotta... I mean, I could guess how many sermons I've heard on sex or sexuality or marriage, probably hundreds upon hundreds, one on gambling, and yet this article says it's consuming America, and I don't think it's gonna slow down. So that's a good warning for us. As we shift to our third topic, Rick, not quite as smooth, but we're doing our best here today. This one actually really surprised me, and I'm eager to get your thoughts on it because I did not see Bill Gates, who's been spending tons of his money, I don't know how many hundreds of millions, maybe more, on being what could be described as a climate alarmist, coming out and shifting his tune, so to speak. And it makes me wonder, given that he's been ahead of the curve so much on technology and seen certain things coming, does this indicate a shift in the conversation? So here's briefly what happens, and there's articles all over the place on this and YouTube videos. Bill Gates, Microsoft co-founder, who spent billions of his own money to raise the alarm about the dangers of climate change, is now pushing back against what he calls a doomsday outlook and appears to have shifted his stance on the risks posed-... By a warming planet. In a lengthy memo released earlier this week on Tuesday, Gates sought to tamp down the alarmism he said many people use to describe the effects of rising temperatures. Instead, he called for redir- directing efforts towards improving lives in the developing world. Now, in this New York Times article, right after that, we have this quote, Rick, which won't surprise you: "Despite his," Gates', "efforts to make clear that he takes climate change seriously, his words are bound to be misused by those who would like nothing more than to destroy efforts to deal with climate change." It's as if anybody [chuckles] wants to say, "You know, maybe he's onto something," they need to be immediately marginalized by The New York Times. And different articles are putting different spins on this. Some suggest maybe he's motivated by the Trump presidency, and we don't have to get into the politics on that. But he's also, you know, promoting and talking about nuclear energy, which is really interesting. What's your thoughts on this? Is this a significant shift that maybe tells us where the debate is headed?
Rick Langer: Well, I've, I've read a couple of, you know, short articles about this, and then I read this one that, you know, that we're talking about here from The New York Times. And as I've read that, I have yet to see something that makes me think that Bill Gates has necessarily changed things in a radical way. In, in other words, he may well have. I haven't read that much of Gates on climate change-
Sean McDowell: Okay
Rick Langer: ... In terms of the tenor. But a lot of what he said to me makes a huge amount of sense, where you just say, "Hey, doomsday thinking is never good thinking." to realize as you look down the road this is gonna be problematic is great, but when you get into the doomsday cycle, you begin to make bad choices. It's like empathy run amok- ... Where all you can do is just feel for the other person, but you don't think rationally anymore. A doomsday fear does the same thing. All you do is respond to the fear, but you never stop and think, "Okay, so what do we need to do now?" and I think w- so what Gates is saying is, "Hey, we need to stop and ask what will actually help people." We're worried about... A lot of climate change discussion is about the impact on people in the developing world. He has spent a ton of his money. He's backed it up with the money spent by his foundation.
Sean McDowell: He has. That's true.
Rick Langer: And so I assume he has a genuine concern for what goes on with the poorest of the poor, and I think he might just stop and think, "Well, gee, if we spend..." I'll just make up numbers here. "If we spend a billion dollars on, oh, electric car batteries or whatever, you know, some kind of a technology directed for greenhouse gas emissions, how will that actually improve the lives of people of, among the poorest of the poor, and w- and is there a better way I could spend a billion dollars?" And I think Gates's intuition, what I'm capturing from this article, is he's saying, "You know what? I don't think we, and I," probably, meaning him, I... I think Gates is saying, "I don't know that I've thought enough and we have engaged enough in just saying what actually pays off for people in this situation?" and part of what I think is going on is that there's a big part of climate change that just plain has already happened, and the best-case scenario is for saying, "We need to get to, you know, electric, z- you know, zero greenhouse gas emission kinds of energy sources," and things like that. Maybe wind, maybe solar, nuclear power, whatever it is that you're saying radically will reduce, greenhouse gas emissions. If we do all of that, what's the arc for the climate problem changing? And the answer is centuries- ... For it to dial back. And so that doesn't mean you don't do that. It just does mean that somebody better be thinking about, "Well, gee, if everyone's dead by the time that actually works, that's a real problem. What are we gonna do with all of the people in the present?" And we haven't thought much about that, and I've been struck by how much of the advocacy... So I should put some of my cards on the table. I absolutely believe in, that there is climate change, and I believe that climate change has been triggered by manmade... Or has been amplified, I should say, by, manmade usage of fossil fuels and things like that, and so I am not a climate change denier in that sense. But I do believe that the, those changes, a lot of that, what's happened before we were really cognizant of it, and by the time we've gotten cognizant of it, we can't dial the clock back. So we should keep looking at good, clean, long-term energy things, but at the some point, we have to say, "We need to manage the next 30, 50, 60, and 100 years." "And what do we need to do?" And I think, I don't know what Bill Gates is thinking, but to me, without changing a whole lot of your attitude towards climate change, you might change a lot of your conduct in terms of saying, "What is a critical point of intervention at this moment?" because we have to care for the here and now. A, a good analogy of this is I remember watching a California wildfire. You, you know, you and I have both lived in California long enough to have plenty of wildfire memories-
Sean McDowell: Yeah
Rick Langer: ... And so I saw that, watched, I don't know if it was Gavin Newsom or somebody else, but, you know, they were interviewing somebody in front of this fire, flaming fire in California, and they were talking about the need-- "This shows the need for working on climate change issues." And I'm like, "Look, it is probably, demonstrating the fact that we have indeed been living through a long season of global warming now, and our forests are being compromised by it, but what is it that's going to make California fires less problematic for the next 50 years?" And honestly, forest management and things like that are gonna have to be what's done, 'cause there's nothing we can do with greenhouse gas emissions that will change flaming forest fire problems. And I think that's part of what Gates... I don't know if that's what he's thinking-
Sean McDowell: Sure
Rick Langer: ... But that's what I think of when I read that article, and I'm going, "Well, good for him to say, 'We've, we've got to think rationally, even if we have a doomsday-like fear about something.'"
Sean McDowell: ... Well, I certainly give him kudos in the sense of speaking up when he was seemingly so strongly on the other side-
Rick Langer: Yes
Sean McDowell: ... And then shifting. The amount of criticism that he's gonna take for this, in part, I wanna say, and maybe this is not very charitable, like, welcome to the club. There's been a whole lot of people saying this for a long time, and I think the data has been there. So, for example, I mean, I find the book compelling by Michael Shellenberger, Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All, and it talks about how there's climate change denialists, of which he's not a denialist. There's alarmists, and then there's kind of a reasonable middle that asks the question, "Is the climate changing?" And, of course, it's changing. It's not stable like the number of pi that [chuckles] doesn't change. It changes for a range of reasons. Do humans cause some of the change? Arguably, yes, but how much change are we really causing? And how much of increased, like, forest fires or tropical storms are really due to human change? That's where a huge amount of the debate comes in, and I don't think the argument has been made that these are the result of human factors. Shellenberger pushes back on that and really argues that in many of these areas, we are better off than we were years ago in the past. Now, we're not gonna go into some of the details there. Somebody can read the book and assess it for themselves. But I think when it's all said and done, [chuckles] this shift away from alarmism, and this is what Shellenberger argues, it- there's kind of a religious fervor behind it. It functions like a religion for people, and you have your sacraments, like recycling. You have your prophets, like Greta Thunberg. [laughs]
Rick Langer: [laughs]
Sean McDowell: I mean, you... And, and Al Gore. I mean, it really does function like a religion. I hope, and I don't know how much confident hope I can have in this, that this is just like, okay, let's step back on the rhetoric. Let's see where the science leads. And the big area that's always given me pause is when people say, "Here's how we fix it." The amount of inadvertent damage to the economy and damage to those who are poor in developing countries is far greater than I think people realize. So I would welcome that debate, saying, "How do we actually help people in developing countries do better and start there?" I think that's a good shift. By the way, the end of this article, you know, it's talking about his shift on climate alarmism, and then it's like, "Scientists warn that unless countries make a rapid shift away from burning fossil fuels, the planet is likely to experience extreme weather and other changes faster than humans can adapt. Low-lying island nations are already seeing their land disappearing under rising seas caused by melting glaciers and polar ice sheets. An estimated 62,775 people died from heat in Europe last year." I'm reading this article going, "They obviously didn't get the memo. They feel the need to give more alarmism and don't connect the dots between people dying from heat in Europe and this actually being caused by human-made climate change." That's where I give pause. So to me, this is a welcome move, but the reason I picked it is 'cause it's a hint that maybe the conversation is shifting a little bit, but I guess we're just gonna have to wait and see.
Rick Langer: Yeah, I think this is, I think your point about it has, it's become kind of a religious thing, and it's a thing that we don't end up having good conversations about. And this is what I was encouraged by Gates. Like I said, don't know what's going on. I have no idea of the-
Sean McDowell: Sure
Rick Langer: ... Backstory, but I'm encouraged by him stopping to say, "Wait a minute. We need to ask what actually pays off and what matters in the here and now." 'Cause I'm probably more inclined to say I think there probably is a significant element of human, behaviors that has led to, you know, some of the climate change and some of the problems that we're having, and I don't have any need to assess percentages of-
Sean McDowell: Sure
Rick Langer: ... These matters, but I think meaningful is a perfectly comfortable word for me when people talk about that. But I'm, I'm just saying, okay, it's a little bit like we went to war, and now we realize, oh, that was a bad choice. Maybe you thought with the war in Iran was a bad idea in 2003. Well, when you're three years in, you don't just get to say, "Hey, I quit," and then there's... And then you just go back and act like it hasn't happened. W- and this is what I'm saying about climate change, is that whatever's happened, we've had a significant change over the course of my lifetime. Grew up in Colorado, live here again now. I used to go on this wonderful climb and slide down St. Andrews Glacier. St. Andrews Glacier does not exist. It has melted. It has melted. And, you know, the snowfields that I s- I see and grew up with in Colorado are, you know, significantly different at this point. But I'm like, "Okay, so what's our plan for making that different and better?" And I think we'd be better off looking at, you know, like I say, some of the things, how do we manage this in the short term? And then more so than just let's shoot for zero carbon footprints or no gases, let's shoot for sustainability, 'cause I think that's the mark of Shalom. And this is one of my concerns, is that we're, we're to give an account for how we manage the Earth, and if we manage an Earth in the way that is not sustainable, you know, if our airplane is pointed down, [chuckles] all you know is you can't keep flying forever.
Sean McDowell: There you go.
Rick Langer: And I think part of our responsibility is to keep the airplane, you know, flying level, you know, roughly speaking, and I'm not sure that we have cared or thought about that. And what we tend to do is get things motivated by alarmism rather than by sober wisdom and reflection.
Sean McDowell: By the way, your word of the day is meaning or meaningful, meaning before happiness, and humans have caused meaningful climate change.
Rick Langer: All right.
Sean McDowell: So we'll see if you can throw it in there one more time-
Rick Langer: I'll, I'll keep on it
Sean McDowell: ... Before we're done.
Rick Langer: I'll make a note and see what I can do.
Sean McDowell: All right, well, we're gonna shift to questions, but before we do so, I just wanna remind our audience, we would love you to consider studying with us here at Talbot School of Theology, online or in person. We've got programs in apologetics, marriage and family, Old Testament, New Testament, philosophy and ethics, so many more, and we are one of the largest non-denominational seminaries in the US and beyond. Information is online. All right, Rick, as always, we've got some great questions, and this-... This individual says, "On a recent cultural update, I commented on the Abrahamic covenant, which says, 'I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse those who curse you.' I noted there's a difference between the nation of Israel under the Old Covenant and the nation of Israel today, but there's commonality in land, traditions, and the language says that if the Middle East would cease trying to destroy Israel, there'd be flourishing in the region. You know, this would only happen if there were a change of heart on the part of the Palestinians, but doesn't it also require a change of heart on the part of Israelis who wanna take control of the land and away from the Palestinians?" So I would say a couple things. Partly what I wanted to draw out here is that there's not exactitude between Israel in the Old Testament under the Old Covenant and the nation of Israel today. There are some differences, but I think there's sufficient overlap in the language, in the land, in the identity of this people, where we don't see the Hittites and the Moabites and these other people groups remaining the same. We see that with Israel. So I think some of the promises of the Old Testament, namely in Genesis 12:15 and 17, "Bless those who bless you, curse those who curse you," still remain today. And I think you could make the case that we see this, that when Israel flourishes, it gives water to its neighbors, it gives technology to its neighbors. It's a beacon of freedom in the Middle East for its neighbors. Now, with this doesn't come a pass for anything that Israel does, and of course, I've been reading Deuteronomy in the mornings, and God has no problem critiquing Israel under the Old Covenant for their failures. Just like somebody can say Israel is a part of God's larger plan, but take issue with some of the decisions that the government of Israel makes, those are not contradictory things. So even if we go back to the Old Testament, again, Deuteronomy 1, it's really interesting, Rick. Deuteronomy 1, I highlighted this, and this stood out to me. Moses talking about how he would hear cases in Israel, and he says, "Judge rightly between a man and his brother or his resident alien. Do not show partiality when deciding a case." So a part of Israel always was that they are to follow these laws, and the world will know that there's a good, powerful God because of how blessed they are. But they're also supposed to treat people within the land fairly and rightly and justly. So if there are Israelites, or people in Israel today, who want the land at the expense of humanely treating the Palestinians, then of course I would criticize them, because I don't think that's in fitting with God's original command for Israel, or just the way any of us should treat our neighbors. Now, how many people in Israel feel that way? I have no idea. I haven't done a poll, and my point was not even particularly to call out the Palestinian people, but to say as a whole, this is the purpose of Israel, to bless people more largely, and we see that today. And I think if Israel [chuckles] were able to live in more peace, they'd be even more of a blessing to the world and beyond. Correct anything, challenge anything, add anything to that, Rick?
Rick Langer: Well, the only thing I'd say is that, I think the, audience, you know, member who brought up the question, "Doesn't this require a change in the heart of the Israelis, too?" I would be inclined to say, sure it does. I'm going w- there's a hundred years, I mean, just recent past [chuckles] .
Sean McDowell: Sure.
Rick Langer: You know, there's been a hundred year... I'm thinking from Balfour Declaration, which was a little over 100 years ago, there has been major contention between Israel and Palestine and a huge amount of mutual, you know, acts of violence against one another. And how do you keep track on a scoreboard of who's, you know, offended and, you know, harmed whom worse? And so when you have that kind of a situation, you're going to have ungodly attitudes towards the other side, you know, to the people who are your enemies, and you remember your son who was killed by a Palestinian- ... Terrorist or, by an Israeli IMF person or whatever it is. And so there's going to have to be a huge amount of heart change for Israel and Palestine to live together. And I think it's, without question, a two-way street. The ultimate destiny in terms of fulfilled prophecy or whatever, I'm not e- I'm not even vaguely talking about that. I'm just saying if you want to, mitigate some of this violence, you're gonna have to have changes in both directions. It can't be a one-way street.
Sean McDowell: Good word. I love that. That's, that's a great addition, Rick. All right, we've got a couple more we'll do somewhat quickly. This person says, "I drove past a man protesting our church. He was holding a poster that said, 'This church hates gay people.' He didn't say Jesus, the Bible, or Christians, but specifically called out our church by name. I should have stopped to talk to him, but didn't 'cause my family was with me. I'm sure he has a story that involves personal hurt. I feel our pastor does an excellent job of preaching on sensitive topics while remaining faithful to biblical truth and showing grace and love to those who disagree. My question is, how should I think biblically about this?" What do you think about this? What's, what's your take on this, Rick?
Rick Langer: Well, [sighs] so I, appreciate her comment. Yeah, or I think it's a her, I don't know. [chuckles] Anyhow-
Sean McDowell: Yeah
Rick Langer: ... Appreciate the comment about the pastor, being sensitive as he talks about moral issues, which would be w- the first thing I would encourage people, because you can be... You can absolutely be hateful and have the right morality, in other words, on a particular issue. You can, you can say things in ways that are intended to hurt, alienate, disenfranchise, diminish, dehumanize people.... Even if you're on the right side of the issue, you can be at the wrong w- on the wrong side of how you address it. So, I'm, I'm grateful that it sounds like the, you know, the pastor had been doing that. When you do that, I think in our contemporary world, it's very common for that not always to pay off in terms of seeing a tangible benefit. You know, we need to do the right thing, and whether or not people see that or not is a big challenge. Just one example, when we use the word sin to describe any behavior as Christians, you know, for us, I was a pastor for 20 years. If I stood up in front of the congregation and talked about them being sinners, no one in the congregation would think twice about that. [chuckles] They'd say, "Of course they are." I said, "You probably sinned three times before you got out of bed this morning."
Sean McDowell: [chuckles]
Rick Langer: You know, people would... They might laugh, but they'd realize there's a seriousness about that. When we view sin, we view this as falling short of God's standard, and we just realize we always do that, and it's really problematic, and that's why we need a savior. For most people in our culture, if you call someone a sinner, it's a bit like using the N-word or something like that. That is just taboo. And so if you say this behavior of homosexual, sexual activity between two people or something like that is a sin, all of that kicks in. "How can you call me a sinner? How can you judge me?" Like, there's a, there's a level of hate that just comes with using that language, and what I wanna say is, you guys, we need to understand each other a little better on this. We use the word sin differently in the Christian world than in the non-Christian world, in our culture today. There's probably a time when there was a pretty significant overlap in terms of how we used it, but right now there's none. We use the word sin as a thing that we kind of take for granted, being part of human nature, that we need a savior for and all of that. The secular world right now, when you say sin, it is judgmentalism, and it's, it's by definition unjust, unfair, and dehumanizing to the person on the other end. So I think we're a little bit lost if we want people not in the broader culture to just automatically say, "Hey, these folks are okay. You know, they do condemn the homosexual sexual activity, but nonetheless, they say nice things, and so we're all okay with it." and I'm like-
Sean McDowell: Yeah
Rick Langer: ... "You know, that's just not gonna happen."
Sean McDowell: Probably 20 years ago, I was speaking at a church, got an email where somebody tagged the senior pastor, and I was asked to speak on the topic of LGBTQ. And the person started by saying, "I can't have s- believe you'd have such a bigoted, homophobic, hateful guest such as Sean." I'm reading this going, "Wow, like, I- [chuckles] where did this come from?"
Rick Langer: Hey! [chuckles]
Sean McDowell: And I realized all of it was my position entirely. If you say the Bible defines marriage as one man and one woman for life, and any sexual activity, including same-sex sexual activity outside of that, is wrong, makes you a bigot. Once I figured that out, I said, "Oh yeah, I plead guilty. That's what the Bible says, and I stand by that." And the pastor had my back, and I bowed out of the conversation. I don't know why this individual is saying that this church, hates gay people. Maybe they preach against it in ways they don't preach against other things. Maybe there's hypocrisy. Maybe there's something... Maybe the language that is used is dehumanizing. If so, then the church needs to own it and fix it and get better. If it's saying the church is bigoted and hateful because it's preaching what the Bible says, then I go, "Yeah, the fact that you only have one person protesting your church, like, you should celebrate that-
Rick Langer: [chuckles]
Sean McDowell: ... Rather than be concerned that you have one person doing it." I do love the idea of reaching out. I've done this a lot, of people who reach out and have concerns. I go, "Let's get coffee. Let's talk." Now, while the person is protesting may or may not be the best time, but you could probably find out who that individual is, get their information, and meet in a public place, like, "Hey, can we just get coffee?" And just listen to this person, hear their story, hear where they're coming from. And at least minimally, even if this person is- has an issue with the theology that's taught, the fact that a Christian would work out and, would reach out and not criticize them, not attack them, not be defensive, and just listen, challenges the narrative that the Church is really hates gay people and is willing to engage. So that would be my encouragement. This last one, Rick, somewhat quickly, somebody wants to know our Bible reading plan. I've got a quick one I could share, but any tips from how you engage Scripture?
Rick Langer: Yeah, so I do use a Bible reading plan or through the Bible plan, 'cause I've found it really helpful, 'cause I am not the guy who's, you know, just perfect with having my quiet time all the time, but it keeps me moving. [chuckles] So if I don't have a quiet time for a couple of days, I can come back and go, "Oh yeah, this is where I pick up," and it's tracking what I last read. I usually... I actually love reading a physical Bible, so I go to my-
Sean McDowell: Me too
Rick Langer: ... Phone, open the app, find out what I'm supposed to read. I mark it as read, and then I turn to my Bible and actually read it. But I do use that, and I use, a pattern that mixes Old Testament and New Testament readings both.
Sean McDowell: Okay.
Rick Langer: So I've, I've enjoyed doing that, but I've used a lot of other things, too.
Sean McDowell: You kind of take what might be called a macro perspective. I take more of a bottom-up, micro perspective. So I took about three months going through John. Sometimes I'd read the entire gospel in the morning. Sometimes I'd get through 8 chapters or 12 chapters. Then I spent about two months on Luke. I read about one... I read the first 12 chapters, and then the next month I read 13 through 24, and I highlight, and I underline, and I take notes, so I have patterns in it. Right now, huh, look, I don't go around proclaiming this, but I was up at 5:00 this morning. I woke up, my first thought was, "I got an hour to get in the Word," and I'm reading through Deuteronomy, and I'm reading 1 through 6 every morning for at least probably about... 1 through 6, probably about a week and a half. And then I'm working through Dennis Prager, a Jewish talk show host, commentary on- ... Deuteronomy. And so I'll read 1 through 6, and then I read his commentary on Deuteronomy 1. The next day, I read 1 through 6, and then I read his commentary on chapter 2. And then I read 1 through 6, commentary on chapter 3, and I'll work my way all the way through Deuteronomy, highlighting. So that's why that passage that I shared, 1:17, was in the back of my mind, 'cause I've been thinking about it and trying to memorize certain verses. So that's how I do it, and I use a physical Bible. And I was thinking this morning, I'm like, "Man, how awesome will it be if I can keep this Bible, and I get to the end, and I can hold it up and go, 'I've worked through every book of the Bible'? That would actually be pretty cool." So that's my quick reading plan. But, Rick, anything else I missed today you wanna throw in there?
Rick Langer: I think we've got it covered.
Sean McDowell: All right, my man. 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. And again, we've got programs in theology, Bible, apologetics, spiritual formation, online and in person. Please keep your comments and questions coming. You can send them to thinkbiblically@biola.edu, and we would appreciate a rating on your podcast app. Every single one [chuckles] really helps. Hey, Tuesday, we've got a special episode. We had Tim Tebow on campus and had a conversation that one of our co-hosts who fits in, Thaddeus Williams, at the end, he's like, "Sean, that was the best conversation I think we've had on the Think Biblically podcast." So you will not wanna miss that Tuesday with Tim Tebow. Thanks so much for listening. In the meantime, remember to think biblically about everything. [upbeat music]
