Biola UniversityThis week, Scott & Sean discuss:
- A massive new challenges common narratives about climate change
- A new shows that markers of adulthood are occurring later and later for millennials and Gen Zers
- A terrible school shooting at a Catholic elementary school in Minnesota
- Listener Questions
Episode Transcript
Sean McDowell: [upbeat music] A terrible school shooting at a Catholic elementary school in Minnesota. A new study shows that markers of adulthood are occurring later and later for millennials and Gen Z-ers. And a massive new government study challenges common narratives about climate change. These are the stories we will discuss, and we will 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 of Theology, Biola University. Scott, this is a week both you and I just stopped checking stories-
Scott Rae: We just did
Sean McDowell: ... Because so much [chuckles] stuff was dropping in a range of areas. This first one I saw earlier this week, and we haven't talked a ton about climate change here. I really would love your take on this, but this is a study that dropped from the United States Department of Energy. It's called "A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the US Climate," and it was done for the energy, the US Secretary of Energy, Chris Wright, by five independent PhD scientists. Here's a few of the things that they say. This report is, like, 150 pages. They say, "Some of the surprisings will surprise people because it differs in important ways from the mainstream narrative, and indicates how far the public conversation has drifted from what the science actually reveals." Yet, what I love is they say in this report, they're inviting feedback and criticism and dialogue. So here's a few of the things they point out, that the world's several dozen global climate models offer little guidance on how the climate responds to elevated CO2. So there's a difference between looking at what they say are the facts and models that have certain assumptions baked into them, and we should shift towards looking at the facts. They said, "A combination of overly sensitive models and implausible extreme scenarios for future emissions yield exaggerated projections of future warmings." Now, here's a few things that they point out. They say, for example, "CO2 carbon enhances photosynthesis and improves plant water use efficiency. It promotes plant growth and helps with, really global greening in vital ways." They also say, "Its absorption in seawater makes oceans less alkaline," and there's a recent decline in pH within the range of natural variability on what they call millennial timescales. So there's been talk about decreasing pH negative effects. They say this might not be the case, and one challenge to that is the Australian Great Barrier Reef has shown considerable growth in recent years despite this trend. They say, for example, "While the modern rate change of CO2 may be high compared to prior intervals, the geological evidence is that plants and animals have evolved under much higher CO2 levels than at the present." They say some of the things like, people living in urban settings and the impact of the sun have been totally left out of the analysis. That would potentially change things. They talk about most type of extreme weather that we hear about all the time being cl- caused by climate change, allegedly. They say, "There's no statistically significant long-term trends over the available historical record: storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts, et cetera." there are increased burns. That has shifted, but a lot of the analysis ignores forestment management practices. They say [chuckles] "Since 1900, the global average sea level has risen about eight inches," but they say sea level change along US coasts is highly variable, and there's other processes like sinking sand and ocean circulation that can play a role, not... That are unrelated to climate change. And then they basically say, "Economists have long considered climate a relatively unimportant factor in economic growth." So they talk about the kinds of changes that need to be made, according to the traditional narrative, would cost millions, and they say this would have no or probably adverse effects trying to address this. So basically, in one study, [chuckles] they challenged things about carbon, they challenged things about massive storms, they challenged things about lower sea levels. They pretty much challenged everything here and said, "Let's have a dialogue. The science points elsewhere." This doesn't surprise me at all because I've been skeptical of a lot of the claims so far, but tell me your take on this, Scott.
Scott Rae: Well, Sean, my, initially, my first response was, it's a good thing that they invited feedback because they're certainly gonna get it. Uh-
Sean McDowell: [laughing]
Scott Rae: ... And it's, and it's gonna come from a lot of circles. And here, I would, I would summarize the report like this: that climate change is real, it deserves-
Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm
Scott Rae: ... Attention. It's a challenge, not a catastrophe. Now, here's what, I would suggest the, that the views on climate change exist on a continuum. There's one, it's on one extreme is what I would call the climate alarmists, that say, "You know, it's, it's a, it's a catastrophe that could that could wipe us out at any moment," and the climate deniers on the other end. I think both of those extremes are wrong. I don't think climate change is the end of the world, but I don't think it's a hoax either. I would compare it like this. It seems to me the narrative around climate change compares climate change to what I, w- I think basically the best way to describe it would be compare it to the Ebola virus. That you gotta... If you don't treat it now, it's urgent, it's an emergency. You have to treat this now or you're gonna die. You're, you're imminently dying.... Okay? I think the better way to view it is something like type 2 diabetes. It's real- -and you better pay attention to it, if, 'cause if you don't, you're gonna, you probably are gonna have a catastrophe on down the line. But it's not something that you have to, you know, pull out all the stops for. You know, to treat type 2 diabetes, you maybe take some medication, you change your diet, but you do- you have to, you have to be careful. It's something that has to be addressed, but it doesn't, it doesn't have to disrupt everything else in your life like treating an Ebola virus would. And I th- I would compare climate change to something like type 2 diabetes. And I think that's, I think that's the best way to view it. Now, I would agree with a number of things with the study that I agree with. I agree that the, US contribution to climate change, is probably more than offset by China, Russia, India, and Brazil, and other parts of the industrial world. There are human factors involved, but they're not the only ones involved. I think that's, I think that's right. Now, I w- here's, I guess, just a couple other items just on my take on this. I understand why the developing world has placed a different set of priorities than the West, than the industrialized- ... World has. The, the priority of the developing world is lifting their poor out of $2 a day poverty. And the two things we know are essential to doing that are education and cheap, plentiful energy. Those, those are the two most important factors that communities have to have f- to lift their poor, lift their poor out of poverty. Now, I think they recognize, the developing world recognizes that combating climate change and environmental priorities is best done with significant financial resources to accomplish it, because usually, and this is the ethical tension with environmental ethics in general, the moral tension is that to give proper weight to environmental concerns will, in most cases, not in every case, but in many cases, involve curtailing economic growth. And I don't think it necessarily has to be that way, but there are some environmental issues that economic growth is responsible for, and dealing with them will have-- will take a hit, to economic growth. And I think the developing world's shown, oftentimes, the hypocrisy of the West on climate change and environmental issues-
Sean McDowell: Sure
Scott Rae: ... Because, you know, when the when the West was developing our economies, you know, there were, there were no such concerns about environmental factors. And they say that's hypocritical to force contemporary standards onth- onto the developing world that the West did not adhere to at all when their industrial base was developing. So those are some of the, just some of my take on this. I've got a little bit more to say, but I'm curious to hear some of your take as well.
Sean McDowell: Yeah, I wanna hear the rest of your thoughts on this. I... Basically, as a whole, when we ask the question, like, you framed it like, climate denialists and then climate alarmists, how has this conversation been framed? It hasn't been framed like there's multiple voices here. [chuckles] It's been framed through the lens of alarmism. That's the dominant narrative, and people who don't adopt that or question that have just been attacked and written off and marginalized. That's the way this conversation seems to be carried out for me, as I followed it. So ironically, this study is like, "L- let's actually have some humility about this. Let's follow where the data leads." So I don't know that I'm convinced. Maybe you could convince me of this, Scott, that it's even to the level of, like, diabetes 2, that it's a condition on that level. Maybe it is. I don't know. We can only take an analogy so far. But really, what they're bringing out here is that the entire narrative is rooted on certain models about the future, and what's built into this model are factors that we don't know, and also, they ignore a ton of other factors. And we really don't know where this is headed, and a lot of the variability we're seeing right now is within the range of the kind of climate change we've seen throughout the history of our universe or our planet. So when we say climate change is real, I agree with you the way you phrased that, but I think most people are hearing, "Oh, climate change because of human factors, and we need to respond to this." That's how people hear the term climate change is real. I think when we say climate change is real, is that there's always been change in the climate from the very beginning for a range of different reasons, and there's nothing different about that right now. What the study didn't really attempt to show is how much of a factor of these changes are really due to human changes. It didn't reveal that. That's where I think a lot of the debate is going to come in, and at... I think the main thing this did is make me realize, wow, there's a lot of narratives I've been told about CO2, about rising sea levels, about the increases in storms, that when I read the news in the morning, preparing for the weekly [chuckles] cultural update, it's, like, taken as a given, and it's taken as granted. And this is saying, "Actually, time out, if we follow the data, it doesn't point there." So I-... Either a lot of people, because of how much they've bought into this narrative, are gonna try to ignore it, A, or B, just marginalize it and attack it. I wonder how many people will say, "Let's have a mature conversation about this, because we're called to care for the environment." It matters what we do. Humans are having some effect here, but we don't know how much, and I think the big takeaway from this is it's really an economic issue. What can we do? What should we do? And a lot of the efforts, like in Paris, that this points out, [chuckles] and in France, they have a smaller percentage of emissions, 6% versus the US, 14%, and their changes cost a ton economically and don't make a net change to the environment. Can we learn from these bad policies, like you said, for the sake of people in other societies that are not as advanced as the US?
Scott Rae: Now, that, I that's, that's really helpful. I think we're, we're probably entering a, maybe a new era in this discussion, where we'll, we'll have a debate over the facts. And I, you know, I think we'll, we'll see, we'll see where that goes. But I think, I think, I think there's no doubt that the rep- the facts in the report will be vigorously contested by the, you know, sort of by the people who've been portraying the dominant narrative that you describe. And I think we'll end up... I think w- the-- I say the jury's still out on where we're gonna land on that, but I think these are, I think these are challenging some of the right things. I mean, I would agree there are human factors involved. They're clearly not the only ones involved in this, and I think the report's right to point out that there are other factors that contribute to this. And how, you know, how much dealing with the human factors will actually contribute to solving the problem, I think that's r- that, in my view, is really the point of debate going forward.
Sean McDowell: Right.
Scott Rae: Now, Sean, what I wanted to point out is I think there's some, there's some worldview things going on in here, too-
Sean McDowell: Good
Scott Rae: ... That I find really interesting. One is, I think the assumption that human beings, and this is, this is part of anthropology, that human beings are net consumers. And dep- but I think depending on the economic system that people are in, I think it's quite possible to see people as net producers who produce- ... More wealth than they consume. And in the right-- this is, in my view, the genius of market systems, is that they allow human beings to be net producers and to produce well beyond the level of wealth that they actually consume. So that's, I think that's one thing. But that's, and that's dependent on the economic system that they're in. And as we've talked about before, some economic systems are more conducive to people being net producers than others. Second thing is, there's part of the climate ideology that I think is part of the narrative that you're describing, I think there's some of that is what I would call an anti-development bias-
Sean McDowell: Huh
Scott Rae: ... Which is a worldview, which is a worldview question. And I think we need to remind ourselves that there's, there's nothing intrinsically wrong about development. You know, human beings were given the creation mandate in Genesis 1 and 2 to be f- to be fruitful, to be economically fruitful, to bring-- to unlock what God has embedded into creation, and to put it to productive use. And market systems, in my view, are a human creation, but they're one of humanity's better creations that enable human beings to do precisely that. Here's... Let me, one writer really put this well. He said: "More precisely, in God's wisdom, man best guards the world precisely by subduing it. Wild animals become safe and serviceable only after they are made submission to-- made submissive to human rule. Land becomes more productive under human care. Art and architecture are possible because of human effort to transform the material of creation. Subduing the Earth brings safety, prosperity, and beauty. As the Earth is subdued, it becomes something worth guarding. By contrast, should man fail to exercise this mandate, the world will be less productive, less safe, and less beautiful." Man... He said, "Human beings guard the garden and the city, not so much the wilderness." And I think that we should point out that the vision for the kingdom of God when it comes in its fullness is not the heavenly garden, it's not the heavenly wilderness, it's the heavenly city, which is a, I think, a metaphor for development. Now, one other worldview thing I think that enters in here-
Sean McDowell: Yeah
Scott Rae: ... Sean, and this I think is really important. And this is the biblical priority on caring for the least among us and ensuring that whatever policies we have regarding climate change don't leave the poor, the poorest of the poor worse off than they were before. And, and I think we're probably... I mean, in my view, we're headed to an era where most of our energy will be provided by renewable sources, and I think that's probably a good thing. But the launch- the debate is over how long the launch ramp needs to be to get to that point, and if the launch ramp is too short, Sean, in my view, we will have condemned the poorest of the poor around the world to being stuck in perpetual poverty. Because we'll be denying them one of the two crucial things that we mentioned already, cheap, plentiful energy that's necessary for communities and nations to emerge out of that $2-a-day poverty. And so I'm concerned that the whatever policies we make moving toward renewable energy doesn't leave the poorest of the poor behind.... And I, and in my view, that too short a launch ramp will do exactly that. And that, I think, f- not only-- that's problematic for our environmental stewardship, but also for our stewardship toward the poor among us. So that would be my concern in, one of them, in moving too fast to get to renewable energy.
Sean McDowell: Good stuff. That's a great worldview and biblical take, as always. We'll track this, and if debate persists on this or grows, we'll come back and revisit it if scientists claim otherwise. This study I found, Scott, 'cause as you know, I do a lot of data on millennials and Gen Z, and now Gen Alpha, and I thought it was, it was an interesting... 'cause it was a study that's gone from 2005 to 2023. So it's really on millennials, and then kind of a segment of Gen Z-ers, I think you could say. And it's- it was by the US Census Bureau, and it's about changes in milestones of adulthood. This study used nationally representative data to examine young adults' experiences reaching five milestones of adulthood: living away from their parents, number one; completing their education, number two; third, labor force participation, getting a job or work, number three; marrying, number four; and living with a child, number five. So they're basically assessing how many, what trends have shifted with really millennials now, young adults today, from previous years. Here's the five. Number one, living with parents. Living with parents has become an increasingly common experience for adults in their 20s and 30s. So here's the data. In 2005, more than one in 10, 11% of that group lived at home. Now it's increased to 16%, so about a 50% increase of young adults living at home. Second, educational attainment. The share of the population who attained at least a high school diploma has reached historic highs, so that's higher. Among recent graduates, women make up 57% of undergraduate and 61% of graduate studies in 2022. So we're actually seeing an increase in education in the second category. The third one is labor force participation. Between 2003 and 2023, the percentage of women who were in the labor force increased by 4%, while the percentage of men in the labor force declined by 3%. Now, it's still 89%, but we've seen women increase; we've seen men decrease. Number four, marriage. The median age at first marriage was 27 for men and 25 for women. By 2023, women jumped from 25 to 28, and men jumped from 27 to 30. Twenty-seven to 30, so we've crossed the 30 threshold of the average age men get married. The last one, parenthood. They said the average age of women who had given birth for the first time was 27.3 in 2021, up from 24.9 in 2000. So about 74% of 30 to 34-year-old women had ever given birth, 62%, had done so. Now, there's a ton that we can draw from this study, but essentially, what they're saying is on f- at least four of the five metrics, we're seeing a push towards later of adulthood for young adults today. The only outlier is education, high school and college. I'm really curious your take on this, Scott.
Scott Rae: Well, Sean, it's really interesting, and, because in the 1980s, I was pastoring this age group. Uh-
Sean McDowell: Oh, wow!
Scott Rae: ... And it was, it was s- it was some of the most fun I've ever had in-
Sean McDowell: That's awesome
Scott Rae: ... Ministry in general. It was the-- it was so fun. People mostly in their 20s, all single. We had a lot, a lot of people met their spouses there, and what I realized is that the book that I referred so many people to 40 years ago to understand this generation, it's called The Postponed Generation.
Sean McDowell: Wow!
Scott Rae: And we were, we were talking about this 40 years ago, that peop- the struggle people were having, launching themselves or being launched into adulthood. I remember a co- a conversation with a physician friend of mine whose two sons were in their 20s, and he's saying, "How, how do I understand their failure to launch here?" This was 40 years ago.
Sean McDowell: Wow.
Scott Rae: And not... I mean, they had no prospects for marriage. They were living at home, no great job prospects, and he was ready to kick them out and put them on the streets. And he read, he read the book and helped him understand why people were postponing im- that emerging adulthood. And I think part of it had to do with, you know, just the economic security was a big deal-
Sean McDowell: Yeah
Scott Rae: ... Back then, although even we, you know, we're in a, we're in a really different time today, because I remember, Sean, when I graduated from college, you know, everybody got jobs. I mean, every-- I mean, nobody that I know- ... Didn't have a job, and mo- and almost all of them were, they were not underemployed either. It was just stan- it was just standard procedure that [chuckles] when you got a-- when you graduated from college, unless you were going to grad school, you got a job, and a good one, for the most part. And so this idea that, launching someone economically, I think, it was, is the big deal today. I think we have to realize we are in a, we're in a very different place economically, that, you know, when our seniors graduate from Biola here-... You know, unless they're of a, of a handful of majors, there's no guarantee that they're gonna get a job or that they're gonna be employed at a job commensurate with the skills that they have. I mean, some may be underemployed. I mean, we know people who, you know, they're baristas or they're waiting tables, or, you know, or doing something that's not what they trained to do. You know, blue-collar jobs have been exported overseas. AI is now taking more of those entry-level jobs. And I think, Sean, one thing I think that this report didn't point out, one thing that creates a different level of economic insecurity is the level of student debt that many-
Sean McDowell: Yep
Scott Rae: ... People have coming out of college. I don't know, I don't know anybody that I went to college with who had to borrow money to go to college. I mean, that was-
Sean McDowell: Wow, that's crazy.
Scott Rae: That was unheard of. You know, nobody took off... I mean, they either, they either worked or, you know, tuition was reasonable, and, you know, people had, you know, they had side jobs. They worked the summers to pay their tuition for the school year. You know, it just, it-- that was basically unheard of. Not to mention the fact that, you know, some people come away with, you know, 50 to $100,000 in student debt. You know, when I graduated from college, you could buy a house for that. You know, so I think the level of economic insecurity, I think is different today. But, you know, you've, you've studied, you've studied this group quite a bit, too. I'm sure you got a lot to add to this, too.
Sean McDowell: Well, I do have a few thoughts. I think it's interesting that, you know, the study at the end, it says, "In both 2005 and 2023, state-level homeownership cost burden was associated with lower odds young adults reach all five milestones." Homeownership now has become a burden that's just harder and harder for this generation to acquire. So I did see this. I don't know where you were gonna go with it, but I did see a lot of this through the shifting economic, just changes that have taken over the past quarter century. Here's kinda the bottom line of what they said: "Half of 25 to 34-year-olds having experienced all four milestones despite education in 1975." So half had. Fifty years later, it's basically a quarter. Basically, a quarter. So from 1975 to today, half as many young adults have gone through all of these metrics as they did in the past. That's a massive shift. Now, why does this matter? Well, for one thing, you know, one way I had it framed to me years ago was we get increased privileges when we have increased responsibility, because with increased privileges, we're less likely to abuse something. You can vote at 18. Presumably, you've graduated from high school, moving on to college. You can drink at 21. Either you're graduating from college or you're getting closer to. You've moved out of home, in principle, less likely to abuse it. So in a sense, there is an effect on society as people are achieving these adult milestones later and later. Less responsibility has some effect on society as a whole. Now, I think it's interesting, you mentioned [chuckles] that book from 40-some years ago. There was a movie in 2006, which is right kind of when this data was, we were starting to see the shifts take place, called Failure to Launch. Well, then, it- at that time in culture, it was viewed very negatively if you didn't launch. It was criticism of your kid, your child. Now, I think for better or worse, this isn't even a judgment call, I think that narrative has changed, and a lot of it is totally understandable, especially where you and I live, south of Biola in Orange County. It's so expensive. I don't know how my kids could possibly buy a house, let alone even get an apartment when they graduate from Biola. So the stigma here has shifted.
Scott Rae: My oldest son just bought a house in Los Angeles-
Sean McDowell: Yeah
Scott Rae: ... County, and he was-
Sean McDowell: Really?
Scott Rae: ... He was thrilled to get a house for under a million dollars.
Sean McDowell: Oh, my goodness.
Scott Rae: Thrilled. [laughing] And, and, you know, that's, that's way more house... I mean, there's no way I, we [chuckles] could-- no way you and I could afford, could've afforded that, you know, when we were starting out. But it's just, you know... And think about what, you know, what I paid for my first house was a pittance of that. And, you know, the burden that he's taken on with that is a significant one, and I think he's gonna be... I think he's gonna be okay, but it took a lot of soul-searching before he signed-
Sean McDowell: Wow
Scott Rae: ... Those papers and committed himself to the next 30 years.
Sean McDowell: Talk about-
Scott Rae: Yeah
Sean McDowell: ... Debt that you're entering into.
Scott Rae: Yeah.
Sean McDowell: And that's in LA, not even Orange County. So wow, that's a, that's crazy. How old is he, Scott?
Scott Rae: He's 34.
Sean McDowell: He-- Okay, he's 34. Wow. S- you know, so if we look in the past, this issue, failure to launch, by the time kids were teens, they were working on the farm, they were [chuckles] working at home.
Scott Rae: Yeah.
Sean McDowell: Like, these mile markers were just expected and normative, and I think this is an example of how the family and society shifts a lot because of technology and factors outside of our control. How do we think about this biblically? I mean, this is a tough one to frame biblically, just in part because I think we're seeing this phenomena, like you said, largely due to economic changes. In the past, for me, when I hear somebody was living at home, I mean, I'll be completely honest, I was like, "Get a job and get out of home." Like, "What are you doing?"
Scott Rae: Right.
Sean McDowell: I don't think we can necessarily assume those things anymore, especially this generation. There's just additional economic challenges and other challenges because society has shifted.
Scott Rae: ... Sean, I think most people who are working at home are not sitting home playing video games all day. Some are, but I think most of them, most of them have jobs, and they're working. They're out there doing the best they can to make a go of it. It's just, you know, launching into, you know, their own place is just, is just a lot more challenging than it was. I wonder, I'm curious to s- hear what you think about this. I wonder how much of you think this has to do with how parenting has changed in the last four- 40, 50 years?
Sean McDowell: That's a great question. I think it's a range of factors here. I think that's a piece of it. How much? I don't know, but you're right. You go back to previous generations, probably boomers. I mean, my wife's parents are like, "You're out of high school. Here's your stuff. It's out in the front. [chuckles] Figure it out. We love you."
Scott Rae: [chuckles]
Sean McDowell: It wasn't callous at all. If they hear this, she took that as love, but grow up, go to college, pay your own way, go for it. A- I think there's a shift in parenting as a whole. I mean, even things like health insurance, right? Now you're covered until you're 26. Again-
Scott Rae: Mm-hmm
Sean McDowell: ... Whether you should or not, that indicates a kind of challenge to grow up today and accomplish these milestones in a different way than in the past. So people getting married later, some of that is economic, but it's also a worldview shift, where there's a sense of like, I value certain things first. I place marriage in my life in a different place of importance at a later time than did earlier. So I don't know the answer to the question, Scott, but I think it's some combination of shift in parenting, some combination of a shift in the value of marriage, as well as technology. There's probably a lot of facets, contributing to this.
Scott Rae: Yeah, I'm not, I'm not advocating anything like free-range parenting.
Sean McDowell: Sure.
Scott Rae: But, but I do think probably this, the, you know, there's been a shift in parenting to shield kids more from-
Sean McDowell: Yeah
Scott Rae: ... Failures and setbacks and-
Sean McDowell: Yep, I agree with that
Scott Rae: ... And from the consequences of some of the choices that they've made. You know, we see this with some of our undergrad students when with parents stepping in, [chuckles] you know, in ways that are totally inappropriate, and are, you know, are just-- are they're not allowing their student to face the consequences of the choices that they've made. One, just one more quick note on this, too.
Sean McDowell: Sure.
Scott Rae: I wanna be, I wanna be careful we don't dismiss singleness. This is... I'm gonna s- just frame this one biblically, 'cause I think the Scripture has a l- has a lot to say about singleness. And basically, what I wanna, what I wanna be clear about from a, from a worldview perspective is marriage doesn't complete you. You know, being in Christ is what completes you.
Sean McDowell: Amen.
Scott Rae: And I would view, you know, marriage is a... It's an important stepping stone, but it's not a destination. It's a, I'd say it's, it's, it's acquiring a traveling partner for the journey, along the road. So I wouldn't, I wanna-- I wouldn't wanna dismiss the way the Scripture esteems singleness in many of the same ways as it does marriage.
Sean McDowell: Fair enough, and the trick is how we can hold up singleness and marriage at the same time, given the biblical and societal value of marriage. That's the key, but that's a conversation-
Scott Rae: Yep
Sean McDowell: ... For another time. All right, this last one, Scott, has kind of been haunting me all week, just heartbreaking. This school shooting that occurred at 8:30 a.m. Earlier this week, near the start of Mass. It was at Annunciation Christian School, which is in, which is in Minnesota. W- this 23-year-old individual came in, who is a biological male, who in- was known as Robert and then shifted his name to Robin, interestingly enough, a number of years ago, and had, has had some regret about that, but shot through the windows. Two children, ages 8 and 10, were killed, where they sat in the pews. Seventeen other people were injured, including three adult parishioners who were in their 80s and 14 children between ages 6 and 15. As of the time of recording this, the chief thinks that the rest of the injured are going to recover. It is interesting that the seems the firearms were all purchased legally, the guns that were used. There was no, like, AR-15 or something like that he used bought illegally. The shooter left writings and YouTube videos in connection to the attack that we will, we will come back to. And I guess the mother worked at the church, sometime earlier. Now, I've got some thoughts about this and how this has been covered in the news, Scott, but give us your reflections on this just kind of harrowing story.
Scott Rae: Well, Sean, this is a, this is just another case in the classic genre of the problem of evil. And, the qu- one of the things that the shooter wrote is that question, "Where is your God?"
Sean McDowell: That's right.
Scott Rae: And I think that's the question some of the parents were asking, too, and some of the victims who are, who are recovering are asking as well. And although this is human evil, not natural evil, like floods and earthquakes or other things like that.
Sean McDowell: That's right.
Scott Rae: But, but I think the answer to that is one- is what we've always maintained. God has given us genuine freedom to choose. That's... Our freedom of ch- of choice is not an illusion. Otherwise, if it were an illusion, it would be evil to hold people accountable for their actions if it were not the product of their choice. Now, that's not to say that environment can't have an impact, upbringing, influences, traumas, and so on, but at the end of the day-... But we hold, I think the Scripture teaches, that we have free will to make our own choices, for which we are accountable before God. Now, the where is your God part is the really, is, in my view, the challenging part of this, and I think in one respect, Scripture does address this. God ultimately, God addressed evil in the cross and resurrection-
Sean McDowell: Amen
Scott Rae: ... And in the, in the coming of the kingdom in its fullness, where all wrongs will be set right when, at the consummation of the kingdom. But for now, I think God has not given us the ability to see how all the pieces of life's puzzle fit together into a coherent whole. As I've told our students at Talbot several times in the past, said, "It's though this side of eternity, when we are under the sun, we see life, from the underside of an Oriental rug. We can sort of faintly make out the design, but it's full of knots and holes and loose ends that don't seem to fit all together. But once you... We're on top of the sun, viewing it from the other side of eternity, the intricate design becomes clear, and it's this intricate, beautiful design." And Sean, I suspect that if God had given us sort of the... If God has given us the box top for the jigsaw puzzle of all the pieces of life's puzzle for each of our lives, we might ask for another one. And we might say, "Lord, I'll, you know, this is great, but how about a plan B for this?" and I think God gives us as much as we can handle of w- of what He has revealed about how these things fit together in our lives. This one, I think this one may be, you know, we may not know the answer to this one until we meet the Lord- ... And face to face. But what God has given us is the, His presence with us, walking through those things that we don't fully understand. This was Job's case, where he was afflicted with unspeakable things, and yet God, you know, all his friends tried to answer that question, "What have you done to deserve this?" And, you know, when God comes on the scene, He does not give Job a cognitive answer for why he was suffering the way he was. Instead, He gives him His presence, His person, to walk with him through the things that he had experienced. And I think that's, that's the promise of God. And that's why I don't think just saying, you know, "Your, our prayers are with you," is not a meaningless thing, because we're invoking the thing that God has given to people who are suffering in the midst of being victimized by evil.
Sean McDowell: That's a great take, Scott, in terms of the resources we have as Christians with free will to approach this, God's sovereignty, but not claiming too much that we don't know from a human perspective. I think that's a helpful, humble response to this. You're right about the problem of evil. You know, I just posted this week a conversation with Peter Singer, who's been called the most influential [chuckles] living philosopher, very staunch atheist. When I asked him if he believes in God or not, he's like: "I cannot believe in God, and I don't, because of suffering of human beings and animals." I had a conversation with Todd McFarlane. Some will recognize that name. He's the co-creator of Venom, Spawn, epically jew, Spider-Man in the '90s. Haven't posted it yet. I will this week coming up, and he describes himself as five miles to the right of non-spiritual people. [chuckles]
Scott Rae: [chuckles]
Sean McDowell: That much of an atheist, and it really was the problem of evil to him that just is why he couldn't believe in God. So I get it emotionally, and one thing I say is every worldview has to make sense of why there's evil and suffering in the world, not just Christianity. So the question is not, can I say, "Here's why this school shooting happened"? I might not know the answer to that until the other side, but every worldview has to make sense of why there's evil, what we're doing about it, and that's where I think Christianity stands above. One of the things that intrigued me about this, Scott, was just, immediately the stories of people talking about the motive behind it. New York Times had an article that said, "Motive Sought in Minneapolis School Shooting That Killed Two Children." Motive s- motive sought. And then in their section, it said, "Here's the latest." It said, "The police in Minneapolis were looking on Thursday for what drove a 23-year-old shooter to open fire in a Catholic church, killing two children as they celebrated mass. One thing they suggested is the attacker's social media accounts revealed a fascination with guns, violence, and school shooters." and then it also says, "They included anti-Semitic and racist language, threats against Donald Trump, transgender flags, and the slogan, 'Defend equality.'" There was an article also in the ABC that said, "Officials say they are looking through information left behind to, quote, 'try to determine some type of motive.' The shooter clearly had a deranged obsession with previous mass shooters." Now, what's interesting is I think if the person didn't hold the views that this shooter had, we wouldn't have been seeing articles in ABC and The New York Times wondering about the motive. We just wouldn't. I mean, the New York Post had an article, and the title was... And these things can become political. That's not my point. I'm trying to make a worldview point. But in the New York Post, it said, "The deranged gungeman- gunman..." And by the way, when you describe someone as deranged, it's itself a way of seeing this. Through what lens do we understand someone with mental illness, somebody who's evil? "The deranged gunman who slaughtered two children, injured 17 others, has been identified as a transgender woman."... As disturbing images, videos posted by a shooter with a handwritten manifesto, "Kill Dro- Donald Trump," scrawled on gun magazines. So along with what you said, "Where's your God?" is also something that says, "Kill Donald Trump." Was very anti-Semitic, and added in one of them, "Free Palestine." eh, seemed to have far-left politics and anti-Semitism. Said, said he hates fascism and targets characters like Elon Musk, Trump, and some other executives. I think we just... W- to me, like with the climate change story, the way this is covered reveals deeper worldview commitments about what's wrong with the world, and also biases that people have. So I think we kind of know the motive. Now, probably with the motive, there's a lot of different angles to this, right? There was clearly emotional hurt. There's clearly brokenness. This person is struggling with gender identity. There's a range of issues at play here, but I just about guarantee you, if there was a manifesto on the other side that said, you know, "Vote Trump," or if the person was [chuckles] a Christian, like, we wouldn't see these narratives about, you know, what's the motive and what's driving people to do this. So that, I just-- I want to draw people's attention to that because the person somewhat said what the motive is. Now, what... I don't know. I mean, there were targets. Some of these stories are just coming out with the manifesto. There were targets that had Jesus in the middle of it, hence, this person targets a Catholic school that he went to. There was an image, reportedly, some of this still has to come out with himself, and the kind of the reflection was, like, Satan or a demon or something demonic on the other side. I mean, there's a lot of broken stuff taking place in this person's life. But if we really want to find out what happened, let's not begin with a certain narrative. Let's look at the facts and follow it, and this one doesn't fit the narrative like the study earlier, and so the reporting reflects that. And, you know, last thing I'll say is, so often the claim is that conservatives who do not adopt the transgender narrative are the ones who are causing all the violence and the pain and the hurt. I'm not gonna remotely flip it around and say the LGBTQ community is. That is not my point. Let me be super clear about that. But I think when somebody who has gender dysphoria and is led to believe that, "If I change my gender identity, this will help alleviate the pain," and it clearly doesn't, and then later, this individual, Robert, who shifted to Robin, confessed some regret about that, maybe we're not really addressing the core problem itself. I wonder, and I can't prove this, Scott, I think when you think about the safest place kids should be, it should be the home, it should be the school, and it should be a church. This took place at a school, at mass, at a church. I mean, if that's not demonic, I don't know what is. That's how I see it. What do you think?
Scott Rae: Well, I think you're right to highlight the way it's covered. That's, that's... I think that's a helpful word to our listeners to just, you know, u- read the news with discernment about how it's, about how it's being covered. And I think we'll probably learn more about the motives as time, as this unfolds, and we learn-
Sean McDowell: That's right
Scott Rae: ... And we learn more. But and I, and I... You know, I'm usually a little skeptical to speculate about people's motives unless I have really good evidence to do that. And so I'm, I'm-- I say the jury's still a bit out on what exactly motivated this person to do this, but I do think that there's, you know, there's a lot of brokenness, a lot of insecurity, a lot, a lot of stuff coming out that, I think we need to, we need to have some measure of compassion as well.
Sean McDowell: That's fair. One, one quick question before we move on. When you see something like this, do you have a lane of, like, demonic activity behind this? I mean, for me, I don't know if this person was literally possessed or not. I don't know that I could prove that or show that. Minimally, the ideas of death and killing the most, you know, w- most vulnerable amongst us, that in itself is a demonic idea.
Scott Rae: Yeah.
Sean McDowell: How, how do you process that-
Scott Rae: Yeah
Sean McDowell: ... Amidst motives and what's causing this?
Scott Rae: Yeah, I'm a little reluctant to see cause and effect, but I will say, I think Satan had a good day yesterday.
Sean McDowell: When more comes out, we'll talk about this, and, see if we can give some helpful feedback. All right, Scott, we've got some good questions here.
Scott Rae: Really good questions today.
Sean McDowell: As always, and, this first one, basically is a question about, atonement theory. So, like, crisis victor or more exemplar theory, more example theory, some folks are in favor of. Others say there's multiple biblical aspects of the atonement. Some folks reject penal substitutionary as one of the aspects of the atonement. Can you help us make sense of all of this?
Scott Rae: Yes, well, we can. In fact, I interviewed Bill Craig about this very thing at ETS a couple of years ago when his book on- ... When his massive scholarly tome on the atonement came out. And I asked him, 'cause he was, you know, he was enter... Looked like- it looked to me like he was entertaining several other alternative views of the atonement than the substitutionary one. And so I said, "Bill, does this mean that, you know, that you think that-... The traditional doctrine of the substitutionary death of Christ is not adequate? And he said, "Oh, absolutely not." But that, but he wasn't holding that things like the moral example were necessarily wrong. He said that they all, they, most of them contribute something positive to our understanding of the death of Christ. The Christus Victor that talks about the Christ's victory over death is clearly true. And he sa- he said he, his view was it's, it's essentially, you know, all of the above contribute. Though I think he did acknowledge that the primary emphasis in the Pauline epistles, for example, was the idea of Christ being our substitute and paying the penalty for our sins, and that's Paul's teaching in Romans 3 and 4, where the ledger account of our, of our lives, where we, you know, we-- the debit of sin was erased, and the credit of the righteousness of Christ was credited to our account, and that's what accounts for our justification. He said that's the main thing, but it's not the only thing that contributes to our understanding of the atonement. It was a much richer, much more multifaceted-
Sean McDowell: Sure
Scott Rae: ... View than I think most of us have had.
Sean McDowell: I think there are different ways we can look at the atonement. For example, moral example. There is a moral example of Jesus sacrificing for, himself for others, and we even saw that in the shooting. We saw people being willing-
Scott Rae: Mm-hmm
Sean McDowell: ... To sacrifice themselves for others. We see that in the atonement. Christ is victor. Death has been defeated. Christ, you know, shows his victory, so to speak. But the key point Bill makes is that penal substitutionary atonement is essential. It's not negotiable-
Scott Rae: That's right
Sean McDowell: ... To the gospel, even though there's other ways. So Galatians 1:4, talking about Jesus, "who gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age." 1 Corinthians 15:3, "Christ died for our sins in accordance with Scripture." So because there's more ways to look at the atonement doesn't mean penal substitutionary atonement is not necessary and essential for the gospel. That's, and I believe that's what Biola holds, and Bill Craig does as well.
Scott Rae: That's, that's correct. In fact, I would... If I could summarize the gospel, I'd say that would be it. You know, Christ died for your sins. Believe.
Sean McDowell: Amen. [laughing] Good word.
Scott Rae: Pretty straightforward.
Sean McDowell: So here's a question with a lot of depth about when it's okay, for somebody to have a second marriage. So there's a sister in a second marriage due to her husband's infidelity. Her current husband was a pastor but is now successful in martial arts. There's-- but he's very verbally and abuse- emotionally abusive, brings her to tears regularly. He might be physically abusive. She hardly has money and resources. You know, there's a lot more backstory to this, but is divorce permissible in God's eyes for the reasons stated above? What do you think, Scott?
Scott Rae: Well, this, I think my, Sean, my view of divorce and remarriage has shifted a bit over the last few years because our friend and theologian Wayne Grudem has, I think, provided some additional helpful data in helping us understand Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 7 on this. And essentially, I think what he has done is to broaden the categories for which divorce is acceptable. 1 Corinthians 7:15 reads like this, said, "If the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases, the brother, sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace." And the term "in such cases" is the... What he's done some additional work on and seen. That phra- that phrase is not used in any part of the New- any other part of the New Testament but does occur in other parts of classical Greek. And what it, what he came to, and I think he's right about this, is instead of referring back just to that specific case where the unbeliever, departs and le- and abandons the marriage, he said, "In..." I think he translates that as, "In cases like this, the person is free." And so he's, he's describing some of the other things that are like that that would cause someone to abandon the marriage, and he points out, you know, things like abuse or, you know, physical or sexual abuse of children, prolonged verbal and relational cruelty, credible threats of physical harm or murder, drug or alcohol addiction, gambling, pornography, that are incorrigible addiction, those things like that. I think he was describing as things that are s- in similar cases to the one described in 1 Corinthians 7:15, where the, where the spouse has abandoned the marriage, even though he may, he or she may not have physically left, that person is no longer bound to that marriage. And I th- and in my view- ... That situation, I think, applies here.
Sean McDowell: I agree with it. Here's, here's my only pause, is we have one side of this narrative-
Scott Rae: True
Sean McDowell: ... And I really hesitate for you and I [chuckles] to give advice for marriage that somebody would take as gospel. So my advice would be, get this little book you recommend. It's called What the Bible Says Ó£ÌÒÊÓƵ Divorce and Remarriage. It's about 100 pages, it's small, by Wayne Grudem. It's with Crossway, and some of the content you're talking about specifically is on pages 41 kind of to 47 or so, but read the whole book, and sit down with a trusted pastor. Pray about it, talk about it, get practical advice to work this through with a counselor. But based on what you've told us, I think there is biblical precedent in principle for divorce, given some of these circumstances. Would you agree with that, Scott?
Scott Rae: I would. I would. And I think, you know, f- it's a good word for us to have a little humility in the advi- in the advice that we're giving in this case. [laughing]
Sean McDowell: ... Fair enough. I think that's, that's well said. Okay, so this last question is specifically about the Obergefell ruling, and this individual said, "We talked about it before, but didn't highlight what we consider some of the weaknesses." This is the 2015, Obergefell versus Hodges same-sex marriage ruling, and says, "Well, what are some of the challenges to it?" Maybe we do a full episode on this, Scott. Those of you listening, if you want us to-
Scott Rae: That's, that's a good word.
Sean McDowell: We could do a deep dive on this, but I'll just give a couple examples here. This is in the ruling itself, which you can read online. Read it, read it yourself, people listening. They say, "The history of marriage," and this is the response from Kennedy, who wrote the opinion of the court. "History of marriage is a union between two persons of the opposite sex, marks the beginning of these cases. The respondents say it would demean the timeless institution of marriage if it were extended to same-sex couples. But the petitioners, far from seeking to devalue marriage, seek it themselves because of the respect and need for it." What I would say is they're not seeking to add same-sex couples to marriage. They are changing marriage. They're changing the nature of itself by removing the sexed or gender differences. Keep that in mind. Second, they write in the court, in these four principles, they say, "The first premise of the court's relevant precedent is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy." I think we have the right to get married, but I don't think the state... And this was the blistering response by John Roberts when he said, "Who do we think we are, that we change the definition of marriage?" yes, same-sex couples have the right to get married, but they first have to establish that marriage is not a sexed institution, and that case has not been made. Another argument that they make here is they say, "You know, the court's jurisprudence is that the right to marry is fundamental 'cause it supports a two-person union." I wanna go, "Wait a minute. Once you take out male and female, why is marriage a two-person union?" They want to keep in this ruling that it's a two-person union, and yet they remove the sex difference, which is why it's a two-person [chuckles] union. They never explain it. The ruling also says one of the reasons is to safeguard children and families, and I would say it has the opposite effect. The research is clear from Bradley Wilcox, sociologist, University of Virginia, and others, that children no long- not only have a right to mom and dad, but they flourish best with a mom and a dad in the home. So I think Obergefell is defunct philosophically, I think it's defunct sociologically, and I think the argument is poor, but you and I can think about doing a full, deep dive on that-
Scott Rae: Yeah, I-
Sean McDowell: ... In due time.
Scott Rae: That's a good, that's a good word. I think, I think we should do that.
Sean McDowell: You know, I hesitate to say it's fun because it's just... One of these was just such a heavy story, but I always appreciate your feedback-
Scott Rae: Well
Sean McDowell: ... And enjoy the dialogue, and hope our listeners feel the same way.
Scott Rae: Amen.
Sean McDowell: Yeah. This has been brought to you by, Talbot School of Theology at Biola University. It's a part of the Think Biblically podcast. We've got programs online and in person. Think about joining us. Enrollment is up. Biola is in an amazing spot. We would love to have you join us. Send your comments in or ask questions, thinkbiblically@biola.edu, and please take a moment to give us a rating on your app. Each one of those helps tremendously. We'll see you Tuesday when a regular episode airs, and in the meantime, remember to think biblically about everything. [upbeat music]
