Biola UniversityTo kick off 2026, Sean and Scott discuss:
- The
- A about teachers' rights to inform parents about a child's gender identity.
- Arguments for allowing
- A New York Times feature on
- Listener followup on our recent episode about alcohol
Episode Transcript
Sean McDowell: [upbeat music] What are the biggest religious trends to watch for in 2026? Should doctors be able to allow organ donors to have their body parts procured before they are dead? A federal judge rules that teachers have the right to inform parents about their child's gender identity at school, and The New York Times has a surprising review of an international conference on near-death experiences that is very insightful for our cultural moment. These are the stories we'll discuss, and we'll also address some of your questions. I'm your host, Sean McDowell.
Scott Rae: I'm your co-host, Scott Rae.
Sean McDowell: This is the Think Biblically Weekly Cultural Update, brought to you by Talbot School of Theology, Biola University. Scott, just as we were starting, you said, "This is kicking off our third year of the Weekly Cultural Update." You ready for this?
Scott Rae: I am. Happy to be back as 2026 is underway.
Sean McDowell: Well, we've got a story, I think, that's, in some ways, perfect to start with. It's from Religion Unplugged, and it's five stories of trends to watch for in 2026. And they said, "While 2025 revealed a possible slowing in the long-term decline of Christianity in the United States, new data this year could either confirm that trend or upend it entirely." I guess we'll wait to see. Here's the ones that they came up with. The first one is a rise in antisemitism, and one of the things they point out is that we see it across the political spectrum, on the left, and now somewhat increasingly on the right, and you and I have talked about that. The second one is, as we move into midterm elections, to look for culture war issues to really come to the forefront, cost of living, the economy, I'm sure moral issues like abortion, maybe euthanasia. And they really highlight this year, the 250th anniversary of America's founding, which, of course, will fall on July 4th, may add to this tension and dialogue. I imagine there'll be a lot of conversation about what degree do we have a spiritual founding, and should that continue? The next story was Leo XIV's first year as pope, which is fascinating to think about. He's been largely under the radar, but we'll see what kind of stories as he starts making decisions tied to doctrine come to the surface. The next one is Christian persecution in Nigeria, and the US's Christmas attack on Islamic terrorism from our current administration, really has shifted that conversation. And the last one they mention is AI and its impact on faith. Scott, did any of these jump out to you, disagree with any? Would you add any big stories? What's your take?
Scott Rae: Sean, I wanna start with the, what I think maybe was a, the throwaway line in the introduction to this, where they say, "Formal religious affiliation declines, but spiritual belief remains widespread." Now, what that spiritual belief entails is anybody's guess. I mean, that could be all across the spectrum. But it echoes past data that we've talked about, Sean, that suggests that among many of the nones, they've sp- they've essentially given up on a religious affiliation or a church affiliation, but not their faith. Their faith remains the real thing. Now, I found that somewhat encouraging but incomplete, and I think the big takeaway from this is that what we're forgetting in this trend is that spirit... Our spiritual formation, our sanctification, our flourishing is a team sport, not an individual one, that requires a community. And, like I say, a sense of community is not optional for a person's spiritual growth, even though it can be messy and challenging. But that our sanctification is much more like football or baseball than it is golf or tennis. It's a, it's a, it's a team sport that requires a sense of community. And I've, I'm of the opinion, Sean, that your spiritual growth will invariably be stunted if you're not involved with a community of other followers of Jesus. And I would hope for many, for many of these folks who identify as a none, but their faith remains real, that one of the commitments they might make in 2026 is to be... Have some sort of community of other followers of Jesus that they are regularly involved with, and not to try to do a private faith as an, as an individual sport. So that, I'd say, that'd be- that's my first take. That wasn't one of the trends that they pointed out, but I think that's really an important one that I don't wanna miss in what I think was probably intended as a comment just by way of context and introduction to the piece.
Sean McDowell: Well, I love it. Our first Tuesday episode next week will be with our very own Carmen Imes on why the Church still matters. [chuckles] Now, 2025 really was the year where the growth of the nones, N-O-N-E-S, somewhat plateaued, and it had been increasing since the 1990s. So the question is that just a blip on the radar, or is that the sign of a larger trend, and what does it mean for the future? So I think you're right to highlight that that is something we will be looking for and covering in 2026. I can't take away any of these stories. I thought all five are interesting, and we'll be tracking them. What I start- tried to ask myself was, are there any stories that were left out of this that I would add? And I could think of two, and one of them is just, what other stories will we hear of people converting to the Christian faith [chuckles]
Scott Rae: Yeah
Sean McDowell: ... That surprise us?... And in the past couple years, we've had Ayaan Hirsi Ali, one of the leading atheists in the world, Russell Brand, with a surprising conversion. We've had people like just a few weeks ago, I had a chance to interview Charles Murray, MIT-trained, Harvard, secular thinker, New York Times best-selling author, who says he's a ek- he kind of describes it as an eccentric Christian, wrote a book called Taking Religion Seriously. And then just really earlier this week, Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, said that he plans to convert to Christianity. Now, exactly what that means is a topic for another day, but I'm really curious, when we're here in 2027, [chuckles] Lord willing, and we look back, what surprising conversion stories will we hear? I'll look for that, and my big question is, you know, one of the surprising things from 2025, obviously tragic, was the death of Charlie Kirk, the assassination of him, and there was a lot of conversation is there a revival among younger people spurred on by this? I think we'll really start to see some of the data in 2026.
Scott Rae: You know, to just to ta- to take off on that, I wonder if we'll see some of the folks we identified in 2025 as cultural Christians, who ap- who appreciate the cultural contribution of Christian faith but are not interested in converting themselves. I wonder if we'll see some of those folks actually come to faith in this coming year. I think that's something else, something else to watch for. Now, I'm not, I'm not convinced that we'll see Richard Dawkins come to faith.
Sean McDowell: [laughing]
Scott Rae: That, that may be a, that may be a stretch. But, you know, maybe somebody like Charles Murray, who you interviewed, who has a great appreciation and takes religion seriously as a, as a cultural contributor, you know, maybe folks who are in that category may actually come to faith. I had one other takeaway on this-
Sean McDowell: Yeah
Scott Rae: ... Sean, and that is on the culture war issues that they describe as being potentially influential in the, in the midterm elections. I see a little deeper trend at work here that I don't think the article pointed out, and I'd be interested to hear your take on this. I think the deeper trend at work in the culture is so, is increasingly people wanting to be, quote, "above the culture war fray," just wanting, just wanting not to be involved in those incredibly divisive issues. And, and I wanna be careful that we don't dismiss important issues like abortion and assisted suicide and race and LGBTQ issues by putting them under that, quote, "culture war" heading. And Sean, I think our listeners need to know the reason there's cultural conflict over these issues is because they're really important, and they have to do with life and death and who qualifies as a person, what kind of respect persons are due who are different from us. I think the other thing that's at, in play here, the deeper cultural issue that we need to point out, is I think there's a deep cultural skepticism in the broader culture about religious people being involved in politics. Even though we would say there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that. We've said repeatedly, Christian faith has an essential public dimension. It's not just about a private faith, and actually, I think you can make an argument that prohibiting Christian or religious voices from the public square is actually a denial of the First Amendment right of religious freedom. So, and religious freedom is not just extended to times of worship and the private dimension, as previous administrations tried to shape the law to restrict it to those domains. It's an intrinsically public faith with a public dimension, a social dimension, that I don't think can be denied.
Sean McDowell: That brings us right to the next story in terms of LGBTQ rights and, a federal ruling tied to two Christian teachers who wanted the right to be able to share specifically with some parents about the gender identity of students. And so before we come to that story, I think in 2026, we're gonna continue to see some of the question of what we call LGBTQ rights and religious liberty come to fruition and continue to be settled, 'cause there's still some outlying [chuckles] concerns of what this looks like in our, you know, pluralistic society. So I think that's a great word by you. Now, you sent me this article, and it's fascinating. I had not seen it, which is really interesting, taking place in California here, but obviously has far more implications to it. And there was a late December decision, a US District Judge, Roger Benitez, concluded that federal law allows school employees to notify parents of gender incongruence. "School staff members," he wrote, "are free to make a personal decision to contact a parent with information about a possible LGBTQ+ identification of their child." his court also ordered, barring school districts from misleading parents related to their child's gender presentation at school. And this is some of the tension that was brought specifically to these two Christian educators. A, can I positively inform parents? And B, will I be forced to go along with certain pronouns and a gender shift with a student? Even when parents ask me about this, am I forced to go along with it? We can see the tension that arose.... So Benitez wrote a ruling online that's actually pretty interesting. He said, "California public schools may be gun-free zones, but they are not First Amendment free zones." He said, "Religious teachers face an unlawful choice between sacrificing their faith and sacrificing their teaching position," and we've seen this before. He said this, he said, "Because the state defendants', parental exclusion policies demand that teachers communicate misrepresentations or deceptively avoidant responses to parental questions, which in turn violate the constitutional rights of parents, this type of government speech may not be forced upon teachers who conscientiously disagree." Now, no surprise, the state appealed the decision, the very day [chuckles] that it was issued, so this is gonna continue in the courts. Some of the things brought up, there's a professor from UC Berkeley School of Law who's cited, who criticized the ruling and said it should be vulnerable to an appeal. He said, "The question is how to balance the parents' rights against the speech interests and autonomy of the child." Very interesting way of framing this, the rights and authority of the parents with the autonomy of a child, and we're talking about elementary kids. Now, there's far more that's going on here and other details that I could fill in, but tell me, what's your takeaway from this? What do you, what do you see here?
Scott Rae: Well, a couple things. One is, Sean, I wasn't aware that, elementary school-aged children had that much autonomy to begin with.
Sean McDowell: [laughing]
Scott Rae: And I, and I don't think they do. Uh-
Sean McDowell: Yeah.
Scott Rae: You know, they don't have the right to make medical decisions for themselves- ... Unless the, unless the parents are doing something that's obviously harmful to the students. But I take this as a major win for parental rights and for teachers who have- who wanna follow their conscience. Now, I think to be clear, the ruling doesn't mandate this disclosure, but it allows it.
Sean McDowell: That's right.
Scott Rae: So, and so what they, what they can't do, school districts can no longer mandate that teachers are not allowed to communicate with parents about their students' LGBTQ inclinations. That's probably... That's the best way to put it. What the court order specifically disallows is what the s- w- they, what they point out, what the state calls, quote, "parental exclusion policies" that were on board in many school districts throughout California, such as lying to parents, misleading parents about the student's gender, or using different pronouns with parents than they might use at school. Now, they also can't prevent parents from accessing the school records of their students, which I didn't, I didn't know that that was- that that was a thing to begin with. But... And all these things suggest that these were going on in schools to hide important information from parents about their students, and so I think this is a major win for parental rights. At the same time, I wanna be sensitive to, you know, to LGBTQ students who may have fears about their parents knowing what their inclinations are in terms of their sexuality. You know, I don't know that every family's gonna be, you know, gonna be supportive, or gonna, you know, or gonna be accepting of this. But I have a hunch that most families, if they, if the, if the s- if the school tells them and discloses about things that they see and hear about their students, will at least wanna have a conversation and will wanna listen. Hopefully, that will be the case, and that it, at the least, it sparks a needed conversation between students and parents. That I think is a, it would be a really good outcome to come of this. But I can understand why some students might be, you know, might be nervous about this because they're, they will be going back to families who they ha- who they're very afraid of bringing this information to. But I think at, for the most part, I wanna, I wanna give parents the benefit of the doubt here. I think it's important that we do that. And although I... You know, I understand why students may be a little nervous, but I think most parents, now maybe not all of them, but most parents and families, I think are gonna, are gonna be listening and are gonna be trying to understand and trying to do what's in the best interest of their student.
Sean McDowell: That's really the question at play here underlying this. Who has the best interest of the student? Is it the state, and is it the school, or is it the parents? So we have to answer this as a whole, even though there may be some exceptions to the case that you're pointing out. So what I hear you saying is this is a parent's right, this is a parent's responsibility, but I have sensitivity and care for the kids whose parents won't handle it well. But that shouldn't overturn the right of parents to have such relevant information [chuckles] for their kids, and the state should not be keeping it. In his 52-page, you know, brief on this, the judge pointed out, he said, "When these kids are older and live the rest of their lives, the school is not gonna be there for them. It's their parents and family who will." This ruling online, people can read it if they want to. They certainly don't have to, but I found it interesting. I read the first part a few times, and I just wanna read the way this begins 'cause it's important for the underlying worldview and theological debate that I think is, it, is at play here. So he starts off, and he writes this, says, "Long before Horace Mann advocated in the 1840s for a system of common schools and compulsory education-"...parents have carried out their rights and responsibility to direct the general and medical care and religious upbringing of their child. The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition." Then he says, "It is a right and a responsibility that parents still hold." Now, he walks through some of the questions that are at play here, but he says, historically, for example, school teachers inform parents of physical injuries or questions about a student's health and wellbeing, so why shouldn't teachers have a right to inform parents of a gender identity shift? And especially because when we know that the LGBTQ community has higher rates of anxiety, and depression, and loneliness, religious liberty aside, one can make a case that if a kid does shift gender identity for the sake and health of the kids, the parents should know so they can intervene rightly. So I think at play here is really the question of who has the authority and responsibility of the kids, and it's a classical American ideal. It's a conservative idea. I think it's a biblical idea that parents have the first responsibility. It's more of an idea on the left that the state knows best and should protect kids from their parents. That worldview idea, I think, is rightly being challenged, and I do hope it'll make it up to the Supreme Court that'll rule in a way that will respect parents' rights. Anything else you wanna add to this one, Scott? What do you think?
Scott Rae: No, no, you said that, you said that pretty well. So I'm encouraged with this. We'll see where it goes on appeal.
Sean McDowell: You know what? You said I did it pretty well. I'll take that for the first story of 2026.
Scott Rae: Okay.
Sean McDowell: I'll take a B from you know, pretty well. [laughing]
Scott Rae: You know, I was, I was a- I was about to say that you said it better than I did. [laughing]
Sean McDowell: [laughing] No recovering you said pretty well. It's too late. It's recorded. Can't edit it out. All right, all kidding aside, this is another actually really serious story, and this one is right in your lane because you've done so much consulting, and writing, and debating on bioethics. I really don't know what to do with this story, Scott. This is from Wesley Smith, who works with our friends at the Discovery Institute, and one of the things that he does is he reads a lot of academic papers and works and tries to bring it to the public so we can say, "Hang on a minute. Here's a trend that people are arguing. If we don't pay attention to this, we could wake up in two, five, 10 years and live in a very different cultural moment." So as I understand it, there's what's called the dead donor rule. It's a legal and ethical mandate that requires vital organ donors to be truly dead before their body parts are procured. A corollary to the rule holds that people cannot be killed for their organs. So the DDR, again, dead donor rule, it promotes trust in the system and protects the vulnerable, those who are, say, sick or injured, from a decision being made, "Well, you're gonna die in a matter of time, or you don't have a certain quality of life, so we will take your organ for someone else who we think has a better quality of life." So it's meant to protect the vulnerable, but it's flexible enough to permit living donations of a kidney, which of course [chuckles] you did, or another part, of the body that's not a vital organ. Now, the reason, he's talking about this, and we're bringing it up here on our update, is that in the Journal of Medical Ethics, out of Oxford, by the way, there's a new piece by a bioethicist, Lawrence J. Macey, arguing that patients who want to donate should be able to be killed or as a direct result of the organ procurement process. Now, Smith is really concerned about this. He says, "We're assured years ago that brain dead means dead. Now that this is accepted, many bioethicists are claiming that actually it isn't." So these bioethicists claim that procuring organs from those diagnosed as brain dead also means that we can harvest comatose patients whose brains are clearly functioning. That's the concern, and the way this is couched out, which I think is interesting, is this, again, this bioethicist argues that it's a heroic thing to do, like somebody jumping on a grenade to save somebody else's life. That's what he compares it with, and the pushback that Smith has, he says, "Jumping on a grenade to save another soldier is not the same thing as soldiers throwing another person on the grenade, which would be more akin to a surgeon killing for organs." Now, there's some details here we don't need to go into, but Smith basically argues that, number one, it should concern us that this utilitarian ethic is being argued in the journals, because we've seen that seep into the popular culture, and this essentially turns doctors into killers and is one other way euthanasia would seep into our culture. What do you think about this, Scott?
Scott Rae: Well, you're right, Sean. It is, it is complicated. And I think the main, the main takeaway from this is that-... What this, what this author is describing, not Wesley Smith, but the person he's critiquing, who comes fr- who comes from a Catholic background, by the way, is that patients ought to be allowed to essentially commit suicide by donating their organs. And so they would, they would, they would, they would allow physicians to say, "Take their heart," as the means of causing their death. And the reason, the reason that's motivating this is that, Sean, the lo- the longer a patient declines in terms of their health, and the closer they get to dying, the less, the less usable their organs become. And so what they're trying to do is to maxim-
Sean McDowell: Gotcha
Scott Rae: ... Maximize the plausibility of organs which are in huge demand and short supply. And so for, you know, for example, f- you know, 40, 50 years ago, the definition of death basically changed from cardiac indicators, like your heart stopping, to brain death. And I think it was larg-- not entirely, but largely motivated by a desire to increase the availability of organs for transplant, because people who were, say, in a, in a major auto accident and were brain dead, but their heart was still beating, we couldn't take their organs, even though they were clearly dead. And if, and if, life support measures stopped, they, you know, all those vital functions would stop. And so I think there actually were good reasons philosophically for this change in the definition of death, because if your-- Sean, if your brain stops functioning, then all other vital functions are no longer self-initiating, even though they can be sustained artificially. So as soon as soon as the-- as soon as they're disconnected, within a few minutes, they're all gonna stop. So what this, what this, bioethicist is arguing is that physicians cause the deaths of patients for lots of other reasons. So why not make organ removal of an imminently dying patient the cause of a patient's death, especially if it saves the life of someone else? As he-- basically, he's arguing it like this: if we allow patients to cause their own death by removing life support, which we routinely do, then what's the difference? And I would suggest there's a very big difference, which he doesn't accept. There's a big difference between killing and allowing to die. When patients turn off life support, we allow the underlying disease or condition to take its natural course. We just don't, we just don't intervene medically to stop it any longer. Or sometimes, I think with the way we provide pain medication for someone at the end of life, it may take a certain level of pain medication to actually control someone's pain, but it actually may, it actually may shorten their life. And it's-- but we would say that's, that's an unintended and a side effect of an otherwise moral thing that we are doing. So this is-- we refer to this as the law of double effect. Now, Sean, I think-- the reason I think the dead donor rule is important is, you know, let me expand on some of, some of what you pointed out already.
Sean McDowell: Yeah.
Scott Rae: Is to keep, is to keep organ procurement independent of pressure or coercion on the donor, or specifically on the donor's family. Now, I've been involved with organ procurement agencies in the past, in the consulting that you referred to, and was, you know, was involved with it again, just, you know, in the last two years, donating my kidney to my brother. And organ procurement agencies are understandably aggressive in their attempts to persuade families and donors to donate. However, the practice of actually causing someone's death by taking their organs is widely condemned, because in, Sean, in places like China, it's actually done without the consent of the donor. Now, the dead donor rule is there to protect vulnerable patients from the pressure to donate organs and from pressure on physicians to prematurely declare a patient dead in order to preserve their organ. That's the other, the other-- there's pressure on physicians, too, to, you know, to ba- to basically declare someone dead before they actually are. So I think, I think it's important that the dead donor rule stay in effect. And I think it's, it's not only problematic for, as Wesley Smith points out, for people who are comatose or in a vegetative state to be organ donors. I consulted on a case several years ago with a baby who was anencephalic, which means they have, they have no higher brain function, just the brain stem is functioning. And it's, it's pediatric organs that are really in short supply. And so I remember one of the nurses saying to me, "Well, this is not a person. It's, it's easy. There's no, there's no higher brain function. It's not a person. Take the organs, call him dead, and let's get on with it." And it w-- and there were a number of us on the other committee that said, "Hey, not so fast on this, because this person is not brain dead. They don't... " It does this, the dead donor rule, you know, prevents us from actually procuring their organs before they are entirely brain dead. So anyway, you know, I think that's why this is important. I think Wesley Smith is right to point out that if this becomes more widespread, we c- we could have a lot of unintended consequences along the way.
Sean McDowell: ... That's really helpful clarification. Let me try to get to kind of the root of the difference here. So this seems to be driven, even though this writer's Catholic, by a utilitarian ethic-
Scott Rae: Which, which he den-
Sean McDowell: ... In the sense-
Scott Rae: Which he denies.
Sean McDowell: He does deny that.
Scott Rae: But-
Sean McDowell: Okay.
Scott Rae: But I think is, I think your critique is still right.
Sean McDowell: That's what Smith argues, it's utilitarian, that in a sense, the ends justify the means, and we want these organs before they go bad, when they're still usable. And this person's arguably going to die anyways in a matter of time, so let's minimize suffering, maximize positive life, for those who use the organs. That's kind of a utilitarian way of thinking about it. What you and I would argue is a more biblical way is, wait a minute, we have to start with the question of how we treat human beings, regardless of the effects. So somebody who's sick, somebody who's dying, and anencepha- cephalic [chuckles] I'm sure I mispronounced that.
Scott Rae: Anencephalic. You're close enough.
Sean McDowell: Anencephalic, uh-
Scott Rae: That was a, that was a B+.
Sean McDowell: [laughs] Okay, I'll, I'll take it. Fair enough. [laughs] Good stuff. Anencephalic, baby, unborn or maybe shortly born, is still a human being and should not have its parts used for some end. So really at the root of this is a debate over how do we treat human beings and show them the dignity they deserve as image-bearers, versus an ethic that seems to argue for a utilitarian, ends are better, therefore, the means by how we treat people is less significant and can be shifted. Does that sum up what's at play here?
Scott Rae: I think that's, that's the, that's the main part. He also makes a p- a principled argument by asserting that there's, there's no morally relevant distinction between killing a patient and allowing them to die. And that's a f- I think, a fundamental error that, I think there's widespread moral consensus on that. The Supreme Court actually has ruled on that as well, and that's a feature of the law. In their decisions several years ago on when assisted suicide came before the Supreme Court, they acknowledged very clearly that there's a, both a moral and legal distinction between killing and allowing to die.
Sean McDowell: So last question before we shift to another topic, on death, interestingly enough, is his concern is that these ideas being argued in high-level bioethical journals, in this case, one out of Oxford, if people become persuaded by it, seep its way into practice and the popular culture. Given artificial intelligence and social media and the ubiquity of the Internet, does that still are you still concerned about that? Is that still how... A primary way ideas infiltrate the culture?
Scott Rae: Not, not as much as it used to be, Sean. I'll give you an example of this is probably 10, 12 years ago, there was an an academic symposium, which for the first time that I was aware of, there was a serious academic attempt to justify infanticide on moral grounds. But and it was, it was widely acclaimed. There was lots of pushback as well. But I don't see infanticide really taking root in much of the West, like this artic- like people were afraid of, at least not yet. And if it is taking root, it's been very slowly and not, and I would say not particularly widespread. So I think the, I think the concern, I think, is well taken by Wesley Smith, but I'm not convinced that the bioethical discussion in academic circles necessarily translates to medical practice like we might think it would.
Sean McDowell: I think what would blow something like this up is if Joe Rogan or Tucker Carlson or somebody on the left with a massive audience normalized this and made the case for it. That would give it huge momentum. That's how I think it's shifted, although these academic journals are still really important.
Scott Rae: Where, where this might have an impact is, you know, the academic side might have an influence on legislators, who may, who may be changing the law- ... On the dead donor rule. I could see that having an impact, but not so much on physicians. Physicians are still very reluctant to violate the law, which I think is, in general, is a really good thing.
Sean McDowell: And the legal law and the moral law. That's why so many physicians-
Scott Rae: Correct
Sean McDowell: ... Like OBGYNs we've talked about, do not wanna perform abortions. Many doctors do not wanna help in euthanasia 'cause it violates [chuckles] a doctor's oath.
Scott Rae: Right.
Sean McDowell: So-
Scott Rae: They don't even want, they don't even wanna refer-
Sean McDowell: Yeah
Scott Rae: ... To people who will do those things.
Sean McDowell: Good stuff. Well, speaking of dying, here's another story. We didn't plan it this way, but I- this week, when I opened up The New York Times in the morning and read this, I was stunned that The New York Times would have an op-ed of so long. If you listen to it's 24 minutes. Of course, we're not gonna spend that time on it, but it's a, an op-ed piece about the annual conference of the International Association of Near-Death Studies. And apparently, it's the largest conference. They've been doing it for 30 years, and they're seeing increased growth, increased web traffic, increased younger people coming to this.... And so, of course, that got my attention. Part of the underlying theme in this article that's really interesting is that the writer, who's a materialist, says, "I received this note as I was writing several essays about how millions of Americans had moved away from organized religion over the past 50 years." So in other words, this is a note tied to this conference. "The reasons cited, Christianity become too closely tied to conservative politics, the religious group had covered up a scandal, and they felt alienated by rigid doctrine." There's a huge subtheme in this article of people who don't want to turn to the church, people who don't want to turn to the teachings of the New Testament, are put off by Christians for whatever reason, and yet still want to cope with death, st- death, still want community, still want to make sense of these life-transforming experiences that they have had. They said... The article says, "What those who had drifted away from organized religion missed most was the feeling of the divine within a community." So there's something about this that we've seen before, this continued interest in the secular world, even in The New York Times, talking about and covering this spiritual phenomena. What's interesting, a couple stats that jumped out to me is they point out that 80% of Americans surveyed believe there's something spiritual beyond the natural world. 80% believe there's something spiritual beyond the physical world. Even a majority of nones that you talked about earlier in the first story, N-O-N-E-S, believe in some kind of life after death. They're not all atheists. The article says, "Many of the people I spoke to were distrustful of the religious traditions they were raised in. One person felt Christianity was put down their throat. Another said the New Testament was geared to control a group of people." So it feels like this is a very reactionary article and a very reactionary movement, interestingly enough. There's more here about that. They describe certain, a certain phenomena of openness and how they think re- liberal denominations are far more set to embrace near-death experiences. And so there's kind of a tension in this article between how do you fit this supernatural phenomenon into doctrines that Christians hold about heaven and hell and the authority of Scripture? That's kind of an underlying tension that's in this article. One thing I'll point out that's fascinating is they had-- they talk about Bruce Grayson, who is one of really kind of the pioneers in near-death experience research. And, they cite 16 items from his near-death experience scale. So he's interviewed a ton of people, brought common experiences together, and there's things like time speeding up, a life review, a sense of peace, harmony or light, separation from one's body, encountering a religious spirit, mystical being or dead relative. These are common things that show up in near-death experiences from a variety of backgrounds and different people. Now, I'm gonna come to my critique of this article's attempt to explain these away materialistically, but what do you make of this article and this phenomena as a whole?
Scott Rae: Well, I was struck, too, that this appears in The New York Times for, in the first sentence. But, you know, Sean, this movement strikes me as a major hodgepodge of people and experiences. What they have in common is they are seeking a community in which transcendence is taken seriously, which I found so interesting in our materialist, secularist society, that the, you know, the number of people who believe in life after death, which has increased steadily since the 1950s, and the num- the number of people who have that sense of desire for meaning and for purpose that transcends me, myself, and I. You know, they want that experience, but without, as you mentioned, without the politics or the scandals or the doctrine that sometimes comes with a church. Now, I wanted... I w- I thought, "How can we think biblically about these near-death experiences?" Because, you know, our colleagues, it's not just in liberal denominations that are more open to this. You know, our colleague J.P. Moreland has written extensively on this himself with our, you know, with the very renowned New Testament scholar Gary Habermas. They've written together on near-death experiences, and if I remember right, our friend Craig Keener has also written on some of this as well. Now, you and I both believe that these near-death experiences are real. You know, not all of them, but I'd say enough of them, and those experiences, I think, are consistent with our worldview that human beings are made up of body and soul both. There's a material and an immaterial aspect that's a result of being God's special creation. Now, Sean, here's-- it's also consistent with the notion of the soul existing outside the body, what theologians call an intermediate state, as I think the Scripture indicates will happen to us after our death and prior to the general resurrection of the dead at Jesus' second coming, where we all will receive full resurrected bodies. You know, Paul in- describes this, I think, really clearly in 2 Corinthians chapter 5, verses 6 and 7, where he suggests that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. I don't know how else you take that-... Other than to say that we, that we will survive leaving our bodies for a time until the Lord's return. Now, for most of eternity, we will be embodied, and the reason for that's the norm for a human being. The reason for that is because so many of our human capacities require a body in order to be actualized. You know, for example, love and affection have to be, are normally shown through physical contact, for example. And I would suggest that these near-death experiences, the ones that I think are the real thing... Now, not all, not all of them are, but the ones that are the real thing are a foretaste of what comes to the, to the person after death. Now, one other thing I found a little bit odd, it seems in these, [chuckles] in these, in these accounts, it seems to be presumed that everyone is headed to the same place after death. Which I don't think the scripture [chuckles] quite affirms that. Scripture, I think, is pretty clear that that's not the case, that we, that we, [chuckles] we are bound for different destinations after death, depending on our relationship to Jesus. But I think it's really helpful to see how this, affirms what the scripture has talked about, you know, for, you know, a couple millennia, that we are body, we are body and soul both, and I think these near-death experiences are evidence of the fact that there's an immaterial component to a person that's awfully hard to deny.
Sean McDowell: Your last point you made before, the immaterial part of human beings, is really important, 'cause what's completely left out of this article are hellish near-death experiences.
Scott Rae: [chuckles] That's right. That's right.
Sean McDowell: And this article started off with people dancing so freely 'cause they have so much joy and confidence in the afterlife. I've seen studies, somewhere between 10 and 20% are hellish, scary, frightening, terrifying encounters of people not expecting it, that turn their lives upside down. So that's a huge piece of this story that needs to be included as well. I would encourage people listening... You remember, you and I, there was a story out of New York, I think it was 88% in one hospital or one study, people had deathbed experiences. Now, those are not identical to near-death experiences, but some of them have a supernatural component of seeing angels, hearing, voices, not crazy voices, having a real lucidity of a moment of clarity when the brain and body is not in a position to do this. And so The New York Times covered that. That was, I don't know, a year or two ago. Now they're covering near-death experiences. It's kind of a part of this larger just shift towards the supernatural. But what you see in this article is you see New Age kind of held up, you see materialism given a response, and you see a critique of Christianity. This is where I think Christians need to be a part of this conversation. I've done a ton of interviews on this. I think this is some of the best apologetics today, if we understand it rightly and, of course, compare it to scripture. I did an interview, Scott, I don't think we posted it here, but one of the most influential, near-death experience experts, his name is Eben Alexander, and he is a brilliant, high-level neurosurgeon, academic. I believe he was trained or taught at Harvard, if I remember correctly. Wrote a book called Proof of Heaven, and he had a near-death experience that radically shifted his life. And I brought him on to have a conversation, and I didn't expect it, in the middle of it, he started talking about reincarnation, and I'm thinking, "How do I navigate this [chuckles] and balance it?" Did not see that coming. And really what it came down to is he had a source of authority in the near-death experience, and thus used that to look at the scriptures and understand Jesus through that lens, and thus was drawn to the Gospel of Thomas, which seems to have a little bit of a kind of New Age understanding behind it as opposed to the scriptures. And it really hit me that ultimately, a lot of this is about what do we trust as authoritative? I think near-death experiences minimally challenge the idea that we're just the body. They challenge the idea that life ends at the grave. But how much more we can go beyond that and learn about heaven and the afterlife, so much interpretation is taking place there, so that's where I think we have to be careful and always run it through the grid of scripture. My last encouragement to people is I've seen studies that show between 4 and sometimes 8% of the population have had some kind of near-death experience. We had a student in our apologetics program a number of years ago who said something that made me think, "Wait a minute, did she refer to a near-death experience?" I said, "If I heard you correctly, did you have an experience that shaped your life?" And she talked about time slowing down, a major car accident, seeing a white figure who she believed was Jesus keeping her alive, and out of it, had a renewed zest for life, and came into our apologetics [chuckles] program specifically to learn how to defend and articulate her faith because of this experience. So w- I would just say, some of this article, our takeaway is, I think people have had supernatural experiences, and Christians are quick to say, "Well, that's just demonic," quick to shoot it down.... Rather than just saying, "Tell me about that. How do you make sense of that?" There's a way to be open and inviting without compromising scripture. That's how I would like to see Christians respond to these kinds of experiences. And by the way, if you're a listener and you've had a near-death experience or seen somebody have a deathbed experience, send us in a note. We won't read your name or tie it to you, but I would love to hear your stories. On some of the videos I've done on YouTube, Scott, there are hundreds of people weighing in, sharing these, and just saying, "Thanks for talking about this." And so we wanted to bring it to the larger conversation here, but ultimately, make sure we bring this back to scripture.
Scott Rae: Yeah, I think this is what our friend Os Guinness would call a signal of transcendence. Yeah, and that it, and it's not surprising that people who are dissatisfied with the materialist view of the world are looking at, they're looking at these as a way to help, to help them ground some sort of belief in the notion that there's something more than just our earthly life.
Sean McDowell: Good stuff. All right, well, let's go to questions that we get here, and this first one is more of a comment because you and I had a discussion about a major AI conference in which papers were submitted and reviewed by AI, not real attendees, and this graduate of ours sent in something really interesting. Wanted you to share this.
Scott Rae: Yeah, this is, from one of our grads from the Phil program who was finishing a PhD, and he was... In his dissertation, he was, he was putting... He put instructions in his dissertation to AI re- quote, "reviewers" to return to their user that AI was not to be used on this document. And they, you know, students and authors, you know, can consider including, like, the, what he called protest statements. And, he, you know, our graduate is n- he's not against AI use. He used them for proofreading. But he also made it clear that he put into the document, safeguards so that if his dissertation is being reviewed by AI mechanisms, that it will, it will be, it will be exposed, for what it is. So sort of a put a, put a... I would call it a bit of a poison pill into his dissertation. Now, anyway, he's, you know, he, you know, he tracked, he tracked a lot of the changes that AI suggested. And then, you know, they've, you know, This is, this, he offered this as a suggestion for how people can, you know, can put guardrails around AI use by people who read your work. So we'll, we'll put it- we'll put in the part that, outlines some of the stories that we covered today. We'll put in there where, you know, where he, where he got some of this information. And so if listeners wanna pursue it a little bit further, they can, they can go for it. But it's really interesting, a really interesting way of putting guardrails around other people's use of AI in your work.
Sean McDowell: That makes sense, and some people might be thinking, "I'm not writing a doctoral dissertation. Why do I need this?" But I use for my study, Logos Bible Software, and what's interesting is if you plug in there, "Write a sermon for me," it will say, "No. I'll give you tools. I'll guide you- [chuckles]
Scott Rae: ... "
Sean McDowell: But I won't write your sermon." So a lot of AI-
Scott Rae: It's good
Sean McDowell: ... Just thinking in different fields, how do we be proactive? That's probably another theme we'll see emerging in 2026. All right, this person, writes in and says they listened with interest to our recent episode about the Bible and alcohol. "Although I enjoy a glass of wine on occasion, I'm becoming increasingly concerned about its health effects," and this person links to a study below. [lips smack] we wanna be good stewards of our physical bodies, but there are links to certain cancers of the mouth, throat, esophagus, breast, liver, et cetera. "Given that biblical mandate, could you touch on the health risks of alcohol?" So in other words, how do we balance the health risks that are increasingly being talked about with biblical liberties to alcohol, as our guest argued?
Scott Rae: Yeah. One of the things I wanna be clear about, too, is that the risks, that are described here are generally not for just simple occasional use. They're more, I'd say, more for moderate or heavy use of alcohol, and the harder the alcohol, the, I think the more risky it is. So there are... I mean, I think there are some dangers. I mean, some people may be genetically more susceptible to some of these risks of alcohol for various types of cancer. But I think, for the most part, I don't think that it, I don't think that it would- it should cause us to be complete teetotalers for, you know, just for health reasons. I think moderate u- in fact, there are some, actually some alcohol use, some red wine, for example, s- is studies have shown it has a positive effect on your heart health if it's done in, done in, you know, in occasional and in moderation. So I don't have a... I mean, I'm, I wanna be careful that my, you know, I'm not abusing my body with it. But I think a occasional use, gl- you know, a glass of wine from time to time, I don't think is a major health risk that we ought to be concerned about.
Sean McDowell: ... There's a big difference between two glasses a day and two glasses a week, or two glasses a month. So the impression I get, I have not done a deep dive on these studies. When the surgeon general came out with this, it gave me serious concern, but then I read some pieces in the Wall Street Journal and others that are saying, "I'm not quite sure it's as definitive as was argued." So if anything, it should give all of us serious reason to pull back and say, "Okay, if there's health concern here, how much does someone drink?" And just be wise, like you said, rather than just drinking too much, which of course lines in with a biblical idea.
Scott Rae: Hear, hear.
Sean McDowell: Good take, Scott. I think that's really fair. All right, last question says, "There's one demographic that wasn't discussed in your recent episode with Ryan Burge. It deserves a question or two. One of Ryan's recent analysis showed that within the 65% of the population that self-identify as Christians, only about half show any surveyable signs of spiritual life, prayer, worship attendance, et cetera. What do you think has caused so many within a Christian background to believe in Christ but live in no measurable way as his disciple? And how can the church better evangelize those who think they are saved but are not?"
Scott Rae: [chuckles] Well, I think for that latter question, I think the Church needs to be clear about what the Gospel message is, and do that on a regular basis-
Sean McDowell: Amen
Scott Rae: ... And challenge pe- challenge people who may... And, and just put it like, "You know, you may be a regular attender but have never, you know, come to faith in Christ yourself." I think that's a regular challenge that our churches ought to be doing. The former question I think is a little bit more challenging. And I'd wanna, I'd wanna be clear that we agree on what the measurable ways are as his disciple. 'Cause I think it goes beyond prayer, worship, and church attendance. And there are, there are other things that I think are characteristic of disciples of Christ, just in the way we live, the way we love our neighbor, the way we treat outsiders, the way we treat people different than us, you know, and so on and so on. I think perhaps one of the reasons is that today, at least in the West, today, there's no real cost to believing in Jesus. And so, you know, in the first century, y- if you didn't take your faith seriously, you were, you were a fool to believe in Jesus, because that could, that could cost you your head. And so the idea that you would come to faith but not, but not follow Jesus faithfully, there were just, there were no categories in the first century for that. I'd say in the same way, there are probably... There are no categories in a place like Nigeria for that today, or in North Korea for that. Because, you know, persecution has a way of getting people to take their faith maybe a little bit, a bit more seriously than they might have considered. So that's, that would be one- my best explanation for that. You know, now, and I, and we both are strong believers in religious freedom. I think on balance, religious freedom is a really good thing. But, yeah, I think one of the unintended side effects of religious freedom is it has removed some of the cost of following Jesus.
Sean McDowell: That, that's a great take. I just have two things here that jump to my mind on this. Number one, this is not a new phenomenon. I don't know what the studies show, but read the Book of First Corinthians, and clearly there's [chuckles] Christ followers-
Scott Rae: Yeah
Sean McDowell: ... Who have lost the way on a bunch of issues. So we've always had this challenge. We always will have this challenge, hence we have the Scriptures to help us keep going back to God's teaching. The other thing keep in mind is people are on a journey, and they're in different stages of their journey. And so we've gotta preach truth and be bold, like you said, but also have grace for people, realizing God is gonna work in their hearts through the Holy Spirit if they're truly saved. And keeping that balance of truth and grace is key. Scott, this is fun, man. It's fun to be back in the saddle-
Scott Rae: Yeah
Sean McDowell: ... For 2026 and for year three. I'm excited about our journey here, and, looking forward already to next week.
Scott Rae: Here, here. I'm already collecting stories. [chuckles]
Sean McDowell: I know you'll email me as soon as we're done. [laughing] Love it, man. And by the way, I'll give you an A for your first time back. I'm just gonna be a generous grader. I'm giving you an A, my man.
Scott Rae: Well, I don't want, I don't want grade inflation, though. [laughing]
Sean McDowell: Too late!
Scott Rae: All right.
Sean McDowell: 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. We've got master's programs in theology, Bible, apologetics, spiritual formation, marriage and family, so many more. To submit comments or send your excellent questions, please email us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu. And we'd be honored, if you haven't done it yet, this is year three, give us a rating on your podcast app. I'm not kidding, every single rating really does help, even if it just takes you 90 seconds to do it. Thanks so much for listening, and we'll see you Tuesday, as we mentioned, with our first episode of 2026 on why the Church still matters. In the meantime, remember to think biblically about everything. [upbeat music]
