This week, Scott and special guest Erik Thoennes discuss:

  • Hillsdale College on religious freedom.
  • A new emerges in Gen Z: men seeking traditional roles, women pushing for progress.
  • Elite college students , raising concerns about deep reading skills.
  • Discussion on how loving God with your mind relates to reading Scripture deeply.
  • Listener questions addressed on topics like censorship in education and the future of intimacy with technology.



Episode Transcript

Scott: Hillsdale College wins an important Title IX court decision. A new gender class emerges in Gen Z that caught people off guard. And a story about students at elite colleges who can't read an entire book. We'll discuss these stories and answer some of your questions. I'm your host, Scott Rae, and sitting in for Sean, whos on the road speaking, is Talbot Professor of Theology, Dr. Erik Thoennes. This is Think Biblically: Weekly Cultural Update from Talbot School of Theology at 51蹤獲. Erik, thanks so much for sitting in for Sean and for hanging with us. I think this will be a fun conversation.

Erik: I love being here, Scott. Thanks.

Scott: Story number one is about Hillsdale College, that they won their Title IX case in the state of Michigan. This is from a USA Today column on Monday. And, full disclosure, the USA Today columnist is a Hillsdale grad. So, Hillsdale was being sued for failing to uphold its Title IX responsibilities, which bans discrimination on the basis of sex for all colleges that accept federal money, which Hillsdale does not and has not since the 1970s. Now, if that is somewhat confusing to you, why they're being sued for that, I understand. So, this began with a lawsuit from two different women who claim that they were sexually assaulted by male students at Hillsdale. And just recently, the lower court in Michigan dismissed their suit, and it was appealed and taken up by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is still in process. Here's the basis for their lawsuit. That is that the tax-exempt status of the college was a federal benefit itself, not direct cash, but it constituted a significant federal benefit. And therefore, they should be held to all the aspects of Title IX. This actually is the law in Maryland, and in California here, even though earlier this year the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the Maryland case, arguing that the tax exemption does not constitute a benefit like federal assistance. Now, the reason this is important is both for religious freedom, but also earlier this year, the definition of sex in Title IX that originally just referred to women was expanded pretty dramatically to refer now to both sexual orientation and gender identity. So, the application of the new Title IX law has been tied up in courts around the country since it was instituted in August of 2023. Now, of course, Hillsdale supports a safe and nurturing environment for students, but, in their view, without government looking over their shoulder to enforce ideologies that would conflict with the college's deeply held values. Had the court ruled otherwise, it would have serious ramifications for many private and particularly for religious colleges. So, the title of the article says Hillsdale wins its case色For now. So, it's still in the process of appeals, and who knows how it's going to turn out. But for now, they are in compliance with Title IX. They're still not accepting any federal benefits and haven't for a very long time. So, I'm interested to hear your take on this. I'm not expecting you to be a legal scholar

Erik: Good.

Scott: But your take, I think, as a theologian and as somebody who's worked in a religious college like 51蹤獲 for not quite as long as I have, but you're getting close.

Erik: [laughs] I'm catching up, Scott. I'm catching up. I think this is the kind of article that can so easily be ignored, because it is a lot of legal back and forth, and you're not even sure exactly what the issues are here, but it is one of those articles that has really significant ramifications, depending on how it goes, for the relationship between government and private institutions, between government and religious institutions. And for so long, Hillsdale has been this place that has not taken government funding very purposely so that they don't get the kind of intervention that would prevent them from providing the education they want to provide. And they just really do want to be left alone. And it's hard for me not to see this as a very intentional effort to go after a place like Hillsdale because, quite simply, the people going after them don't like who they are and what they're about and what they teach. And so, in a country that talks so much about freedom, and even among those who do talk about freedom, there can be this effort to put them out of business because they don't comply with the rules you're making right now. But in some ways, they've taken the approach that we are not going to make distinctions with people because of their race and their gender. We're going to offer the same education to everybody. And they wouldn't provide the numbers of all the particular races they had at the school that the government wanted them to have. And it just seems to me like such an obvious case of government overreach, and using the legal system in a way that's forcing a values-driven agenda that should be very concerning to us. I'm grateful for places like Hillsdale, who are working hard and spending lots of money and effort and resources to fight these kinds of battles, because they really are providing protection for places like 51蹤獲 in the long run.

Scott: Yeah, and actually the main reason they took the stand in the '70s not to accept federal money was so they wouldn't even have to fight these battles in the first place.

Erik: Right.

Scott: And I think that they've been disabused of that notion.

Erik: Right.

Scott: Now, full disclosure here, 51蹤獲 does accept state and federal money both. But we do have a plan. We've had a bit of a target on our back from the California legislature in the last five, six years. And we do have a plan in place in the event that Cal Grant money is no longer available to us, or federal funds are no longer available to us, mainly in the form of a pass-through. It's not really a benefit to the university. It's to the university students. And the university just functions as a pass-through for that money eventually getting into the hands of students. But nevertheless, that's considered a significant benefit. And we are bound to Title IX as a result of that. And this is why I think the court decision here is really helpful. And that, you know, even if you take federal money on this, I would encourage all religious colleges to do sort of like what we have done, to have a plan in the event that that money is removed. And some of the battles that we've had with our legislature, with bills that seem targeted at religious colleges, not specifically at us, but religious colleges in general, to get with the trending cultural views on marriage, sexuality, and gender identityI call that the big threethat pressure is not going to go away anytime soon.

Erik: Right. And isn't it amazing? I remember when Title IX was introduced, and it has been completely turned on its head. And it makes sense if you redefine or refuse to define male and female. Well, what in the world does Title IX even mean? And so, when things get flipped upside down like that and end up doing the opposite of what they were intended to do, where girls and women now need to play like this volleyball player who's become quite a story, this man who has incredible vertical and crushes these balls and is setting records at the college level, the Division I college level. Title IX is protecting him to be able to compete in that way. And it takes such wisdom匈 love our leaders at 51蹤獲 and the way they wisely navigate, you included, these kinds of issues, the way Barry and our leaders and Matt are trying to do this in a way where we work within the system, but never to the point where we're going to cave if the system just redefines us out of an ability to take government funds. And I trust God's people to ante up if it gets to that. So, we maintain who we are, and don't work within that system if we're just kicked out of it in that way.

Scott: Yeah, and I think to think biblically about some of these things is to recognize that the Scripture does really teach male and female, a gender binarythat's a dirty word in some circlesbut it also teaches that marriage is between one man and one woman. And it's really clear. And I think originally, religious freedom was actually designed to keep the church free from intrusion by the state, not to ensure that the church had no impact on the state and on government.

Erik: Right, because the founders saw what a disaster it was for the church every time it got in league with the state in a way that it got blurred.

Scott: Yeah, and thankfully the founders were actually pretty good students of history on that.

Erik: Thats right. Unlike today.

Scott: So, I think that's another thing, the notion of religious freedom has been turned on its head in some odd ways, too. So, any other thoughts on this?

Erik: Well, I'm just sitting here thinking, I'm not usually one of the key ones making decisions like this, like you and our other leaders are. And I just feel that there's such a need for wisdom and such a need for prayer about how to navigate these things well that are reflective of Christ-like attitudes and at the same time, use our God-given and even legal rights. Like, Paul claimed his Roman citizenship to accomplish things for the sake of the gospel. And finding that balance between working within the system in charitable, humble ways, and at the same time, not rolling over when injustice is happening.

Scott: Yeah, I mean, we have a legislative strategy. We have a relational strategy. Our president is so good at building bridges with people who think differently than we do on these issues. But we also have a legal strategy that if the day comes, we just need to hit send, and that will be in place.

Erik: Yeah, and I think it's so important, and I think our leaders do a really good job with this. There are all these ideas about these values, these views of ethics that we have, our theology, that people load into that. You're just terrible people. You're mean, you're bigoted. If anyone disagrees with you, you treat them terribly. When that's not the case. There are examples of that. But, overwhelmingly, in my experience, Christians are very kind, loving, charitable people. And if anything, we can lack backbone at times when we desperately need it. Online, I know there can be a perception that Christians are overbearing idiots, but man, in my experience, there's a charitable, kind, patient, loving, Christ-like attitude toward people. And I think alleviating those misperceptions of who we must be in light of the fact that we disagree on these things匈 find myself saying that. I'll say to people these days, you know, I do deeply disagree with what you're saying, and I think it has profound and even eternal implications, but I love you. I actually like you. I find you funny. I actually enjoy you more than some of my Christian friends. I try to say that, because they just assume that could never be the casethat if I think that apart from Jesus, they'll suffer eternal judgment, or if I have a different sexual morality they do from the Bible, then I must think they're horrible and I hate them. I think they're wrong. But that's why the definition of true respect and true tolerance is so different now. Because it used to be something you had in the midst of significant disagreement.

Scott: Right. It presumed it.

Erik: Yes, exactly.

Scott: Today, I think we're presuming that if you disagree with me, you must hate me.

Erik: That's right. And you're a terrible person.

Scott: And, clearly, not the case. All right. Story number two. A very surprising finding about Gen Z that has to do with what's called a new gender clash. Title of the article is "Gen Z Men Yearn for Tradition While Women Push for Progress." This is a groundbreaking new survey, and a striking cultural trend among Gen Z men has emerged that over half are expressing a desire to revert to traditional gender roles. Challenging the widely held belief that Gen Z is predominantly progressive, the survey discovered that 54% of Gen Z men advocate for a more traditional division of labor, where men are the primary breadwinners and women assume domestic responsibilities. In stark contrast, only 28% of women support such roles. The study also indicates that nearly half of Gen Z men perceive being a man as more of a liability than an asset. As they navigate their identities, many young men feel disconnected and disillusioned from the progressive movement championed by their female counterparts. Now, before we get to your comments on this, there's a similar piece on Thursday from the New York Times commenting on this. It suggests that the gender gap, often interpreted as misogyny by men in Gen Z, is overrated. The major shift, according to the article in the New York Times, is that men are more interested in the economy than social issues, reflecting economic uncertainties, and that women are more politically active than previously. The gender gap is not that men are becoming more conservative, but that women are becoming more progressive, based on things like the Me Too movement and the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Here, the author of the piece puts it this way: "I have always been skeptical of the toxic young man caricature, and have long felt it may be as corrosive to understanding one another as the caricature of feminists as man-haters." Erik, what's your take on this? I suspect you have something to say about this.

Erik: Well, I want to lead with my skepticism toward statistics and surveys in general.

Scott: Fair enough.

Erik: And I also want to lead with my increasing hesitancy to label generations and people. Now, you have to be generalized to be able to speak helpfully and prophetically into people groups, right? So, here, as an undergrad [professor], I work primarily with 18 to 24-year-olds, and so to do that effectively, I need to make some generalizations about how most of them think. I mean, the first day of class, I say, all right, who here wasn't raised in an American context? Students raise their hands, and we go around and say what that is. And then I say, well, bear with me, because a lot of the time I'm going to be making some generalizations about how the rest of the students think. I want your input.

Scott: Thats good.

Erik: And so, you have to generalize to be helpful. But at the same time, I don't want to overdo that. And I was even looking at what Gen Z is, and even where I fit. So, I'm right on the cusp of boomer and X. So, what does that make me? And it can be pretty dismissive

Scott: An odd hybrid.

Erik: [laughs] Right. So, it can be dismissive of an individual in labeling them that way. So, both statistics and surveys, in general, I'm skeptical about, because I know how easily they can be manipulated. Second, the labeling of generations is so overdone to me that I'm hesitant to wade into this at all, but I'm assuming there's something here in what these statistics are saying.

Scott: I think fair enough.

Erik: Yeah. And the first thing I thought of when I looked up even what Gen Z was, was first of all, Gen Z is 50% non-white. And so, I was thinking about the way that affects the statistics, because black, Hispanic, and Asian culture tends to be more traditional than white culture tends to be. And so, I think that might be part of what's going on. It's interesting that they don't talk about those distinctions. So, that's the first thing I thought of. The other thing I read about Gen Z is that they check social media a hundred times a day. A hundred times a day, the average Gen Zer checks social media.

Scott: We're going to comment on that in our next story.

Erik: [laughs] Right? So, that makes me think about how they think very differently. But I'm sure some of what's going on is intersectionality, this valuing of the perspective of the previously unvalued, the marginalized, puts men as one of the primary categories that needs to be listened to less, relatively speaking.

Scott: Historically.

Erik: And historically is often seen as the one who perpetuates most of the problemsis the bully, is the misogynist, is the toxic, masculine man. And so, I think a lot of men are at best confused about what it even means to be a man. I think there is something in them that longs to be a provider and a leader and a protector. I just read that a couple of years ago, women are over 50% of the primary breadwinners in families now. And I think that's leaving men feeling useless, unneeded. I mean, you still need a man to have a baby, but you don't even need to know him anymore.

Scott: And where we're heading, you don't even need [a man to have a baby].

Erik: Right. And so, I mean, it used to be that a woman can do anything a man does even better, like the old song says. But now, men are nothing but a problem in a lot of places that you hear people talking. And men are the problem. And things would be way better off if men weren't here. And men long to feel significant and be significant. And I think we're created to be that way. And so, I think there is a longing in men for something that looks more like the traditional man, who was competent and was respected by women in particular, and was able to take care of a family by the time he was 18, and run the family farm and maybe go off to war. And now, men can so easily just fall into a malaise of playing video games until they're 30, and just surrender a desire to really be a meaningful, significant leader and contributor to what's going on. So, that's probably what's going on psychologically in this story.

Scott: Now, that's really good insight. I know I've reacted to the notion of masculinity being inherently toxic that we've seen come out. And that's why I appreciate the New York Times piece that suggests that labeling Gen Z as misogynistic is vastly overrated. Because what the studies do show is that Gen Z men do support women's equality. They do support a lot of things for women. But I think they have that feeling of being marginalized, although you can't admit that. And that's really not for public consumption, so to speak. But I do think that so often, men viewing their masculinity as a liability instead of an asset, I think that's become much more pervasive today.

Erik: Right. And I also think the manly way to respond to this is to not whine about it and use it as an excuse, but actually not let that affect you, and maybe incur some criticism, or maybe pursue a way of living that doesn't fit you're just a problem, and is willing to take leadership and not just say, "oh, men aren't treated fair." But be manly about the way you respond to that, and not use it as an excuse or just whine. And so, that drives me crazy, when men aren't respected so they actually perpetuate the stereotype of being a bunch of whiners who aren't taking responsibility.

Scott: Quite counterproductive.

Erik: Indeed. Indeed. And I think people deep down would...I spoke at a Christian high school a while back. They asked me to speak about men and women. And I started off by listing all the ways women are excelling beyond men and girls beyond boys in almost every area of society, from GPA to college acceptance, to med school, to law school, to wage earning, to adapting to changing economies. Women are amazingly adaptable, and willing to Rosie the Riveter during World War II. They stepped up and did the so-called man's job because they're adaptable, and they'll get it done. Men can get stuck. And so I spoke at this school, and I listed all these ways girls and women are excelling beyond boys and men. And the girls were cheering. They were so excited about what I was saying. And then I paused and I said, ladies, I understand why you're cheering, but you do know that's not the kind of world you want to live in, right? And they were immediately...I could see on their faces, they're like, yeah, we want boys who grow up to be men. And that's what they want. They don't want to win the competition to the point where there aren't men in the society anymore. You can call it traditional, but I think there's a wonderful design in the way God's made us that's biblical, that when we lean into it in Christlike ways, we experience a joy, and God's glorified in ways he never would be otherwise.

Scott: It's understandable why women, when they get married, don't want their husband to be another one of the children that they're caring for.

Erik: Yeah, and sadly that happens far too often.

Scott: All right. Story number three. This is the one we've really wanted to get to. We've got a lot to say about this.

Erik: We're going to be grumpy old men now, Scott.

[laughter]

Scott: I know. Maybe we should disclose our ages in the interest of full disclosure. This is a story in the Atlantic that appeared on Tuesday. This is the title, Elite College Students Who are Unable to Read an Entire Book and Have Never Had to in Their Education. Over the past decade, students at elite colleges, but in general as well, have been overwhelmed by the amount of required reading for their classes in both high school and college. Now, it's true that lots of college kids never read everything they're assigned. I mean, I didn't read everything I was assigned in my doctoral program. I'm not sure I'm super proud of that, but it was overwhelming. But for some faculty at elite colleges, this feels different. Now, the article cites a Columbia University prof who describes it like this, "My students now seem bewildered by the thought of finishing multiple books in a single semester." And he said, "My colleagues have noticed the same problem. Many of our students no longer arrive at college, even selective elite colleges like Columbia, prepared to read books." Now, this particular prof was puzzled about this until one day a couple years ago, a first-year student came to his office to share how challenging she had found the early semester assignments. His course in literature and the humanities requires students to read a book, sometimes long and dense ones, in just a week or two. But the student told the prof that at her public high school, she had never been required to read an entire book. She had been assigned excerpts, poetry, news articles, but never a single book cover to cover. Now, this anecdote helped explain the change he was seeing in his students, and he concluded, "It's not that they don't want to do the reading, it's that they don't know how, and that middle school and high schools have stopped asking them to do that." They appear to be encountering fewer and fewer books in the classroom, and some experts who have weighed in on this attributed the decline of book reading to a shift in values rather than in skill sets. Students can still read books, but they're just choosing not to. A couple of professors cited in the article said that their students see reading books as akin to listening to vinyl records, something a small subculture may still enjoy, but mostly a relic of an earlier time, referring to when we grew up.

Erik: And what Tim Pickavance here at 51蹤獲 listens to because he's a hipster. [laughs]

Scott: That's true. Now, I know you've got a lot to say about this, because you're dealing with undergrads day in and day out. Have you found this same phenomena generally to be true?

Erik: So, I have an amazingly positive, optimistic perspective on the current youth generation, and I think in large part it's because I teach at 51蹤獲. And I do think our students are exceptional in some ways. They come to a Christian university that, regardless of their major, requires 30 hours of Bible and theology, and they want that.

Scott: For many of them, that's exactly why they're here.

Erik: Yes. And so, they sign up for something very challenging in a Christian liberal arts environment. And so, I do think our students aren't the norm among a lot of young people out there, but there still is a challenge because they're so influenced by the culture of distraction and dilution and shallowness. I mean, the algorithms are designed to even neurologically change the way you think, so an ability to have a sustained, focused thought process in both acquiring information and communicating information is lost. And there's such a distraction culture and a dilution that we end up with a shallowness. And I say to my students匈 think very few of my students, when they come to 51蹤獲some have for sureunderstand what it means to be an intellectual scuba diver, because we spend our lives water skiing intellectually. And I remember the difference. I did plenty of study to get by, and reading what you have to to pass the exam, and that's just the wrong mentality. But when you really get into learning, it really is like being submerged in the thought process where time flies. You're not saying, how many more pages? And I hope a lot of people still have read a book where they're sad the book is over. I remember one of my profs who had a huge influence at my state university wasn't a Christian, but I just dearly loved him. He said, Thoennes, what do you want to do when you graduate? And I said, well, Dean Beeching, I want to travel. He said, why do you want to travel when you can read? [laughs]

Scott: Thats great.

Erik: I understand what he meant now, because you get to go places when you really immerse yourself. And it breaks my heart that I don't think most students truly understand when they come here what that means, to submerge yourself in a line of thinking and then be able to communicate. And our politicians are great examples. Actually, the debate last night was so refreshingor the night before lastbecause they actually had a few sustained arguments and some linear thinking, and not just rambling about nonsense. And so, that's so rare these days, but it's desperately needed. And so, it's disturbing to me. I have a lot I could say, but I'd love for you to weigh in.

Scott: This is an interesting comment from a neuroscientist on thisand she's referring to what she calls deep readingthat sustained immersion in a text, how it stimulates several really valuable mental habits like critical thinking, serious self-reflection in ways that, as you described, water skiing is just not going to do. I remember one of the best books I've ever read, written in 1985 by the social critic Neil Postman, called Amusing Ourselves to Death. And it was about television. And, basically, he predicted, incredibly prophetically, before the Internet, before devices or anything like that, that reading would become pass矇. And I think he's been largely proven to be true on this. And I think you're right about the distraction, the distractibility of students today. And I think we have to point, in some respects, to smartphones and media, because as one psychologist put it, reading books, even for pleasure, can't compete with TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube. And they never will be, except for the things that really develop mental habits. What I was wondering宇his is what I'm interested to do, to hear your thoughts on. What does loving God with your mind have to do with reading, particularly the kind of deep reading that you're talking about?

Erik: Right. So, I think reading is what we're talking about, but, big picture, we're talking about learning. We're talking about the acquisition of knowledge and understanding. And I love what you were just saying before, because reading isn't just the acquisition of information. It shapes you. As you imagine these scenes in a novel you're reading, or work through a good argument in a piece of philosophy, it's shaping who you are. It's not just acquiring information. It's hopefully having an effect on your affections. So, my wife read Uncle Tom's Cabin, and she found herself praying for Tom as if he wasn't a fictional character. She found herself longing to meet Tom in heaven, and she had to keep saying, well, he's not real. But she felt like he was, and his Christlikeness was so attractive to her. So, she entered into it. I just read it last year because it had such an impact on Donna many years ago. And to enter into something should be affecting your emotional life. It should be affecting your values. Lincoln called Harriet Beecher Stowe, who wrote Uncle Tom's Cabin, this little woman who started this great big war.

Scott: Exactly.

Erik: Because of the effectiveness of this story she told that humanized black people in a way that was transformative in the way people thought and felt about these things. And so, you surrender the ability to be helped and changed in positive ways by good literature when you can't find it accessible anymore. And so, it's tragic that you lose that ability, or never acquire it with the hard work of working through a book. I remember reading Shakespeare for the first time, and I said, I'm never going to be able to do this. But after a while, my mind and ear started to be able to. It was like learning another language. Same thing with Uncle Tom's Cabin with the dialects, or Mark Twain. I remember reading that in high school and saying, I can't understand this. But after a little while, you acquire the capacity to do it. You learn a different way of hearing. And so, it's just sad that we surrender that for impatience. And what's really concerning to me is not the young people who are just being affected in this way. Its leaders and educators who are catering to this rather than being people who challenge [it], like Nick Saban would on a football field. That's what I say to my students. I was a football coach, and I bring that same mentality here. I had a few leaders in my life who required I take something to a different level than I had been doing it. And I say to them, I want to be one of those leaders who doesn't just cater to what you like. And there's this learning style thing. Reading's never been my thing." Well, it may be harder for you than some people, but you don't get to tailor your learning style. That doesn't give you a pass. Well, I'm not good at tests. Okay, so what are we going to do about that? The problem's not with the book. The problem's with you. People are always critical of Mona Lisa when they see it in the Louvre because it's so small. And you're the one with the problem if you don't find the Mona Lisa as profound as it is.

Scott: One other thought on this. I wonder how all this...what we're finding out about reading, how does that affect our reading of Scripture? That seems to be, just, an enormous implication for our own spiritual formation. And I recognize that people listen to the Bible, and we watch The Jesus Film and The Chosen and those things, but I don't know that any of those are substitutes for sitting with the biblical text and allowing it to sort of wash over you.

Erik: Right. Well, I've talked to Doug Huffman, who's part of The Chosen team, and Dallas Jenkins. And their deepest desire is that those creative representations of the Bible would lead people to the Bible. Even to say, hey, how accurate is that? Well, how are you going to find out? You're going to go to the Bible. And that's their deepest desire, that people actually go to the actual inspired Word based on their intrigue from this creative representation.

Scott: Not intended as a substitute.

Erik: But yeah, so it's not just coincidental that God chose to reveal Himself through words that ultimately point to the Word made flesh. But the inspired Word of God in words is God's chosen Word. I remember hearing somebody say one time, oh, if God was going to reveal Himself today, He'd do it through a good movie or a DVD. Well, I think He knows the best time and the best way to reveal Himself. And so, in the fullness of time, God sent His Son, and through inspired authors, He gave us words that they wrote down. And the beauty of that is you and I can put this Word in front of us, and, with the Spirit's help among the people of God, discern its truth and understand what it says so we acquire that biblical discernment. And if we don't find texts accessible anymore that require work and sustained attentiveness, the Bible's going to be increasingly inaccessible to us. And we'll approach it with a little proverb here and there, and its practical. But I think the ramifications for Christians in particular匈 think this is true. I think among the Jewish folks and Muslims and Christians, you get a lot of lawyers, in part because our religions are based on words and books and rule and laws that you find there. And so, our whole worldview is shaped by that. That helps us think through things that are helpful in law, helpful in education in general. But I don't think it's a coincidence God chose to reveal Himself in this way. And it's our job to conform our minds and our hearts to the way He's revealed Himself, and not wait around for Him to do it in a way we find more accessible.

Scott: I don't think He's going to.

Erik: No, I don't think so.

[laughter]

Scott: All right. That's super insightful. I appreciate that. Would you help me answer some questions that our folks have sent in? The first one is addressed to me, so I'll take this one. A few episodes ago, Scott mentioned a situation where his son's teacher assigned Martin Luther King's Letter from a Birmingham Jail that omitted all spiritual and scriptural references. I was disappointed that Scott did not follow up with his son's teacher. At a minimum, he should have sent a copy of the original speech with his son to school the next day with all the biblical references included and highlighted. Better yet, Scott could have requested a time to teach the students himself. That probably wouldn't have flown. But, Why did you let this opportunity slide?

Erik: Scott, you coward. [laughs]

Scott: I'm really being chastened here. And in part, rightly so. You let the teacher get away with revising this amazing speech and let your son and future classmates down. You missed a chance to let this teacher know that parents are watching. This happened about 15 years ago. If I remember right, I did not take that opportunity, but my son did.

Erik: Oh, even better.

Scott: Yes, I think it is even better. He actually talked to the teacher about what we had done because, as I described, he came home with this edited version after I had told him, watch for all the biblical and theological illusions in there. He came back and said, Dad, there weren't any. And so, we looked it up and read the whole thing. And of course, it was shot through with them, all of which had been edited out of the original. So, good word, I think, from our listener. If I remember this correctly, my son actually did.

Erik: I love that. That's even better. I remember when I was in high school, we read in an American Lit class, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." And it was just a portion of Edwards sermon. And the whole purpose in the book and with my teacher was to say, look how crazy those Puritans were. I remember years later, I read the whole sermon. And after those images of hell, he turns the corner in this incredible presentation of the grace of God. And I desperately wanted to go back in time and sit in that class again and say, can we read the rest of the sermon? Why are you editing it in a way that sets you up to make these people crazy and never get to the actual grace of the gospel? And I have had that experience so many times. But that's why we need to be people of depth who have read the whole sermon, and aren't just sort of, oh, I guess so. I don't know any better. And so, I love that you even helped equip your son to go back and represent truth in a context where it gets edited out.

Scott: Yeah, now, I don't remember how it was received.

Erik: Oh, yeah. Well, that's not even the point.

Scott: I'm not holding my breath on that. All right, here's another one. "I'd like you to revisit the weekly Cultural Update segment regarding Marcellus Williams' execution. An important point is that the prosecutor referred to in the article is not the same prosecutor who won the original conviction. And while the DNA that was retested was not on the knife, that does not show Williams is innocent, especially considering he was in possession of the victims and her husband's belongings. For the record, I did sign a petition asking for a stay of execution while this was further investigated. But the governor of Missouri and the U.S. Supreme Court found nothing further to be learned from subsequent trials. There was a lot of misinformation regarding the case, including the idea that Williams' girlfriend was financially benefited from turning him in. She never received a reward of any kind." There's no question here. It's just a statement and some correction. I will say, I think if I remember correctly, at the beginning of talking about that story, we did say that we only had one side of this, and that there likely was another one. And, it turns out, there was. Now, it's true that the original prosecutors were not the same prosecutors that I referred to being in the prosecutor's office that had存everal of them had serious reservations about Marcellus Williams' guilt. So, they weren't the ones who originally prosecuted the case, but they were in the prosecutor's office as it was being reviewed over the 20 years that he was on death row. Now, the governor's office issued a statement that there was nothing in any further investigation that suggested his innocence. And, according to the state, the evidence against him was overwhelming, and no doubt about his guilt. Now, what we found striking was that the prosecutors in the DA's office were the ones who were lobbying for his innocence. And I don't think it changes the point we highlighted here, that in the Scriptures, the death penalty could only be administered with the absolute certainty of guilt. In the Mosaic law, that was accomplished by having two eyewitnesses to any capital crime and having perjury in a capital case be itself a capital crime. So, the Scripture had as much safeguards as was possible. We did mention that eyewitness testimony is perceived a little differently today than it would have been in the ancient world, because that's all there was. And there are some possibilities for eyewitness testimony to not be as reliable as we'd like to think it is. Taking all of that into account, I don't think it disrupts the main point that we're trying to make, is that the Scripture was ensuring that in every capital case, there was, as best we could do, the certainty of guilt of the accused person.

Erik: Yeah, well, I mean, you're one of the best ethicists I know, and so there's nobody I would want walking into this from an ethical perspective more than you. But I deeply wish Christians in general would develop a more sophisticated ethic on things like capital punishment. And war, for that matter. I mean, there's a just war theory that very few Christians are even aware of. We just sort of go along party lines and depending on who starts the war, we assume it's good or not. And to really think through these things from a Christian perspective, even at times when it doesn't align with a political party we may affiliate ourselves with, and break ranks when we need to. And on capital punishment, it's the same way. I think there could be such a longing for justice that we're not sufficiently concerned enough for justice, perhaps, for the one who's accused. We need to be equally concerned about justice across the board. And finding out cases of those on death row who were vindicated in their innocence because of DNA evidence should make us very cautious about being gung-ho about these things and wanting to do it in the most Christian way we possibly can.

Scott: All right. I'll give you the first crack at this next one.

Erik: [laughs] I knew you were going to do that.

Scott: [laughs] Okay. This person says, "Thanks for the podcast. I appreciate your perspective on current events and culture. I am better informed as a result of listening to you." All right. I figure let's close in prayer and go home.

Erik: There you go. Yeah.

Scott: "In a recent episode, it was stated that sex will never go away because it's too much fun. While I agree, I wonder how long it will be before sex with other people is replaced by sex with robots. Given the reluctance of many in our younger generation to interact in person, the privacy of internet pornography, and our seeming belief that we can be autonomous and separate individuals, it seems only a matter of time before sex with robots becomes possible and even preferred by some. I would appreciate your thoughts." I would appreciate yours. [laughs]

Erik: Well, I saw that question when you sent it to me. And here's the problem with that question. If I want to speak on it with any informed insight, Ive gotta to do a little research. And how in the world do you do research?

[laughs]

Erik: I might get fired from 51蹤獲 based on what I tried to learn to try to answer this question in a better way. And there is actually quite a bit out there about this whole idea of not just robotic, but technologically mediated relationships in general. And to most people, I still think it seems absurd. But relationships are hard. And yes, sex is fun, but relationships are hard. And marriage in particular can be incredibly challenging. And so, I understand a human inclination to do an end run around relational difficulty to apparent relational satisfaction. I mean, there are even these little friends you have you hold around your neck now, and you have conversations with them and they have a memory bank. And so, the appearance of a relationship sometimes is what we long for. And technology has created this bizarre way of thinking that what's on that screen actually may be real. That's why pornography is effective. Because you feel like that person actually thinks you're pretty great, when she probably doesn't even exist. Or she's somebody's daughter. So, this bizarre, technologically mediated relationship that is happening all over the place, in the final analysis, becomes something that we think we can have sexual intercourse using. I still think most people really feel like that's just hollow, that's empty. Although it is a growing thing, it's still not something that has gained ground like you may think it would. There definitely is that technology, and I won't go into detail about it. But it's just a bizarre world we live in. But relationship is what it's all about. And when we reduce尖ou know, here's the crazy thing, Scott. As I was thinking about this, I actually think there's a relationship between our article about reading books and this one. In this way, reading a book is not about the finished product and a skill you acquire to get you a better job primarily. That results-oriented pragmatism will rob you of the kind of learning that deep reading gives you. There's a similarity here to viewingnot learningsex and relationship and intimacy in a way that's about the results. I want the result that this gives me. And it's not about the process. It's not about the actual relationship and experience. It's about the outcome I'm after here. And that's missing the whole point of learning and relationship.

Scott: That's a really good insight. I appreciate you connecting the dots like that. What I would tell this listener is, I hope you're wrong about this, but I'm afraid you might not be. And of course, sex, as God designed it, is a loving union between two human beings, which, I think, at the end of the day, what you're suggesting is what most people really want. They really do want a relationship. It's not just a physical thing, but a union of two people becoming one at a soulish level as well as a physical one, which I think is that sort of deep relationship that most people really want. And, granted, it takes work. That's true. But I suspect if this ever comes to pass, we will find it to be hollow and ultimately unsatisfying. And hopefully, there will not be a market for it because of that.

Erik: I would hope so. Although, pornography is a technologically mediated sexual experience that I know people who engage in it feel completely empty and hollow, and they never find the fulfillment they're after. But that doesn't keep it from being a massive industry and people becoming

Scott: That doesn't keep them from going back to it again.

Erik: Right. Right. And so, I hope she's wrong too. And I hope the emptiness of that sort of thinking would be evident, but we're pretty easily duped by Satan and our own sinful souls.

Scott: I think that's probably a sobering but appropriate note to end this on. Erik, thanks so much for your insights. Really appreciate you being with us for this.

Erik: Good to be here.

Scott: It's been delightful having you with us.

Erik: Thank you, brother.

Scott: This has been an episode of Think Biblically: Conversations on Faith and Culture, the weekly Cultural Update, brought to you by Talbot School of Theology at 51蹤獲, offering programs in Southern California and online. We have more master's programs than we know what to do with. We have great undergrad programs that are part of what Erik referred to earlier as our 30 units of Bible and theology that every undergraduate takes here. Be sure and visit biola.edu/talbot in order to learn more. Submit comments, ask questions, or make suggestions on issues you'd like us to cover or guests you'd like us to consider. Please email us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu. If you enjoyed today's conversation with our friend Erik Thoennes, give us a rating on your podcast app. Please share it with a friend. Join us on Tuesday for a conversation with Jeff Myers of Summit Ministries around his new book, Should Christians Support Israel? Thanks so much for listening, and in the meantime, think biblically about everything.