Cultural Update: Solar Eclipse and Intelligent Design; Racial Bias in Hiring; Vatican on Gender

Today, Scott and Sean discuss:

• Solar Eclipses and Intelligent Design: Discussion on how solar eclipses demonstrate intelligent design, including the precise conditions necessary for a habitable planet and the unique positioning that allows for the observation of solar eclipses.
• : Insights from a study where researchers sent 80,000 fake resumes to gauge racial bias among large U.S. companies. The study found a 9.5% higher contact rate for presumed white applicants over black ones, suggesting ongoing racial bias, despite improvements over the past decade.
• : Vatican's declaration that gender fluidity, transition surgery, and surrogacy are affronts to human dignity, arguing for the irrevocable nature of sex as a gift from God. This section also touches on the implications for church teachings and societal views on sexuality.
• : Reflects on the genocide's 30th anniversary, focusing on reconciliation efforts and the personal stories of victims and perpetrators.
• Listener Questions: Answers to audience questions on topics like determinism vs. libertarian free will, and practical advice for a listener planning to teach young adults how to think biblically about cultural issues.

Episode Transcript

Sean: How solar eclipses point to intelligent design. What researchers discovered about racial bias from sending 80,000 resumes to 100 large U.S. companies. The Vatican announces that gender fluidity and transition surgery, as well as surrogacy, amounts to an affront to human dignity. And biblical lessons from the 30-year mark of the genocide in Rwanda. These are the stories we will discuss today, and we will also address some of your questions. I'm your host, Sean McDowell.

Scott: I'm your co-host, Scott Rae.

Sean: This is the Think Biblically Weekly Cultural Update, brought to you by Talbot School of Theology, 51����. Scott, before we jump in, two questions. First off, we're going to go into some more depth on a future episode, but how are you feeling?

Scott: Hey, Sean, thanks so much for asking. And it's so good to be back with our listeners. I'm feeling, I'd say, okay. My colleagues have reminded me that I'm less than three weeks out from major abdominal surgery where an entire organ was removed from me, and so to give myself some grace and patience along the way. Neither of those things I'm particularly good at.

Sean: [laughs]

Scott: But the fatigue level is what I'm fighting. And so I'm just having to manage my energy more carefully than I've had to in the past. Every day is a little bit better, but the progress is a little slower than I had hoped for.

Sean: Now, in case somebody missed it last week, you donated a kidney to your brother. You both are doing well, and we're going to go into some more detail on this. But that's why you've been out. And I'm just glad we've got most of your energy back. Most people are eager to have you back in the saddle. So good to have you back, my friend.

Scott: I'll let our listeners judge on the energy level.

Sean: [laughs] All right. Well, let's give it a shot. Now, before we jump into these stories, you told me that you had a comment on one of the stories we talked about last week.

Scott: I'm sorry, I just couldn't help myself. I was listening with interest and really thankful to our colleague, Rick Langer, for filling in for me, and Thad Williams as well. But a comment just on the de-churching article, the social impact of the de-churching movement. The article talked about community. I think they missed the other really main significant social impact of the de-churching movement, and that is the impact on charity. And what churches do to provide a safety net for the poor, for the marginalized, for the disadvantaged, I think is incredibly significant. That's a huge loss to our communities. I often ask our seminary students who are pastoring in churches, I said, "If you closed your doors of your church today, how long would it take before the community noticed that you were gone?" And it's a major wake-up call to our students, for the churches to be significantly involved in their communities so that if they close their doors, the community will be one of the first people to notice that they were actually gone. I think that is true in the majority of our churches today. That's a big part of what will be lost. And just an extra point of emphasis to add to the de-churching thesis that came out of that Atlantic Monthly article.

Sean: And that's what I think some people like Dawkins and others are kind of lamenting with the loss of Christianity. There's certain objective goods we might culturally miss. So, very fair point. Now, arguably, Scott, the biggest story people are talking about this week was the solar eclipse. Now, you and I in California, we're not able to view it fully. But I happen to believe—and I've written a book on intelligent design with William Dempsky—that solar eclipses are one of the best reasons to believe in intelligent design. Now, very, very quickly, I'll just lay this out. This comes from a book called The Privileged Planet by Gonzales and Richards, friends of ours. And here's something that they point out. Number one, to even have a habitable planet, all these factors have to coalesce that we often take for granted. So, you have to actually have a right size planet. Not any size planet, with any core, could support life. You also have to have a moon of a certain distance, of a certain size, with a certain rotation around our planet. If there were no moon, we wouldn't be here. You also have to have water for there to be any life and kind of chemical exchange and properties, which means the temperature can't be too hot or too cold. It has to sustain that. We also have to have the certain right kind of star of the right age, of the right size, and the right distance. You also have to have surrounding planets. Things like Jupiter have protected us. And we have to be in the right kind of galaxy, in the right place, at the right age. That's just a sampling. That enough, I think, should give anybody pause that there might be some design. But the thing with solar eclipses that they point out in this book The Privileged Planet—which really, again, is one of my favorite books on intelligent design. They're doing an update, I believe, coming out next year. We'll have them on to talk about it. They point out that things like solar eclipses, for example…let me frame it this way. The only place in our solar system in which you could see a solar eclipse is the only place where there happen to be observers that could actually see it. Now, why is that significant? If you were able to survive, which you couldn't, on any other surface in our solar system, you wouldn't be able to see a solar eclipse. Why? Because a lot of them don't have clear atmospheres to see out. They don't have moons of the perfect size and perfect shape. So it's only on Earth, where you can survive, that you can see a solar eclipse. Now, the sun is 400 times the size of the moon, but it's also 400 times further. And our moon is the perfect size, and the perfect distance, and the perfect shape to line up together and allow for a solar eclipse. Now, what's amazing is, when people see this, like, some people are in tears, and they're cheering, and they travel and spend all this money. I was just in Dallas, and they were charging $150 on the top of some hotels to view this thing. Interestingly enough, we all sense there's something spiritual going on here. And yet, if we look at it, we stop and think, it's a solar eclipse that enables us to understand the kind of universe that we live in. So on Fox News, there was this amazing announcement where they said, quote—I wrote it down—this is a scientist, he said, "We learn a lot about the interaction of the sun with Earth's atmosphere. We learn a lot about the size of the sun from these events. It is an educational experience. For scientists, it was a huge research opportunity." So, I could literally talk about this for hours, but all I want to point out is that there's this strange coincidence between the very factors that enable us to have a habitable planet that also enable us to make discoveries about the universe in which we live. And in their book, they say a solar eclipse is only one example of this connection. So I think we can actually make a case from the science and solar eclipses that we've been placed in the right place and the right time to understand the universe in which we live. Purpose is built into it. You want to add anything or tweak anything to that, Scott?

Scott: Well, just one comment on this. And I think you're right about everything you said about The Privileged Planet, and that Earth is in just the right position, at the right angles, with the distances and temperatures just right to support life on Earth. And if you tweak any of those things ever so slightly, Earth becomes inhabitable. It doesn't take much to set those out of whack. And I would consider something like a solar eclipse to be just gravy on top of all of that.

Sean: That's right.

Scott: And this is sort of, I could see this as a bit of the 19th Psalm, that “the heavens declare the glory of God,” “the Earth displays His handiwork.” But solar eclipses are not something that are necessary for human beings to inhabit Earth successfully. I think that's just extra, on top of it, to show evidence for the design of the planet. So, I think, great, great stuff. And I would encourage our listeners that the work on The Privileged Planet is just terrific. And the argument for design I think is so strong and so powerful from that. And it's delightful that every once in a while, we get something like a solar eclipse to highlight that.

Sean: And it's really hard to come up with a Darwinian or naturalistic explanation, because we don't need to make scientific discoveries in terms of the initial origin of human beings. That's gravy. But it makes sense if we've been built and placed here to understand the world, which fits within a Christian worldview. So, all right, this next story, Scott, I think is important for us to weigh in on now and then, because your expertise is in bioethics. I've written on ethical issues, but really a lot on relationships and sexuality. So we maybe tend to lean towards some of those stories that are in our lane. But this one really jumped out to me. It's in The New York Times. And the title was, "What Researchers Discovered When They Sent 80,000 Fake Resumes to U.S. Jobs." And they point out that a group of economists recently performed an experiment on around 100 of the largest companies in the country, applying for jobs using made-up resumes with equivalent qualifications, but different personal characteristics. They changed applicants' names to suggest that they were white or black, male or female, such as Letitia instead of Amy, or Lamar instead of Adam. On average, they found employers contacted the presumed white applicants 9.5% more often than the presumed black applicants. Now, a couple other things that they point out. Of the 97 companies in the experiment, two stood out as contacting presumed white job applicants significantly more than presumed black ones. At 14 companies, there was no difference. The experiment was the largest of its kind. Now, it was 10,000 jobs from 2019 to 2021. So that's right during the heart of not only COVID, but also during the George Floyd tragedy. They point out a few things. There's a lack of racial bias more commonly in certain industries like food stores, including Kroger food products, and companies like FedEx and Ryder. They said the final paper in the study is going to run in the American Economic Review in the future. So, we haven't seen the actual study. We're just operating off the reporting from The New York Times. They said the researchers also tested other characteristics like age and sexual orientation. Interestingly, as far as I know, they didn't study religion, which would be fascinating. The study may underestimate the rate of discrimination against black applicants, it says. In the labor market as a whole, because it just tested large companies—fair enough—it didn't include names for Latino or Asian American applicants. When it came to men and women, it did not treat male and female applicants differently. Fascinating. However, some companies such as manufacturing favored men, and those in apparel stores favored women far more than race. They found a small bias against you and me in particular, that is, people over 40. And then they did find, interestingly enough—and then I want you to weigh in here—they said several common measures, like having a chief diversity officer or offering diversity training, made no difference in decreased discrimination. Now, tell me your thoughts. I've got some thoughts on this, but I'd love to know how you make sense of a study like this.

Scott: Yeah. Yeah. This has been in the business ethics literature probably for the last decade. This is not the first time this research experiment has been done, although I think this is probably the broadest type of survey that's been done on this. Because when they said 80,000 fake resumes to U.S. jobs to almost 100 firms, that's a level of sophistication that the past studies have not had. But in the past when this has been done, the outliers that this study described that you mentioned that were in the 30 to 40% range were the norm. And the 10% that is the norm in this study, I would consider that a 20 to 30 point improvement over the last 10 years. So that's the first thing that jumped out at me, that the percentage, that 10% is actually fairly low compared to what these studies have shown in the past. Now, I think that the biases are larger for gender, but I think that's largely a function of the industry and the type of company. Like, you know, Ann Taylor, for example, the female clothing company, not surprisingly, they have a bias toward women. And I say there's a business reason for that. That's not necessarily a case of gender discrimination. And I found it fascinating that listing somebody as gay or non-binary, if they put their preferred pronouns on the resume, the effect of that was very small, which I found very striking. And I think the fact that the diversity offices didn't make a difference, we've been reading about that for probably the last two or three years. The Wall Street Journal has had several very insightful pieces on this. The companies are actually moving away from those initiatives because they're costly, for one, and they don't make a big difference in terms of the company culture. I think the bottom line on this is what the companies have discovered is that discrimination is basically bad for business. And that's the reason that I think they're changing. Now, to be fair, the study did not have in their survey smaller companies where the interviews are done not by concentrated HR, coordinate HR departments, but by individual hiring managers for different departments, where it'd be easier, I think, to engage in this kind of discrimination. I'd say step two for this study would be, let's look at how this is done with a number of smaller companies that don't have centralized HR functions. But basically, I think the lesson is that companies are learning discrimination is bad for business. And having diversity in terms of race and gender and ideas and backgrounds is basically good for business, because you bring a multitude of ideas and backgrounds to the table that you wouldn't have before. Now, granted, the business reason is not…we would say, well, we'd like to have people intend to do this because they're not racist, all that. But in a fallen world, I'm happy that it's a business reason that is keeping companies from discriminating more than they might be inclined to do.

Sean: That makes sense. That's really helpful. I got a couple observations here. One is, the article says, as you pointed out, "Overall, they found no penalty for using non-binary pronouns. Being gay, as indicated by including membership in an LGBTQ club on the resume, resulted in a slight penalty for white applicants, but benefited black applicants."

Scott: Interesting.

Sean: Although the effect was small. I thought, wait a minute. In terms of, kind of, critical theory that has this idea of intersectionality—that the more marginalized characteristics you have, the greater is your discrimination—this at least modestly challenges and pushes back to it. The difference is somewhat small, so I don't read too much into it, but it kind of plays against that blanket breaking up of discrimination, and pushes back here enough to give us pause and say, I wonder if future studies will reveal that further.

Scott: They could.

Sean: Yeah.

Scott: It wouldn't be a big surprise if they did. And that's where I think the next step for this…I hope these economists will take that next step, because that could provide some very helpful information for us.

Sean: You know, my other thought...oh, sorry. Go ahead. You were going to say something.

Scott: No, go ahead.

Sean: So one of the things that critical race theory assumes is that racism is present, and just wants to discover not if, but how. And so sometimes, we'll read race in when it's not there. On the other hand, there can be people who are not willing to recognize that there still is discrimination based upon race. That's also a big mistake. And of the improvement we've seen in our country—massive improvement, and I was not aware of these earlier studies you cited, how the percentage is getting smaller—that's really encouraging. I think we should all celebrate that. But on the other hand, 9.5% is not statistically insignificant. And so I was reading this going, it's never crossed my mind, being white, that what I would name my kids could potentially be used against them. But my black brothers and sisters, that might have to go through their minds. I thought, wow. We still have a ways to go in our country towards rooting this out of all of our own hearts, our businesses, the Church. And so let's celebrate that we've made positive steps forward, as this study indicates, but also take the time to root it out of our own hearts, root it out of our own marketplace, root it out of the church, and keep being vigilant moving forward to make sure discrimination has no place in our country, in our lives, insofar as we can control it, because of the root of what the gospel teaches about the value of diversity.

Scott: So, yeah, remember, they sent out 80,000 resumes.

Sean: Yeah.

Scott: 10% of that’s 8,000. You know, 7,500, 8,000 resumes that were negatively impacted by this kind of discrimination. So there is a ways to go. But I think that I would not want to underestimate the ability of the market to help us root this out. This article ends with the statement that the more profitable companies were less biased, in line with the theory by the economists that discrimination is bad for business. The ethicist in me wants somebody to have good intentions as well as good outcomes. But in a fallen world, I'm okay with this also being good business.

Sean: Good stuff. Good stuff. Okay. So let's shift to this next story here. This one kind of surprised me this week. And this also came out of The New York Times, at least the announcement that I'm reading here. And the title was, "Vatican Document Casts Gender Change and Fluidity as Threat to Human Dignity." Here's a few points from this article earlier this week. So the Vatican, on Monday, issued a new document approved by Pope Francis, stating that the church believes that gender fluidity and transition surgery, as well as surrogacy, amounts to an affront to human dignity. The sex a person is born with, the document argued, was, quote, "an irrevocable gift from God." And any, quote, "sex change intervention, as a rule, risks threatening the unique dignity the person has received from the moment of conception." End quote. Then it says, "People who desire,” quote, “a personal self-determination as gender theory prescribes, risk conceding to the age-old temptation to make oneself God.'" A couple of other things in this article. Somebody who's criticizing this—and The New York Times is presenting the other perspective—says the Vatican is again supporting and propagating ideas that lead to real physical harm to transgender, non-binary, and other LGBTQ+ people. This is a person who heads up, kind of, a new ways ministry advocating for gay Catholics. He said, "It presented an outdated theology based on physical appearance alone and was blind to the growing reality that a person's gender includes the psychological, social, and spiritual aspects naturally present in their lives." And then later on, it says, "This should be denounced as contrary to human dignity, the fact that in some places not a few people are imprisoned, tortured, and even deprived of the good of life solely because of their sexual orientation." Now, there's a ton here, but your thoughts on seeing this very clear announcement coming from the Vatican?

Scott: Yeah, I think this is the Vatican drawing a line in the sand on sexuality and reproduction. Because I think some people were hopeful that Francis was going to back away from traditional Catholic teaching in these areas, because he had just recently sanctioned same-sex blessings for same-sex couples. Not marriage, but a church blessing on their relationship. Transgender folks were allowed to be baptized in the Catholic Church. But I think what this shows is that the Pope and the Catholic Church is not fundamentally changing the direction of the Church on matters of sexuality. And so I think this explains some of the criticism that came from some pretty mainstream critics of the Catholic Church, some from within, some from outside. And I think the Pope has shown much greater sensitivity to meeting with and and providing a place within the Church for gay and transgender Catholics. But I think this document signals there's not going to be a fundamental change in the Church's views on this. Now, I think the part on surrogacy is a little bit different than the gay and transgender part. And I was a little surprised that that was lumped in there together with that. Because I think the Bible is fairly clear that third-party contributors to procreation, be it eggs, sperm, or womb donors, run contrary to the Bible's teaching that procreation should take place within this sphere of heterosexual marriage. And I think you can make an argument that a third-party contributor actually might make a soulish contribution to the child, not just a physical one.

Sean: A soul-ish, not soulless. Yeah, explain that.

Scott: Well, if the soul is transmitted through the agency of the parents, which I think is the view that makes the most sense, then if you have an egg donor who contributes half the genetic material in the same way that a wife would through normal sexual relations, then I think it makes sense to think that that egg donor, or a sperm donor, for example, might make a contribution to the soul of that child as well as to the physical and biological flourishing of the child. So if that's true, then we have…I think it’s a bit more intrusive to the matrix of marriage than it looks like on the surface. And surrogacy, I think, would fit in the same way, because we know that in the womb, a lot more happens than just shelter and nutrition. And the idea that a surrogate is nothing more than a prenatal babysitter for another couple, I think, doesn't do justice to the multiple things that take place that contribute not only to the child's physical well-being, but to their psychological well-being that take place in the womb. The womb is a very formative place. And to pretend that it's otherwise, to pretend that it's this sort of neutral place where you just get housing and nutrition for nine months, I don't think does justice to what the field of prenatal psychology has discovered for us.

Sean: Now, I think it is interesting, like you said, that these are lumped together, surrogacy and gender fluidity. The commonality, of course, is sexuality and the human body, and how much we can use technology to change either how our body informs our identity as male and female, or we can use technology to change the reproductive process that God has put in place. And you and I both would agree with Catholics in the sense that the more we move away from God's intended design, the more we're going to find some unintended consequences downstream, such as, we could talk about in surrogacy, and you and I have in other places. Now, I find it really interesting in this article, it makes it really clear that at the root of some of this is just strikingly different worldview perspectives. So, according to this announcement from the Vatican, they said the sex a person is born with, not the sex somebody is assigned—so sex is objective in the body, it's not subjective and arbitrary—it says “was an irrevocable gift from God." And so, this is something God has given to us that we are to receive. Any sex change intervention, it says, “risks threatening the unique dignity the person has received from the moment of conception.” So, you start to see the worldview debate, that the Catholic Church is saying that the sexed body and recognizing it is a part of human dignity, and not all, but many who embrace a kind of transgender ideology would say, not recognizing my gender identity is not attributing to me the dignity that I deserve as a human being. These are profoundly, just, different worldviews of what it means to be human and how to show respect and dignity to people. And then it says, "people who desire a personal self-determination as gender theory describes, risk the age-old temptation to make oneself God." In other words, they're contrasting receiving God's design within the body as opposed to self-determination and autonomy, basically saying, this is the temptation that goes all the way back to the garden. So, I really appreciate the Catholic Church's clarity on this, even though I have taken issues with some of the ways I think Pope Francis has tried to address this on a pastoral level that I don't think is helpful, and I think undermines this message. But when the Catholic Church is clear here, I want to applaud it, get behind it, and show the common ground we have with them on these efforts.

Scott: Yeah, one area where this could have been applied, which we've seen in the abortion discussion, is this idea that personhood, the personhood of the unborn, is not something that is ontological or essential or fundamental to what kind of a thing the unborn child is, but personhood is something that is conferred by the pregnant woman in her decision to keep the pregnancy and to nurture it. I think this extends the worldview difference between certain things being objectively true as opposed to what's becoming, I think, more dominant in the area of trans and sexuality, things that are more subjectively determined by the sex that's assigned, as assigned by someone, or the gender identity that is chosen by someone, sort of irrespective of the way their body looks. I think that distinction between what's subjectively true and what is subjectively chosen is a major, fundamental difference in worldview, like you've pointed out.

Sean: I have one more observation from this, just because I want our listeners to be careful readers, This is in The New York Times, and I've said this many times, I read The New York Times daily for a lot of different reasons. And these two authors say, "Though the document is a clear setback for LGBTQ people and their supporters…” then it goes on. I thought, oh, well, it's not so clear to me. It's only clear to me if you assume a secular worldview, if you assume the historic Christian worldview is mistaken, then it's a setback. If the Catholic Church is right, then it's a setback not to embrace the announcement that they're making. And so, these two authors in The New York Times have a certain bias, which they're welcome to, but what they're not asking is, which worldview is actually true? Does God exist? Has He created us? Are we actually made in His image? And then downstream from that first question is what it means for surrogacy. Then downstream is what it means for questions like gender identity. So, when you read sources, friends, read them carefully and look for biases, no matter what source it may be.

Scott: That’s a good word on reading carefully.

Sean: All right, good stuff. Well, let's go to our last one. This is a sobering story. Honestly, Scott, reading some of the articles on this were heartbreaking, but also really kind of hopeful. And so, it really struck me that this week was the 30th anniversary…[anniversary] is not the right word. It's been 30 years since the Rwandan genocide began. Now, let me give some of the background from this. And I came across a story recently in The Guardian that has some incredible hope moving forward from this absolute tragedy. And what happened is, somewhere between half a million and 800,000 people died in a three-month span starting in April 1994. So, this was my senior year, Clinton presidency. It ended in July, about a month before I came to 51����. And interestingly enough, we probably would have met for the first time. That's kind of dating this.

Scott: That's right.

Sean: They say, "30 years on, many of the victims and perpetrators have forged reconciliation." And this is where you had neighbors attack neighbors. Children saw their families slaughtered. Now, the article in The Guardian says, "The most extraordinary reconciliations are taking place across Rwanda. 30 years after the genocide, unthinkable partnerships have formed between unlikely pairs, murderers and survivors, parents and children, whose families were torn apart by mass murder." And they have been, it says, "hard won." Now, they described that this wasn't strangers who came in and did this, but it was neighbors and acquaintances, people hiding in mosques and in churches. Perpetrators and victims spoke the same language, and, they point out in this article, shared the same religion, Christian religion and culture. It wasn't like Christians against Muslims or Hindus, whatever it was. And then they write this, they said, "How do we overcome this?" And they talk about, how do people overcome such trauma, especially in poor nations with minimal mental health care? In 2005, Dutch sociotherapist Cora Dekker developed an affordable, effective method in collaboration with the diocese of Byumba of the Anglican Church. Now, I want to come back and read some of these stories, because so much of the reconciliation and healing coming from this just has deep Christian roots of grace and forgiveness that we can learn from. But before we go any further, any thoughts or reflections on realizing it has been 30 years since this tragedy? And, by the way, according to at least one of the articles in Time, it was the greatest number of deaths in the shortest amount of time, I think, in recorded history.

Scott: Yeah, this was really sobering to read this, because I remember what this was like when this took place in 1994. And the world was overwhelmed by how quickly and how devastatingly this whole thing unfolded. And it was a little bit like the Holocaust in Nazi Germany at first, because at first, it was hard to believe that this was actually happening. And I think part of the difference here was in Rwanda, it happened so swiftly. And some of the criticism that came I think was very appropriate, because the article in the Times reflects how President Clinton and the Prime Minister of France at the time both lamented how their countries, basically with the rest of the West, stood on the sidelines while this took place. But it happened in such a short period of time. It happened so quickly that it's hard to imagine sending any kind of meaningful force over there in that short a period of time. But I think it doesn't excuse the rest of the world from basically sitting on their hands and just lamenting this from afar. And the criticism was, would the response of the West have been the same had this happened in another part of the world?

Sean: Wow.

Scott: And I think it had, correctly so, a pretty serious racial overtone to it. And Sub-Saharan Africa, at that time, was not on a lot of people's radars. And had this happened in Europe or in a well-populated part of Asia or some other part of the "Western world," the response might have been actually quite different. The other thing that's really significant, I think, that came out of this that our listeners may not be aware of is one of the most significant ministries to the poor and the marginalized, especially combating human trafficking. The International Justice Mission was born out of the Rwandan genocide. Gary Haugen, the founder of International Justice Mission, was at that time an attorney for the United States Department of Justice. And he was involved in the investigation of the Rwandan genocide. And he records in his book on this, which has been a bestseller for years and years, he describes how he literally stood hip deep in corpses in these ditches where people were just sort of mass murdered and buried, and realizing his life was never going to be the same after this. And he founded the International Justice Mission shortly after this, and it has been one of the most significant ministries on the global stage in combating things like human trafficking and global prostitution and other things, particularly in some of these parts of the world that may seem forgotten at first glance. The other thing that I found striking about this was how Muslims were some of the primary folks that sheltered the victims and rescued victims, took them out of harm's way. You mentioned in the article that they were hidden in churches and mosques. And I think the Muslims were behaving in a very commendable way, in ways that I think took seriously the fact that people were being slaughtered in their midst unjustly.

Sean: Those are great points, Scott. Really good stuff. Two things jump out to me. When I see a story like this, I ask myself, how do I think biblically about this? One is, I think this just reveals something deep inside the hearts of human beings. So many of the reflections of people who've said this would say things like, I had no idea that there was potential murder in my heart, that I could do this to a neighbor, that I was capable of such a thing. And I got a referral—I wish I had time to go into depth, but one of our former colleagues, Clay Jones, who used to teach the problem of evil in our program at apologetics, wrote an article that is a game-changing article to me. I have our students in Gospel, Kingdom & Culture read this. And the title—you can find it online—is just, simply, “We Don't Take Human Evil Seriously.” So we don't understand why we suffer. And he studied all the tragedies of the 20th century alone. And he just walks through, he says, “I want to know what they reveal about human nature.” And his point is, he says, “We prefer to think great evil is limited to a few deranged individuals,” but that's not true. Large populations commit heinous crimes. He walks through the Soviet Union, 20 to 26 million deaths. Walks through Germany. We know what happened there. Walks through China, 26 to 30 million. Japan, in the city of Nanjing, 30,000 Chinese. He walks through Turkey, Cambodia, Guatemala, South Africa, Pakistan, all over. And although there wasn’t that kind of war in the U.S., he raises serious moral issues coming out of the U.S. in the 20th century as well. And his whole point is that there's something deep inside the human heart that is far more capable of evil that we can even imagine. And of course, that's a biblical idea. He says in the article, he says, “Human cruelty is imaginable. By that I mean if a human set on hurting someone else can imagine a horrific torture and has the opportunity to do it, he or she will do it. I could go on and on, but sadly, some of these events are not inhuman. It's humans that have done them.” I remember, Scott, when I was in high school, I was watching the news with my dad, and there was—I don't know—some kind of murder that was described. I was like, that's so inhuman. My dad taught me, no, son, that's not inhuman. Inhuman means not human. It's humans that do that. I mean, Jesus said, it's out of the heart that comes sloth and anger and lust and idolatry. Paul writes in Romans 3, no one is good, no one, not one. And so I am not at all picking uniquely on Rwanda, but when I saw 30 years and read the stories of how many people describe being shocked that they were capable of this, it reminded me that that is in all of our hearts. And Jesus diagnosed human nature correctly. So if we stand in judgment over them, what we really should do is say, if I were there—but it be by the grace of God—would I have acted any differently? We at least have to ask that question. So that's one piece. The other thing that's come out of this is so many stories of the healing and reconciliation that have profound Christian overtones. So in this Guardian piece, you have people who had murdered other family members begging for forgiveness, grace being shown, people learning how to forgive, seeing other people who slaughtered their family as human beings as well. And one person says, I spent eight years in pretrial detention after my conviction by this court. I had community work. I went with my family to this person whom we had murdered their family members and their sisters to ask for forgiveness personally. And these stories just go on and on—amidst this just unthinkable pain and suffering—of grace and forgiveness and redemption that reminds me there is forgiveness, and we can overcome even the most egregious pain and suffering we've gone through and put upon others. That is something we can learn from so many of the Rwandan people coming out of this.

Scott: I think we close in prayer and move on.

[laughter]

Scott: Very, very, totally appropriate. And it reflects the image of God, but also the fact that depravity is total. I mean, we have the capacity for every kind of evil. Resident within us, it is waiting to be actualized under the right conditions.

Sean: Scott, let's shift to some questions. We got a range of really good ones here. I'm going to throw this one to you first in relation to our recent episode with our colleague Greg Ganssle on determinism. And this person said, “I just listened to a discussion with Ganssle on the book that defends determinism. I'm curious if one of your conclusions is that a compatibilist conception of free will as opposed to a libertarian conception is sufficient to counter the claims of determinism. So from your perspective, bottom line, is the compatibilist view of free will sufficient, or is there something you find problematic with it philosophically?” I'll let you run with this one.

Scott: Yeah, I actually called Dr. Ganssle on this about a half hour before we started recording this.

Sean: Nice.

Scott: And he said I could quote him. And so, I'm going to give him the last word on this. But in his view…and it's one that we agree with, because I think, Sean, both you and I would be libertarian free will proponents. In Dr. Ganssle's view, compatibilism is not sufficient to establish moral responsibility. And the reason for that is because in a compatibilist view, what I do is not ultimately up to me. And he said, it's that “up to me” part that is crucial for establishing a genuine sense of moral responsibility. And so, in his view, and I think he's correct on this, genuine, robust moral responsibility requires a libertarian free will view.

Sean: Good response. Now I know people who are tracking this are going to have their responses, and this goes in depth, but hopefully that at least lets our listeners know where we stand. Here's a real practical one. I was so touched by this, Scott. This was kind of an amazing email, one of my favorites yet. This person wrote in and said, “I will soon be starting a class for young adults at my church. The premise of this class is founded upon your podcast, aiming to teach people to think biblically about everything. It will be similar to your weekly Cultural Update, but with group discussion. Here's my question. What questions can I utilize as a framework for each session? I would like to format discussions around three to four questions each week so that students can utilize the same questions in daily life as they biblically think about all kinds of issues. Are there also any books that you would further recommend?” Now, I would say a couple of things. It's good to have common questions, but don't get stuck with certain questions because for certain issues, you might want to ask different questions. I'm not going to tell you exactly what four questions you should ask, but here's just a few to think about. When they asked about resources that might help, I would say two first. Nancy Pearcey's book Total Truth is fantastic and has shaped my perspective on worldview as much as any book. Nancy Pearcey, Total Truth. I also wrote a book called A Rebel’s Manifesto, and there's a chapter in there on entertainment. And these are questions that I put out there for people to ask of movies. The same kind of questions could be asked about cultural events. So, some of the questions would be such as, what is good about the movie that I can praise? What should I be concerned about? So, with almost any story, what's good about this story? What can I be concerned about? Positive and negative. That's one approach. Do we see the consequences of sin or sinful actions ignored or praised? That's true in, also, some cultural stories. How are Christians portrayed? What's the worldview behind it? These are the kinds of questions. Some I might add anytime I see a cultural story, what does this reveal about human nature? What does it reveal about the goodness and brokenness of the world? You know, finally, how do we think biblically about it? Now, that's more than four. I intentionally gave more so you can go back and kind of list these out, and our listener can categorize them. But basically, John Stonestreet does this at the Colson Center. When he talks to students, he'll take any event that's happened in culture and he'll say, how do we think biblically about this? And the more you do it, the better you get at it, because every story reveals something about the brokenness in the world. Every story reveals something about human nature. Every story has a moral component. And so the more you do this, the better you can get at seeing it and, hence, thinking biblically. Your thoughts, Scott?

Scott: I think those are good questions that maybe we ought to use too.

[laughter]

Scott: But I think structuring it like that is really helpful. Now, we bring in those questions, we just don't signpost them specifically. But that basically informs how we look at all these particular issues. That's really helpful. I'm super encouraged that we have somebody who wants to have a small group that meets around a similar format as what we're doing here. I think maybe that means that one or two people actually like what we're doing with this. I'm encouraged. I'm encouraged with this.

Sean: Let me give you an example of what this might look like. I went to my high school students—this was probably 12 years ago, before I was at 51����—and I said, yesterday my wife and I bought a new car. What does it mean to think biblically about getting a new car? And they looked at me like I was crazy. They're like, one girl goes, it's just a car, are you kidding me? And it was dead end after dead end until finally the girl goes, well, I guess if you go to a dealership and they use the money that they make on the car to fund abortions, then it would be wrong. I thought, okay, the chances of that are really slim. Now, these students didn't understand things like, I am a steward of money. The way I spend money should be reflective of biblical principles. There's biblical teaching of being an ambassador. The kind of car I drive, whether I want it to or not, is going to send a kind of message. And so, you can literally take anything you do, you can take any story in the news, and help people think Christianly or biblically about it. The more you do it together, the better you will get at it. And then, when you're watching the news or anything, it will just unlock ideas in their minds. Now, one specific idea is, you could take one story we talk about during a particular week and get some articles, give it to people, have them listen to it, and say, do you agree? Do you disagree? What would you add? What would you take away? And that's going to create conversation on one of these topics. That would be an easy way to lead a discussion. So, any last thing on that, Scott?

Scott: No, that's great stuff. And I'd like to hear from this listener about how it goes once he starts this.

Sean: I agree. Yeah. And then we can maybe help others do the same. Well, Scott, there are other questions that came in, but we're going to have to wrap up this week. It's so good to have you back, man. I know you told me you had about two-thirds of your energy. But had we not said that and you not told me, I would not be able to tell. You just seem as sharp and energetic as ever. So it's great to have you back.

Scott: It's great to be back. I really appreciate that you don't notice the difference.

[laughter]

Scott: And we do appreciate…I know many of our listeners are just praying for you and for your brother. And either next week or the week after that, we're going to give a real update and insight into what happened. It's a really, really cool story. Well, this has been an episode of the podcast Think Biblically: Conversations on Faith and Culture brought to you by Talbot School of Theology, 51����. We have master's programs online and distance theology, Bible, apologetics, spiritual formation, marriage and family, and more. To submit comments or ask questions, please email us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu. Now I just noticed that we are shy of a thousand ratings, and there's something cool about having a thousand podcast ratings. So if you're possibly listening to this and have not done a rating yet, even two minutes, a couple lines, would just help us to grow the podcast and train more people to think biblically. Thanks so much for listening. And we will see you Tuesday when our regular podcast episode posts. In the meantime, remember to think biblically about everything.