Sean McDowell 0:01

25 years since the 9-11 attacks, are conspiracy theories growing? And if so, why and what do we do about it? Ukraine considers legalizing porn to help pay for the war with Russia. How the abortion pill has become a weapon of abusers, and the Lindsay Clancy triple murder case, how might we think biblically about an insanity plea? These are the stories we'll discuss, and we will also address some of your questions. I'm your host, Sean McDowell. I'm your co-host, Scott Ray. This is the Think Biblically Weekly Cultural Update brought to you by Talbot School of Theology, Viola University. Scott, it's incredible to think that it's been 25 years since the 9-11 attacks. I can't believe it. All three of my kids were not yet born. My oldest was three years out. So really, we're hitting a point where if parents and grandparents don't talk with their kids about it, they're going to take their clues from something online, which is this article we're going to discuss points out conspiracy theories and false information are growing at a concerning rate. This piece you sent me is from Douglas Murray, who is an atheist, by the way, I'm pretty sure. And the article talks about how no one with a keen senses needs to be reminded that the West is still very much at war with radical Islam. And yet he says there's another war being waged, one over the origin and meaning of the 9-11 attacks. Lies and conspiracy theories about the events have gained new prominence in recent years, including those offered by the right, the left, and the Islamic extremists themselves. There's a new generation of adults that have come of age, many of whom are politically misguided, and of whom are too young to recall the attacks firsthand. And for example, he says about a guest that Tucker Carlson had, one of the most popular podcasters in America, where somebody says the real story is Tucker did America plan it. Now, one of the things he points out is interesting, that there were some claims that have been made that have been shown to be true. For example, claims that there had been a cover-up over the extent of foreknowledge and terrorist fundraising by high-ranking Saudis have in part been vindicated. So give critics their due, so to speak. But does that justify all the conspiracy theories that we're seeing emerging? Not by a landslide. Now, one study by the 15th anniversary of the attacks a decade ago, fully 40, 45% of the French public claim we still don't know who was behind the attacks. Now that's crazy to think about. Now, he points out in this article that still most people think Al-Qaeda was behind these attacks, with podcasts like the Joe Rogan experience, and the fact that we live in an age where conspiracy theorists can get clicks and views and attention by claiming to have a secret inside story about anything, not just 9-11, including the Charlie Kirk death assassination. It's like the perfect storm, so to speak, for false ideas about this to emerge.

Scott Rae 3:31

Well, Sean, I think first of all, we need to recognize and to acknowledge that our heart goes out to those who lost loved ones on 9-11, 2001. Those people who lost loved ones, they will never forget. And they have, I think, have a very strong interest in making sure that the public doesn't forget either. And as you might expect, there'll be lots, lots of news stories coming out on the 25th anniversary of 9-11 from a wide variety of angles. But I think Douglas Murray here has an interesting take on it that you might not hear in too many other places. And I think I believe you're right, he is an atheist, has no religious leanings that I'm aware of. He also sees this from the perspective of someone who's born, raised, and living in the U.K. Uh, so he has a little bit different take on this than I think the average, maybe the average American might. And I think he rightly, as you point out, recognizes that we're still at war with radical Islam. And I think what he the part that's so enlightening, I think, is that we are also at war with the 9-11 narrative. And I would suggest, Sean, this has striking parallels to the phenomenon of Holocaust denial. And that that is the part that's troubling. And we, you know, we are, you know, not slowly but surely, we are rapidly losing the people who lived through the Holocaust back during World War II. And the memory of that fades with each person who lived through that who passes away. And I don't want the same thing to happen with the 9-11 narrative. Now, most conspiracy theories were that it was the work of, quote, Zionists or even the U.S. government. The original desire denials of this mostly came from the Muslim world. And I think that's the that's still, I think, the majority of the denials of this today. Um, it's a little bit more mainstream in Europe. As you point out, the the French, that's a that's a remarkable statistic among the French. It's granted it's from 2015, so it's 10 years old. So uh, you know, it's not not entirely clear what has happened in the meantime. My my guess is that the longer, that the longer we go in between 9-11 and today, the more the memory's gonna fade of it. That's right. And the more some of that skepticism is gonna arise. Uh now I think the the percentages do, I think, tend to be higher among younger younger generations like your kids who were not, you know, who were not born during that time or didn't didn't live through it. My kids were very young at the time. They were, I think they were old enough to know a little bit about what was going on, uh, but you know, certainly not like teenagers or young adults might be today. Uh some of the some of the stats, I think, on in the U.S. in particular, I found really interesting. This is a Ugov survey conducted in December of 2023, found that 20% said it was likely true, it's 20% of Americans, likely true that the U.S. government was behind the 9-11 attacks, which I find just shocking. Another 11% said the U.S. government knowingly allowed the attacks to happen. This was from public policy polling in 2012. And in a 2006 poll, granted, this is a bit out of date, but I think still is illustrative, 36% said it was somewhat or very likely that the U.S. either participated or deliberately failed to stop them in order to create a pretext for war, a further expansion in the Middle East. Now, I do think, Sean, the the farther we get from the event, the more fertile the ground for these conspiracy theories. And to help, then I think ultimately this is a bit of a worldview issue in my in my mind, because I think what makes this ground more fertile for these is I think the postmodern skepticism about truth in general, which has been magnified by AI. And we've we've commented several times before that what you see is not necessarily what you get. And it's amplified by the podcast that you mentioned, with their emphasis on, quote, just asking questions, which enables people to ignore the over the preponderance of evidence and smoke focus on small inconsistencies that make no difference in the assessment of who did this. Now, I think the Murray points out, I think a very insightful part toward the end of this piece, that the key question to ask of the theories of the U.S. or Israel being the cause, what could possibly be their motive for doing this? And how do we account for the fact that no one in the US or in Israel blew the whistle on their government and went public with this in the last 25 years? I mean, no, no insider, there are lots of people who have raised questions, but no insiders have gone public about this. This would, these would be scandals of historic proportions, were they true. And so I I would say just like with the Holocaust, we can't forget and sort of the the same thing that the Israelis describe about the Holocaust, never forget and never again.

Sean McDowell 9:10

Well said. I appreciate the even though we're 25 years removed, the reference to those who lost loved ones are still among us. And I can't imagine like the pain and hurt that this just brings up uh, you know, 25 years later. Yeah, this has got to be a bad day for them. Oh yeah. That's that's really that's a good way to put it into perspective. I was in New York about three weeks ago and got to see actually kind of the remains of where the World Trade Centers were for the first time since the attacks. And I asked a few New Yorkers there, I said, Hey, do you know somebody who was lost? And it's kind of like everybody knows somebody, or they're one person removed from it when 3,000 people die. You know, there's a collective impact that's there. I'm glad you picked this article because I had a chance to give a talk recently at the Keller Center for Apologetics about a trends, trends in apologetics. So things like AI, growth of Islam, increase in mental health, rise of antisemitism. My number one point was a conspiracy first mindset. Here's a gen, there's always been conspiracies. There were conspiracies about, you know, the religious leaders stealing the body of Jesus. So this is nothing new to have conspiracy theory. But it's like we have a perfect storm right now with ubiquity of information, with people not able to think. People feel more and react more than they think. And you also have people being rewarded when they have some secret information and knowledge. It's almost like Gnosticism is coming back, which is one of the first threats to the church, that the material world is bad and salvation comes from secret information that you get. We all just want to believe that we have an insight on an investment nobody else has, or we have an insight on a conspiracy nobody else has. So it really just appeals to human nature, so to speak. And he mentions the article, the money and clicks and views to say, I've got an insight nobody has before. It's driving some of the leading podcasts in the world. Now, one last thing I'll say in this, I think is great, is he says there's kind of a script that people play when they're pushing these uh conspiracies. He goes, number one, claiming expertise in something about which you have no expertise. That's so good. Such a reminder to say, what's the authority of this person speaking? Do they know what they're talking about? Have they done the research? Is there credibility that is here? That's a great question. The second one, he says, citing a specific detail supposedly capable of blowing apart the entire accepted narrative. I'm gonna give you one insight and detail that blows this whole thing apart. Well, that doesn't happen in a court case rarely. It's usually the cumulative effect of a lot of facts together. So that's something to be alerted to. And then the third one, he says, the final favorite technique in 9-11 conspiracy theorists is keeping the supposed countermotive vague. And that goes back to your point. Like, what exactly is the motive of the US government to do this? We can invent motives, but really finding one and proving it and demonstrating it, that's lacking. So I think you're right. We got to remember this. I mean, also biblically, why would people celebrate the Passover over and over again? I know celebrating something is different, but just to be reminded of our past so we don't forget. We as human beings, we forget things and need to be a reminder. And this is an important reminder.

Scott Rae 12:56

Yeah, just one other thing I think that we need that we need to be reminded of. And the Holocaust does this as well. And we I I don't want I don't want to ever to have these conspiracy theories or anything like that cause us to shrink back from naming evil for what it is. Amen. And that's that's a worldview consideration. Uh, but I I I I think to be to think biblically and theologically about events like this, we have to be willing to name evil for what it is.

Sean McDowell 13:25

Well said. Well, that brings us to another story that we have we we have not talked about a lot on the week of cultural update. We interviewed a Christian who's studying in seminary in Ukraine during the war. One of the most interesting interviews I think we've done, Scott. But this story came across uh when I was reading the Wall Street Journal, and it says Ukraine considers legalizing the porn industry to fund its war. Now, I didn't know this, but unlike most European countries, the production, distribution, and possession of porn in Ukraine is actually illegal. It's punishable by up to seven years in prison. And yet, Ukraine has been unable to curtail a vast lucrative porn industry, which as officials say that uh operates with a protection of a corrupt police. So now Ukrainian authorities are now demanding taxes from people who work in the porn industry. But this complicates things because if you pay taxes, then you can see that you're working in the porn industry and doing something that is now illegal. So there's kind of a catch-22, so to speak, for people that are here. Now, biblically speaking, uh this the the war, they need like $120 billion to pay for their defense needs. And at most, this would raise like $25 million a year. Now, there's a quote from somebody uh who says, who's defending some of the porn actresses? This is a victimless crime who's represented over 100 OnlyFans models. And we'll circle back to that. But apparently they've made about $131 million, 7,900 Ukrainians using OnlyFans, and it has not been taxed. Many have left to live abroad. Some are trying to come up with creative workarounds to keep working through. But I'm curious what you make of this story. Uh what's your thoughts, Scott?

Scott Rae 15:23

Well, to be clear, Sean, you know, the Ukraine is not producing porn itself. It's a bit a bit different from the way some countries in the Middle East, for example, uh are the governments are involved in the production of the poppy plant that goes into the making of heroin. This is different. The question is about legalizing it and taxing it. And we're only really talking about OnlyFans, which is I think the $25 million per year in taxes is a drop in the bucket that it could be generating if if pornography was legalized more across the board. And by keeping it illegal, Sean, it's created a huge underground industry with no regulations or tax on the revenue. And this sounds to me a bit like prohibition in the United States, or the same arguments are being used for that were involved with legalizing pot in the United States. The only difference is this time the taxes are used to finance the Ukraine's survival against the Russians. Now, you're right, it's it's not, you know, taxing this is not going to provide them all the revenue they need to fight that continued war. But it is, I think, the need for the need for that tax revenue, I think, is more acute in the case of the Ukraine than in many other countries around the world, g given how precarious their military situation is vis-a-vis the Russians. Now, you and I may disag may disagree on this. I don't know. We haven't talked about it all that much. We haven't talked about the we've talked about a lot more about the morality of pornography as opposed to the leave the legality of it. But and the morality of porn is clear. Uh, but whether or not the law should prohibit it, I think is a different question that takes a different argument. And there are two arguments that are usually given in favor of legalizing pornography. One is that it can't be, it can't the law can't stop this without intolerable invasions of privacy for people. And the the other the other argument is that it's it's a it's sort of a fundamental right of free expression to include pornography in that. Uh I think there's also a utilitarian argument that it's better, is it better to have it underground or above ground? Um I think there's you know, there's a good argument to be made either way on that. For one, my assessment of that, Sean, I think it's a hard argument to maintain that the founding fathers of our this country envisioned a right of free expression to include pornography. Uh that's that's a really hard one to swallow. Uh but I think the that that is one of the primary arguments being made for it coming above ground and being legalized and regulated and taxed.

Sean McDowell 18:26

Is this a really tricky one? Because you're right, there's a difference between the morality of pornography itself and the legality of it. Part of my I I guess I have a couple concerns is is Ukraine making decisions to survive in this war that will later come back and bite them and hurt them in the long run. Undoubtedly. Yeah, undoubtedly. And and is this one of them? That's the question that I want to know. Now, is there a way first before they legalize it? I would want to know, is there any other way to stop the corruption? That's got to be step number one to fix the concern about like tied to prohibition versus legalizing it. The other argument people use is just the collective good. So, yeah, we have liberties for certain things, but at what point do those liberties cause harm collectively? And then therefore the government has to restrict those either by age or by access to them. These are the kind of arguments with gambling, these are the arguments with drinking, these are the arguments with pot. And I think the more data comes out, the more we see collective harm of pornography. And whether warrants still keeping it illegal or not is a separate question. But when this person writes in here and they say it's a victimless crime, that is absolutely nonsense. That is false. And I actually think many of the porn producers themselves are victims of a kind, even though they're choosing to do this, they are affected in a way they don't anticipate. A friend of mine, Joshua Broom, was the male performer of the year in 2012, came out of the porn industry. And recently I was interviewing him at a whole separate conference, and he said 40 some of his friends who he was in the industry with have died since he's come out. Suicide, disease, all sorts of reasons. And he goes, This hurts far more people than we realize. So I don't I don't know what to do. Partly this shows the desperation of Ukraine. On one hand, they're just trying to stay afloat and getting attacked. They describe some of these OnlyFans, you know, producers or whatever term you'd use, it's like they take a break to go fry a fight on the front lines and then go back to do what they were doing before. I mean, my heart goes out to Ukraine, but I wonder if this is something that's gonna come back and bite them and have more negative effects. That's my question.

Scott Rae 21:04

Anything else on this story? Yeah, that's a really good question. And, you know, that's sort of, you know, is it better to have it underground or above ground? I tend to think it's probably better to have it if you're gonna, if it's gonna exist, which it's going to, it's better to have it above ground than underground. Uh and I I think you're right about the corruption part. I think the other argument often that's made for legalizing it is it's it's it's violating the liberties and autonomy of the people who want to who want to do this work. But I think we've made the argument for sex work in general, Sean, that the money and the desperate financial straits that the purveyors of this are usually in is that's a textbook definition of exploitation. And the money is involved is can be very coercive for people who would, were it not for the need for money, put Probably would not be doing something as degrading to themselves as they sense, as they feel and sense that it actually is. And this is a truncated view of liberty because it's only considering the harms, not the positive goods. And I think a more balanced view of liberty balances the harms and benefits. We have a very truncated view of liberty in this country that's only clear, uh demonstrable harms that provide justification for a government restricting people's liberty. But that we don't really believe that because we have lots of other ways that government restricts liberty to provide positive benefits for people and to provide benefits for others. So things like our tax laws infringe on our liberty to provide benefits for others and for the common good. You know, that's just one example. So I I you know I think it's you're right. It's a very tricky issue. I think if I had to vote, I would vote for it being above ground rather than underground.

Sean McDowell 23:09

Interesting. I think I would vote against it, but I don't, there's a lot of data I would need before I would vote because I think things like prohibition uh clearly should be above ground because alcohol in itself is neither right nor wrong. It's how we use it. There's a biblical precedent for proper use. But what we've seen with marijuana, which I would argue, apart from uh medical use, is closer to pornography. At least it's moving that direction than I think alcohol does. When it's gone above board, it hasn't resulted in the taxes that people thought. And it's also made things worse. The amount of use has gone up on some levels. And a lot of people have gone underground because now it's cheaper to not have it taxed by the state. So it's had the opposite effect. When it comes to pornography, I would need to see a study across countries to assess that, not from a moral but a financial standpoint. We can revisit this again. You sent me another story, Scott, that was kind of a harrowing story. And it's about how when the abortion pill becomes a weapon of abusers. And this is a story that started off with kind of just a harrowing account of a woman who says she kind of wakes up with her boyfriend on top of her and she's like, What is happening here? And he's crushing powder inside her bottom lip. And then she knew he was trying to force her to have uh have a medical abortion. Now she says, in hindsight, uh, she now believes that he had laced drinks with drugs that can induce miscarriage, uh known as abortifacience, and that he resorted to brute force only when these attempted poisonings failed. In her case, because he was did this forcefully, she ended up losing the pregnancy. The article talks about how two drugs, when taken together, and we've talked about this, respectively function by blocking the hormone progesterone, then expelling the fetus. When taken is instructed, this article says they are safe and effective for most women who want abortions, although we would take serious issue with that, and have talked about that here. But it turns out this man was charged with six felonies for what he did, which is a very interesting thing. Now, just five years ago, any woman who wished to be prescribed mifepristone, one of the two drugs in America, had to attend a clinic in person. But in 2022, roughly one in 20 abortions were provided by telehealth. In 2024, now after the overturn of Roe versus Wade, it's more like one in four, around half of all telehealth prescriptions for abortions were sent from pro-choice states with shield laws. So that would be a state that allows it into other states that don't. There's no reliable statistics on this issue, but the article talks about a disturbing number of allegations, like what happened to this woman, cropping more and more up. And basically, this article frames it in a way they say, well, you know, this is kind of the a story of unintended consequences. By making Miphopristone, uh, both of the drugs available to women, they're trying to help women control their own bodies, but look at this unintended consequences that come along with it. It gives abusers certain power. And in this case, not always, but many men who likely don't want to pay child support to slip it in a drink and try to force their girlfriend or other to have an abortion. I'd be because you've been following this for a long time. Did you see this coming? What's your take on this trend?

Scott Rae 26:58

Well, Sean, this one makes me really angry. And and be and the part of the reason I think it was entirely predictable once abortion pills were legalized and made available through the mail. Now, that doesn't, that doesn't get the abusers off the hook at all because what what the store the stories this article describes are, I mean, these women have been criminally violated, and their abusers should go to jail for this. In fact, the uh the main the main the lead uh defendant in this story is being sentenced today as we talk about this. Uh and it's not it's not what what they're missing is a couple different things. One is the say the safety of it, as you mentioned, is way overstated. That's right. We've got data to demonstrate that that we've talked about. And I think the women who are described in this article who had the abortion pill forced upon them and have harrowing consequences for themselves, I think they would take issue with this assumption that the abortion pill is always safe. Uh that that was terrifying to read the what happened to these women once they once they realized that they had that they had ingested the the abortion medication without either without their knowledge or without their consent. The other thing that the article misses here, and it's not just with partners who who are abusing this, but some of the main, the main clients for the abortion pill are human traffickers who want to make sure that the often very young women that they are trafficking around the world don't end up being pregnant. And so there's, you know, I think that that's a concern as well. Now, the you mentioned, Sean, I think the time the timeline here, you started in on that. I think it's it's really important for how this evolved because prior to COVID, you had to have an in-person appointment with a physician with an ultrasound prior to getting the prescription for it. And the reason for that is that the dosage of the two medications together, which are both of them are necessary, depends on the gestational age of the baby. And if you don't get that right, uh the possibility of having further complications is increases significantly. Now, in 2021, when doctor in-person doctor appointments were a problem because of COVID, you could get a prescription from telehealth, but with but it but without an ultrasound to determine the gestational age of the baby. What they they would try to calculate it based on when your last menstrual period was, uh, but it not nothing was as certain as doing an ultrasound to get that exactly. And then in 2022, with Roe being overturned, the pro-choice movement put much more emphasis on telehealth abortion access, especially in states where abortion had been restricted. Now, here's I think the really important part. In early 2023, the Biden administration waived the in-person requirement for obtaining the abortion pill. So it still required a prescription, but did not require uh any kind of in-person consultation. Uh and you, you know, uh roughly half of all the all the telehealth prescriptions, as you pointed out, came from states with shield laws, which California, where we are, is one of those. What that does is it shields uh people who are are prescribing and providing the pills and mailing them to women who are in states where abortion is restricted and where the abortion pill is still is not yet legal. Um and the point of this is so the people who provide this for women in areas where it's not legal are shielded from prosecution because nobody knows who they are. Now, here's Sean, it's still not quite clear that the abortion pill can be ordered without a prescription. And what I wonder is how the guys in this article got access to the abortion pill if a prescription was always required. I I don't, that's that's a hard one for me to wrap my arms around. Uh so here's just a I think a summary of sort of where the law is on this. Women can get abortion pills without ever physically seeing a doctor. That's true. Uh and you can legally get an F, you cannot, I'm sorry, you cannot legally get an FDA approved abortion pill without a prescription. But in practice, can a woman obtain abortion pills without a prescription from some online sources? The answer to that clearly is yes. But it's outside the FDA approved system and raises other issues. Here, and here the article concludes like this, which I think gives me my intuition on this. It says the fact that people can go online at any age, any gender, no proof that you're pregnant, and just order these pills and ship them across the United States is very scary. So, again, if you need a prescription, it's not exactly clear to me how the guys involved here get access to the pills in the accounts in this piece. So we'll, you know, one thing that's currently going on at the moment, the FDA is is doing a retrospective review at present at the of the safety of these pills. And so we'll keep you posted on where that, you know, when that study comes out and where what kind of conclusions that it draws.

Sean McDowell 33:01

Well, my strong suspicion is if somebody is willing to forcefully lay down a girlfriend, get on top of her, and force her to take a drug to end the life of her child and his child, that this individual is A, immoral and B so desperate that we'll find a way to pay to get this drug whatever it takes. That's what's probably happening here. Sadly. Now, I think you're right that this is entirely predictable. The one line in this article that really jumped out to me that that, and this is not written from a Christian given a take that you and I have on it, says this is a story of unintended consequences about how a change designed to help women has left some in danger, about how a measure that was supposed to prevent coercive men from controlling their partners' bodies may have enabled some abusers to do just that. Now, I appreciate the honesty in this piece that they're willing to even say that, but it shows a couple things to me. Uh, number one, that if you do something that is wrong and immoral within itself, and taking the life of an innocent human being, is wrong and immoral in itself, there's going to be unintended consequences, period. The question is not if, the question is what are those unintended consequences going to be. And sadly, in this case, the very idea of pro-choice, as misguided as it is as a whole, to give women back power enables the very abusers who want to use women's bodies, in this case, the boyfriend, he wants to use her body for his own pleasure, obviously, but not deal responsibly with the natural outgrowth, namely pregnancy, that comes from this. And so this very pill, meant to restrict a man's power, puts that power in his hand. And it makes me wonder, I don't know that we could ever know this, Scott. How many women have miscarriages? And it's because men have snuck some of these chemicals into their drinks. I mean, how could we ever know the stats on this? We can't. It's probably a lot higher than we could ever, ever imagine. So I agree with you. This is enraging, it's angering. Nobody should be surprised by it because the heart of what ProChoice is, but it's kind of like it's eating its own tail here. A movement meant to liberate women, rooted in denying what a woman is and what her body means is going to end up empowering people to abuse them in a different way. And sadly, we're seeing this. Anything else in the story, Scott? No, no. Okay. I might get even more angry. I know. I I hear you. I do like when you get fired up, though. I like to hear the passion come out. Um, all right. So this is a story that we've gotten a lot of questions about. And I'm super eager on your take, Scott. Just so listeners know, sometimes we go to lunch, you get to talk about this stuff. Other times, like as we're talking this through, is the first time I even know what you think about some of these issues. Well, the story that kind of dominated America and probably beyond is that a judge declares a mistrial in the Lindsey Clancy triple murder case. And of course, to get a, you know, to get a verdict, there has to be unanimous ruling. And one juror held out and refused to sign on. So we'll see yet exactly what's going to happen soon. But I want your general thoughts on it, but we also got a question that I think uniquely is in our lane here. This person wrote in and said, regarding the Lindsay Clancy trial, I was curious, what are the origins of an insanity plea in secular law? Is there a similar understanding derived from scripture? I know sanctuary cities existed for manslaughter type cases would ever apply to this. Does considering the influence of demons, secular law would not account for, change the moral justification for an insanity defense? Now, there's other questions here, but the idea of an insanity defense, the role of the demonic in this kind of activity. What are your thoughts on how we might think biblically about this case and some of those particular questions?

Scott Rae 37:35

Well, Sean, let me first say I really appreciate the depth of this question. Me too. That I think we could we could take a lot more time than we're going to allow for it in this. But uh here's, I think, the the short version, I mean the cut to the chase version, is that the the early, the the biblical and early Christian framework for this, I don't think gives us the quote insanity defense in the same modern technical sense that we have it today. But it does give us, I think, a really strong moral principle that underlies it. And that is that is this, that moral and and in many cases legal guilt presupposes a meaningful exercise of somebody's will. And I think the scripture repeatedly recognizes that a whole host of factors, such as intention, capacity, age, knowledge, coercion, ignorance, others can affect culpability. So the at the same time, I think scripture does not equate mental illness or demonic possession necessarily with innocence. The question is whether the person's capacity to know and will the act was materially compromised by their mental state. And the person has the uh really I think a really interesting part of this is you know whether something like the cities of refuge in the old testament would be applicable to somebody with an insanity defense. And I think the you know the the the cities of refuge were not all insanity sanctuaries, so to speak. Uh people you know the text does not give us any indication that somebody who is has a compromised mental state could go to the cities of refuge for um you know and be safe from an avenger. So that the I think the the distinction in the Mosaic Law is not between sane or insane, but rather between intentional or unintentional, malicious and non-malicious, uh and you know, sort of active, you know, active causal involvement or accidental. Uh so I think the text really doesn't tell us if an insane person could use a city, a city of refuge. Uh, but I I would I wouldn't rule it automatically off the table. I think it's possible that it that it could be. Uh but this you know, insanity defense has its roots in Greco-Roman law that go you know that that precede the New Testament. Um and the you know, the the the law on this and its roots asks two main questions. Can the person understand what they're doing and can can he or she govern their behavior by what they understand? That's those are sort of sort of the uh the main distinctions. So there's that that's a that's a start on this. Whether it's demonic or not, uh the the Bible doesn't I mean the Bible doesn't have a lot to say about whether somebody who is under demonic influence or demon-possessed is automatic, they they're not considered automatically innocent, but it's just not clear whether they are a part of an insanity defense or not. Uh, because it's sort of the norm, at least in the life of Jesus, that when Jesus cast out demons, the person was entirely normal after that and had no, there was no sense of mental distress that was, you know, that was enduring. So it's just it's a little harder to say. Uh, I think it's possible that being demon-possessed could compromise someone's culpability. It just, we just don't have a lot of indication from scripture that that's indeed the case. But I think it's consistent with what we do have in scripture, Sean, is that it can compromise a person's ability to act according to their will and to understand you know the consequences of what they are doing. Curious for your take on this.

Sean McDowell 42:27

Oh, that that's such a good take. And in some ways, we think about like what we have with kids in the age of accountability. We say, well, they're not old enough to understand and reason and be held accountable. So most of us would recognize that. The question is, does it apply also to those who are insane? Does it apply to those who are demon-possessed? When I look at a mother who ends the life of her three kids, I mean, barring her torturing them first, it's hard to think of much more evil than doing something like that. The very protector who carried them in her own body, who's meant to love and nurture them, turns and ends their life. How does this happen if there's not some demonic element at play? Now, of course, the Bible talks about human nature, Romans 3 and Mark 7, that we are corrupt and fallen and broken. All of us are capable of far more evil than we want to admit and want to imagine. I think that's a fact. But this level of evil, when I read the story, and there was another copycat story, I don't know if it was copycat, but it was a similar kind of story of a mother ending the life of her one child this week and hearing voices about killing the kid and taking their own life. I mean, if I had to bet my house, I'd say there probably is some demonic influence that is there. And especially when you think of the example in the Testament about the demoniac, when Jesus cast the demon out, what happens? He's now in his right mind. So I almost would think if the demoniac who had great strength and doing evil things came out of it, no one's going to say, well, let's do a trial now and charge this guy for what happened when he was possessed by a demon. Now, we could go to the backstory and say, did he bring this demon on his own life? Did he do anything to deserve it? Did he open it up to this demon? Like if there was a sense where you invite this demon in and then you do terrible things, I might be more inclined to say I have more culpability here than even some examples of the Bible where even young people seem to be possessed by a demon. But how you rule this out in a court, I have no idea how to land that and how to adjudicate that in a wider secular culture like ours. I don't even know where to take that further, to be honest with you.

Scott Rae 44:56

Well, Sean, there I think what's clear from the court proceedings is that Lindsay Clancy had really significant mental health issues. And it was not just the postpartum depression, but there were also, I think there were uh that that she had suffered from being bipolar. But the other piece of evidence that came out that suggests that she may have known what she was doing is that before she took the lives of her three children, she sent her husband out on an errand for her. That's right. So that presumably so that he would not be in a position to stop her from this. So I I think there's yeah, there yeah, how how you tease that out, I think, in a co in a court setting, is I think really challenging. Uh but I think the uh the idea here is uh that ment mental illness doesn't necessarily excuse crime in the scripture, but culpability pre suffo presupposes sufficient knowledge and understanding and freedom of the will for the act to be, uh the best way to put it is meaningfully attributed to that person. Uh where you have things that uh destroys those capacities, culpability may be diminished or or even absent. Uh I mean we have, you know, we s we still I mean people who uh under our law, people who are guilty of accidental killing can still be guilty of in of involuntary manslaughter. Uh so there's you know, and and in some cases the reason it was accidental had to do with negligence. Uh so there's there are other factors that come in. Uh so I think I think what I the summary I just suggested I think is consistent with a a biblical worldview, but uh doesn't answer all our questions because the text doesn't deal with the kinds of mental illnesses in the same way that we see them today.

Sean McDowell 47:06

That's fair. I appreciate that. One one important distinction is not all illnesses is demonic. Sometimes Jesus casts out a demon, other times he just heals somebody. So I think we can make a mistake ruling out the demonic, but also assuming everything is demonic as well. But how we parse that out for a court, we're gonna have to have a deeper dive on that one, maybe. Folks, if you want a deeper dive on that, let us know. Maybe we could find a guest or Scott and I could think through some of these things and maybe we could explore that. All right, we have some great questions here. Uh, here's one. So in July, when we were taking a break from the weekly cultural update, one of the bonuses I put was with an Orthodox Jew, brilliant young Orthodox Jew, who went to Harvard Divinity School named Shabbos Kestenbaum. And we kind of had a fun, fent, fun, friendly back and forth about whether Jesus was the Messiah or not. But we also talked about anti-Semitism today. And he said that Kestenbaum says that anti-Semitism is God's way of telling the Jews they are different and they should not try to assimilate. This question, this person says, my friend who he shared the episode with, by the way, thanks for sharing the episode, sees this as an absurd view, as it makes anti-Semitism a good tool that God uses to keep the Jews different. What's my perspective on this? Well, a couple things. First off, I, this was Shabbos' opinion. I didn't reach out and ask him about it. I can't speak for him. But two things came to my mind that he might say. Number one, you might say that one way people approach certain natural disasters is not that God causes this, but it's within maybe God's common grace in a sense that it's a reminder for us to turn towards God and not put our hope in things that are temporal and to trust in things that are eternal. God allows this to happen, doesn't cause it, in the hopes that it would draw us towards eternal things and not put our hope in things that are temporary. Maybe he'd make some argument like that. He might make a distinction between it, God directly causes and what God uses. I doubt he would say God directly causes this anti-Semitism. I think he would say God allows it with the hopes that it would cause us, or at least Jews in this case, to remember their unique identity. That's the best I can do. I can't speak for Shabbos, but do you want to add anything to this, Scott? No, that one's all yours. All right, fair enough. Okay, so this next question. Uh, let me jump to one that was actually sent to me as an email through my site, but it relates to our episode. He says, uh, I love the Think Biblical Podcast. Thank you for saying that. Uh appreciate the work that we do. They have one concern about a recent episode we had with Scott McKnight on the trauma and Paul. The concern is this the critiques and solutions are more rooted in therapeutic thinking than biblical thinking. For example, if people are traumatized by meeting in a circle, don't do that. However, what if someone else is traumatized by the new scene arrangements? Of course, now we want to be compassionate and care for weaker members, but if we put that at the center, then we end up being led by the most sensitive and wounded people rather than by God. It also puts victims at the center of decision making and esteems victimization. This seems an unbiblical focus versus calling all to repent. Now, there was more in this email, but do you share that concern? What are your thoughts on this?

Scott Rae 50:31

Well, I I I have I have a difficult time, Sean, sort of pile piling on with the people who have been victimized by abuse in the church, either sexual or uh or spiritual or otherwise. And I I don't I don't think that our being compassionate toward those folks um is you know is misplaced. I think it's necessary uh because people people who have been hurt and wounded, they need they need to know that somebody's on their side and somebody's gonna defend them. Uh so I I don't know. I'm a little I'm a little skeptical about that, although I think the the example that he cites in the in the the note was when uh his son lost his leg and went to get fitted for a prosthetic. Uh, you know, there, you know, said the whole ethos of the clinic was we're gonna help you live your best life, put in the work, suffer the pain, here's what you can do. No statements of poor you, and I'm so sorry. Of course, people did care, but the focus on walking again, not on dwelling the way you've been hurt. And I I I guess I would suggest that it it doesn't have to be one or the other. Uh I think you can have both of those at the same time. I think, you know, peop people really consider a sense of empathy and compassion toward them an integral part of their healing. And it's not, I I would I don't think he's saying, you know, suck it up and move on and forget about it, just get on with your life. Um and I don't think that's what the clinic was saying either. But I think it can be applied in that way. And I don't want to, I don't want to understate the hurt and the injury that people have felt. And I think suppressing that injury doesn't do their mental health any good in the long run.

Sean McDowell 52:21

That's well said. I I've got a couple thoughts on this. One is I think there's levels of trauma, like I know it's probably a silly example, but seating arrangements is very low compared to other trauma and hurt that people have experienced. And so when you start seeing examples like this, and I know he's using an example, but when other people maybe say, I'm traumatized by small things, you might say, this is where our system has got out of whack and gone too far in the direction of emphasizing trauma as opposed to you can do it, there's healing, you can be empowered. But just remember, like sexual abuse, that is real PTSD. Spiritual abuse, very real PTSD. So there's levels of kind of harm that we need to distinguish between. Uh, and second, recognizing abuse and trauma does not mean they're necessarily put at the center of decision making. What it means is that people are heard and people are listened to and they're able to share their stories and not feel silenced or misunderstood. It doesn't mean that we necessarily have to do what somebody who's experienced trauma says. That has to be looked at through the lens of the church as a whole or the organization as a whole, what's wise for the group, how well it's processed. Like recognizing trauma doesn't necessarily mean that that person gets to dictate where the organization goes. There's a lot of other pieces that should be a part of that. And third, I think if we go back in the past, there's probably a sense of like suck it up, you're fine, you're not hurt, get over it. And we didn't recognize the hurt and trauma that was there. There's probably been a pendulum too far the other direction, culturally speaking. And I think that's what this individual is pointing out, where sometimes it's almost cool to have a mental health thing. It's almost cool to experience some trauma because you get to tell your story, and it almost favors that in a way that's not healthy. That needs to be pushed back as well. And I remember my dad would often say to me, Scott, and maybe people have criticized him for this, but he'd look at me and he'd say, Son, you're not a victim. Now, what did he mean by that? Now, to give context, my father was severely sexually abused for seven years. He had a drunk uh father, my grandfather. He was told that he wasn't wanted. He uh, his older sister took her own life. We had a painful life growing up. And his point was not that he didn't experience real trauma and hurt. His point was there is healing. And that doesn't define me. And I have agency in terms of how I respond to this hurt. So I appreciate this email saying we don't want to lean too far into this victim culture. And to that I say, you're right. We are not purely products of our environment. We have souls and agency and choice, and there is healing for us through the spirit and scriptures and body of Christ. But sometimes we can do a lot better of recognizing where hurt and pain is there. Honestly, I still don't know what I think about our interview with Scott McKnight. We only had 30 minutes. I'm not sure if I'm as optimistic as he is that we can say Paul experienced trauma. I just don't know. I'm a little cautious of psychoanalyzing somebody 2,000 years ago with modern constructs, but he did help me see how human Paul was, that he had hurts and pains and burdens, and maybe was mocked for his appearance and the way that he acted and looked. And to me, that's a reminder that the only perfect person who's ever lived was Jesus. My hope is not in Paul. My hope is not in Peter. My hope is in Jesus, who is human and never sinned and laid down his life for us. Those are some of my thoughts on that one. Um, Scott, man, what a week. I'm looking forward to next week. This was some heavy, disturbing, kind of heartbreaking stories, and there's others we could have talked about as well. But uh, as always, enjoyed it and I look forward to our next time together. Good stuff. All right, friends. This has been an episode of the podcast Think Biblically, conversations on faith and culture, brought to you by Talbot School Theology, Biola University. Scott and I would love you to come study with us. We have programs in Bible, theology, apologetics, spiritual formation online and in person now in Southern California and in Phoenix. Please keep your comments and questions coming. Wow, such thoughtful, good questions this week. Really? Keep sending them, please. Uh, you can email us at thinkbiblically at biola.edu. If this is helpful, please take a moment and give us a rating on your podcast app. And like one of our listeners today, consider sharing an episode with a friend. We'll see you Tuesday over the regular episode when I got to interview a former, uh, let's just say he was a secular Jew. Now he's a messianic Jew on the top 10 prophecies of the Old Testament, pointing towards Jesus. This one is fascinating and fun. You're gonna love it. In the meantime, remember to think biblically about everything.