Cultural Update: China Rewrites the Bible; Going "No Contact"; AI Tests Academic Honor

This week, Sean and guest co-host Thaddeus Williams discuss: 

AI Tests Academic Honor: Princeton’s return to proctored exams shows how generative AI is exposing deeper questions about virtue, trust, and human nature. 

China Rewrites Scripture: The Chinese Communist Party’s efforts to reshape the Bible highlight the clash between state power and the lordship of Christ. 

Ben Sasse Faces Death: Ben Sasse’s public battle with pancreatic cancer becomes a powerful witness to Christian hope, resurrection, and true dignity in dying. 

Cutoff Culture Grows: Rising numbers of Americans, especially Gen Z, are going “no contact,” raising urgent questions about conflict, loneliness, and reconciliation. 

Listener Question: When Conversations Stall: Sean and Thad offer practical ways to recognize one-sided conversations and know when wisdom calls for stepping back. 

Listener Questions: Practices That Form Faith: Scripture memory and prayer for the Spirit’s fruit stand out as simple, steady habits for deepening spiritual life.

==========

Think Biblically: Conversations on Faith and Culture is a podcast from Talbot School of Theology at Biola University, which offers degrees both online and on campus in Southern California.   

Find all episodes of Think Biblically at: https://www.biola.edu/think-biblically.   

To submit comments, ask questions, or make suggestions on issues you'd like us to cover or guests you'd like us to have on the podcast, email us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu.  

Transcript

Sean McDowell 0:02

AI has apparently killed a 133-year-old tradition at Princeton. That may be a sign of the times. The Chinese Communist Party is rewriting the Bible. Former Nebraska Senator Ben Sass models what it means to die with dignity. And a new study reveals that nearly two in five Americans want no contact with a loved one this year. These are the stories we'll discuss, and we'll also address some of your questions. I'm your host, Sean McDowell, and filling in for the one and only Scott Ray, back is theology professor, author friend Thaddeus Williams. Thad, good to have you on, buddy.

Thaddeus Williams 0:38

Hey man, Scott's shoes are big to fill, but I'll do my best.

Sean McDowell 0:42

Well, you always do awesome, and uh people say that, so we're good to have you back. Let's jump into this story. Eager to get your take on this. I saw this in both The Atlantic and in the Wall Street Journal. And apparently the title is How AI Killed a 133 Old Princeton Tradition. In 1876, like 150 years ago, an editorial in Princeton's newly founded campus newspaper argued that the use of proctors against the use of proctors to monitor exams. It was, quote, a means of bad moral education, the author wrote. So treat students as presumptively dishonest, and some would become so. Treat them as honorable, and they would learn to behave honorably. And so the editorial board suggested a different approach. Quote, let every man write at the end of his paper a pledge that he has neither given nor received help, and let professors and tutors address themselves to some better business than watching for fraud. Well, that was adopted in 1893. Well, that seems to be changing. When students take their final exams, uh, it was professors used to leave the room, which is crazy, and students write a pledge that they didn't cheat. And if there are suspected cheaters, they would go before a jury of their own peers, interestingly enough. Well, it seems like it had a good run, but again, it's changing. And this code has lasted through two world wars, the craziness of the 1960s, the disillusionment of Watergate, search engines, but apparently it's met its match in generative AI. Yesterday, uh, so that was earlier this week, after the rise of AI facilitated cheating became too obvious to ignore, Princeton's faculty are the ones who voted to begin proctoring exams again. Now, the articles say that of course some students have always cheated. That's a fact. We know that. But back then, academic dishonesty was constrained not only by codes of conduct and expectations, but it just took a lot more effort to actually cheat. It was harder to do so. They had to go to such trouble to find someone who let them copy their answers or track it down. Well, since AI, generative AI became widely available in fall 22, Princeton has seen rising academic dishonesty. Now, my suspicion is this is not unique to Princeton and this is universal. But this 133-year-old plan that people followed, this mantra, so to speak, at one of the leading universities in America, generative AI overturned it because now apparently we can't trust that students won't cheat and they won't follow a larger honor code. What do you make of this? And do you think this is a part of maybe a larger trend that's going on?

Thaddeus Williams 3:40

Yeah, man, this story fascinates me, especially I'm uh elbow deep into a new project I'm working on for Inner Varsity. It's a dogmatics volume on anthropology, on human nature. And it's just fascinating to me how what we think it means to be human will pop up in all kinds of unexpected areas, right? So back in the fourth century, you have Augustine having a pretty bleak understanding of human nature, coming right out of Jeremiah 17. The human heart is desperately sick and wicked. Who can understand it? Coming out of uh the book of Ecclesiastes, there's moral insanity in the heart of men, um, coming out of Romans 8, that uh those in the flesh cannot please God. And then you have Augustine squaring off with the Pelagians, who have a rosy picture, uh, what later Jean-Jacques Rousseau would popularize in the West, that people are basically good. It's only our systems that corrupt. And so it just fascinates me that underneath AI, underneath, do we go to blue books, you know, where students have to physically write in a blue book? Do we go to um, I know a lot of professors are doing an oral defense. I started doing that this semester with my uh Gospel Kingdom Culture class that you and I teach at Biola, uh, where students not just write their final social justice paper arguing for a biblical perspective, but they have to present it like real life, in person, embodied. Uh, and so I think measures like that are helpful to uh lessen the temptation, we might say. But at the end of the day, I want to frame it theologically this way, which is to say my whole goal as a professor at Biola University is to get my students to love God with their minds the way Jesus did. That's the way I frame my whole foundations class. We aren't just studying worldviews because it's interesting. We aren't just studying uh the doctrine of scripture because it's worthwhile. Uh, we aren't just studying apologetics for the heck of it. But when we think biblically, when we think logically, uh, when we think in a worldview-aware kind of way, we're actually mirroring the mind of Christ, which is a goal of the Christian life to cultivate the mind of Christ. And so I think it's not an exact one-to-one correlation here, but I look at maybe here's a silly way to put it, maybe there's something to it. Jesus, as the God man, as the theanthropos, he could have tapped into his divine nature to completely understand scripture from beginning to end. But I think if you read Luke 2, it talks about Jesus growing in wisdom and stature. And so I tell my Bible students, with regard to the human nature of Christ, he learned theology, he learned to exegete the text of scripture the same way we do today, uh, by sitting under rabbis or professors and learning the rules of engaging the text responsibly. And so I think there's something there, maybe it's a bit of a stretch, but there's something to the fact that Jesus didn't cheat in air quotes by tapping into his infinite divine knowledge, but there's something to cultivating the human mind of Christ uh that I think can can serve as a deterrent. That's the way I try to explain it to my students. Why are you at Biola to love God with your mind the way Jesus did? Jesus didn't cheat when he was growing in his understanding of scripture and reality.

Sean McDowell 7:14

Yeah, great take. I have a few things that jumped out to me on this article. Uh I one is you obviously wrote a book called Don't Follow Your Heart. And I took a group of high school students through that a couple of years ago. And there's this tension between this honor code in our culture that says, Don't follow your heart. There's a moral code you're committed to outside of you, and you should follow it. And this strain in our culture that says, follow your heart. You do you, be true to yourself. You're the authority and autonomy of your life. And here's a case where just an old amazing institution, in some ways, I'm not blaming them, they were probably forced to cave to this because of powers outside of themselves, where in some ways, students are taking to the logical conclusion, I'm going to follow my heart. If there's no objective right and wrong and I'm the source of authority, what's really wrong with this? So these ideas have been brewing in Disney films forever, but it's almost like AI came along and made it so easy, it took away barriers that these ideas that were already present in culture, I think bubbled to the surface and took over. Now, uh Scott and I talked about, it was last week or the week before, about sports gambling. And one of the things that sports gambling, our culture has done is it's made vice easier than ever and the cultivation of virtue harder than ever. So there's always been vice, and there's always been it's harder to cultivate virtue. But now, because of social media, because of smartphones, because of AI, just because of technology, it's easier than ever to develop vices and lean into them, and harder to develop virtue. And so now this code that's not the purpose of the code was not just so people didn't cheat. If they didn't want people to cheat, you could have more draconian rules from the top-down film students control. No, the point was we want to create a certain kind of student that has honor, that has virtue, that has character. And so we're gonna go hands off. So you kind of cultivate this within your heart yourself. And now a university rooted in that is saying, well, it doesn't work anymore. And so part of my question is what other kind of institutions are we gonna see this happen with? And one that came to mind was like grocery stores have your own checkout that you do. And grocery stores know, I don't know what the numbers are, two, five, 20% of people are not going to check out and are going to cheat or steal stuff. And then they just figure that's a loss that saves us on the cost of workers. So they cultivate it in. But at some point, the loss would be so great that they couldn't have that checkout anymore. Now, there's not the same kind of honor code in a grocery store, of course, as there is at Princeton University, but there still is a sense of like, you know, we should care for our neighbors, we should care for businesses, we should care for other people. We share public space and we have a duty to one another. And that duty is gone. And for me, in part because it's the NBA playoffs and was basketball back in the day, that ship has sailed behind me. But you think about it in the game of basketball, when you play pickup basketball, there's no refs, and we don't want refs, we don't need refs because there's kind of an honor code that's like call your own fouls.

Thaddeus Williams 11:00

Yeah, but there's always that one guy, there's always that one guy who who cries foul at everything that nobody wants to play with.

Sean McDowell 11:08

Right. Either you cry foul at everything, or there's someone who's like, that guy just doesn't call any fouls, or that person is like, it's just there's a certain honor code that's built in. And if you want to play the game, you've got to commit to this. And there's kind of a public shaming. Like, people will fight, they'll they'll talk to you a certain way. If you're not following the code, it's like get off the court and get in line. Well, now we don't even have pickup basketball anymore because people are on their phones and they're inside, because people are, it's all club sports now. And so I just think with this generation, there's so many forces against them committing to honor and virtue and truth outside of themselves, that now even an institution like Princeton has to give in and give up that honor code. What's next? And how does this bode for the future? And I, you know, one more, one more thought that hit me on this is it's easy to look at this and say, oh, those kids today, Gen Z, they're more likely to cheat. And I go, you know what? I don't view it that way. I think of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount when he says, you even have lust after a woman or anger in your heart, you're guilty of these things. In other words, that's not just the action, it's your heart. So if I want to kill somebody and I just don't do it because I don't want to get caught, is my heart really any better than somebody who does it? And the answer is no. Well, think about all the previous generations. Would they also have probably cheated with AI if they had the tools? And if we say no, then we don't have an accurate biblical anthropology like you said earlier that says, wait a minute. So this actually makes me and other Christians look in the mirror and say, okay, wait a minute. Am I just not sinning because I don't want to get caught? Or am I trying to cultivate a certain virtue through the Holy Spirit of and becoming a certain kind of person? That's my takeaway from this article. Anything else to you?

Thaddeus Williams 13:15

Yeah, one final thought there. You're mentioning, you know, all these institutions that seem to be dropping like dominoes to the power of AI. And well, if a machine can do it better, it's creating this crisis of human meaning. Uh and I think one institution that absolutely can stand against the falling dominoes that can stay standing at the end of the 21st century is church. Amen. If we keep, you know, after COVID, it was very easy to take what is, by definition, an embodied gathering. I mean, ecclesia means a gathering with the implicit corporeal element. We are physically in the same space. We are using our voice boxes to sing melodically truth about God together. We are hearing the word taught, where you know, you read early Acts, what the early church is doing when they gather, when they ecclesia, is uh focus on the apostles' teaching. So there's an educational element, the word and the sacrament, all this stuff is so embodied. And that's just something AI can't replace. And so I'm thinking for our listeners out there, really embodied ways that we can push back against this kind of thing is what we do around our dinner table here at the Williams Home. We have a little book of questions. Um, and I'll just go around the table with the kids, like, you know, why do you think the Trinity is important? Why does it matter? Uh, what do you think the meaning of life is? How do we cope with death? Like big questions, and there's some goofy ones thrown in there, right? If you could eat one fast food burger for the rest of your life, tell me what it is and why it's in and out. You know, that there's goofy stuff thrown in there, but the kids are learning to process in real time and come up with a cogent response. I think of in our classroom, Sean, you and I both love to show up to class in character. You know, I'll be atheist Ed or existentialist Evan or something, and I'll put my students on the spot where they can't ask Chat GPT. They got to address me in real time. And so recovering where knowledge is seen as just an instrumental value to maybe getting me a piece of paper that'll get me more money, recovering Christianity is a rich knowledge tradition. We have a tradition of knowledge and to create liturgies, habits in our daily lives where we aren't letting a machine, we aren't outsourcing loving God with our minds to an algorithm.

Sean McDowell 15:46

Good stuff. This next story you sent to me, and I had not seen it, but apparently it goes back to like 2017-2018. And at first I thought this was a Babylon B heading. I'm like, no, this can't be true, Dad, but apparently it is. And the title is uh Xi Jinping's CCP, which is Chinese Communist Party, is rewriting the Bible. Uh, as part of this, I don't even know how to say this, cynicization of Christianity campaign, the Communist Party plans to ensure Christianity in China is instilled with quote core socialist values. They're working on their own translation, it apparently called the Chinese Christian Bible, and it has yet to complete the project. But here's a few things that are apparently part of it. They've cut the 10 commandments down to nine and then six and then zero. In 2018, they announced a five-year plan to do this, and uh they forced a church in the Henan province to delete the first commandment, you shall have no gods before me, which is arguably the central uh commandment of the Bible from the Old Testament into the New Testament. Uh then they said later that year they changed the curriculum of a Sunday school in Hong Kong, removing all references to the Lord uh and the first four commandments. The entire book of Genesis, uh, there was some targeting of John 8, 3 through 11. It's actually John 753 through 811, the story of the woman caught in adultery, which is kind of interesting because probably that wasn't in the original text, by the way, and was apparently added later. And Bible, if you look in your Bible, there's notes on this, so I don't want to freak our audience out, but I'm guessing the Chinese Communist Party missed that memo. Uh in that story, the way they changed it is after the Pharisees leave, instead of Jesus saying, Let he who is without sin among you cast the first stone, when the Pharisees leave, Christ tells the woman, I too am a sinner, which is as much heresy as you're going to find. And then the law could only be executed by men without blemish, the law would be dead, he said. And then Jesus personally stones her to death. Now, in some ways, this is just ridiculous. It's not surprising, and this is a mark of some other really sharp religious restrictions that began in 2020, and some pastors have been imprisoned there, some really alarming trends that have taken place. But tell me why you sent this and why this jumped out to you.

Thaddeus Williams 18:22

Yeah, it's just fascinating to me. It it reminds me a lot of did you ever see that movie, uh, Denzel Washington, Book of Eli? Amazing film. Gritty, but amazing. Yeah, for our viewers out there who aren't familiar, I won't won't give away too many spoilers, but Denzel Washington is sort of in a post-apocalyptic future, and he's on this journey, this mission that turns out is to preserve the Bible, the word of God. Well, it turns out there's a villain played by Gary Oldman, who once he finds out that Eli has the Bible, he's got to get his hands on it because he knows he can twist the word of God into consolidating his own power and being some kind of totalitarian dictator, you know, power greedy warlord type. And the inside of that movie is that the word of God, I mean, in scripture, Satan will quote scripture at times uh in the act of deception. And so here it's it's just the same old playbook of let's take the word of God and let's twist it. But notice you pointed out the first thing that they ditched under uh cinicization is the word for it, sine, that prefix means related to China. So it's it's an attempt to Chineseify everything, which for the Chinese Communist Party means we need to, from the top down, enforce Chinese communism. And it to me, it's so telling that the first thing they ditched is, like you said, like kind of the most important of the Ten Commandments. Like you could argue the other 612 commands of the Old Testament are really an extension of the first one. Every sin is some form of idolatry or not giving God his proper due. So it comes as no surprise that Xi Jinping, that's the first one that's got to go. Why? Because if there's no gods before the actual God, then the communist state can no longer pretend it's supreme, right? That first commandment is the wrecking ball through every totalitarian dictatorship, through every oppressive regime, because it's the reminder that Jesus, not Caesar, is Lord. And you pointed out too, one of the things to go in this cynicization process was every reference to the Lord. Like, like, think of Jefferson's Bible, right? Where he had his worldview pre-commitment. Miracles can't happen. So I'm going to take scissors to the text. It's the same kind of Jeffersonian project, but under the communist worldview lenses, there's no God before the Capital S state. Our Messiah is Xi Jinping. And so we need to remove any reference to the actual Lord in scripture and twist the Bible into just a propaganda piece to prop up the party. Now, uh, one or two quick observations. I am so encouraged to see as this pattern plays out, like in the first century when the early church there's attempts to shut it down by the Romans. And if you read the book of Acts, the thesis statement is in the first chapter that the gospel is going to go from Judea to Samaria to the ends of the earth. And then the next 28 chapters are how that happens. And what's fascinating, Sean, is how that happens is in Jerusalem, where it's starting out, an aggressive wave of persecution comes on the church. And so So they spread out. Then they spread out to Judea, the further reaches of Judea into Samaria, new wave of persecution. Church spreads out by the end of the book, chapter 28, Paul's in Rome, which was considered the ends of the earth. And so it just the image that always pops into my head is you got the church is like these flames that are catching and spreading. And Satan and his deputies can't handle that. And so they get a big bucket of water to douse the flames of the gospel and to snuff out the flames of the church. And every time they do that, it's like God sovereignly snaps his fingers and turns the water into gasoline mid-air. And so the very thing intended to snuff out the church ends up causing it to spread like wildfire. And so I, in prepping for the show, I did a little homework that China does indeed have the fastest growing body of Christians on the face of planet Earth. And sociologists are projecting that by the year 2030, which is just what four short years away, forecasters are guessing you're going to hit about 250 million Christians in China. And that's not we bow to communism Christians. That's not we we burn our pinch of incense to Xinjiang, Xin Jinping. Um this is underground. You're going to force us on pain of imprisonment or a raid. There's all kinds of a surveillance state going on in China where they're actually the government is recording sermons to make sure that they're in sync with communist ideology. And what they don't realize, and what I love about God's sense of humor, is just the harder they try to snuff out the church, the more it spreads. It's on target to be the world's largest Christian population just in the next four years. I think that's uh an inspiration to us who maybe aren't facing as intense government persecution to just take our cues from the Chinese underground church, take our cues from the early church that were imprisoned for their quote, atheism because they refused to worship the Caesar as Lord. Uh, we need to echo our brothers across the ocean and say, in our day, Jesus, not any pretended Caesar is Lord.

Sean McDowell 24:27

Your reference to the book of Eli is so good. And by the way, just for our audiences, this is a gritty, graphic, R-rated film, not for sexuality, but for violence. He's kind of like an old testament prophet, so to speak. So we're not recommending it especially for kids, but underlying it is this recognition that the Bible has power. It has power to set people free and to restore civilization. But in the hands of tyrants, it can be used to manipulate and control and destroy people. And it kind of reminds me of the person of Jesus. Nobody walked away the same. They either spit at him, they called him a false prophet and a drunk, or they fell down and worshipped him and called him Lord. That's what we should we would expect if Jesus really is God and if the scriptures are his word. And so, in some ways, when I saw this, I wasn't surprised at all. I mean, Ecclesiastes says there's nothing new under the sun. Obviously, in the Old Testament, we see the Jewish people multiple times being persecuted, tied to their belief and following of the scriptures that they had at that time. The began in the church, we see the very same thing under the Roman Empire, a couple centuries plus in, let's collect and burn all of the scriptures. We have the attacks in the Enlightenment. I mean, this is a part of the faith that people are going to attack and criticize it. And so part of me is like, here we go again. Why should I be surprised? You know, and I'm reminded of in Matthew uh chapter 16, where Jesus is referring to Simon, he says, Blessed are you Simon bar Jonah, for flesh and blood is not revealed this to you, but my father who's in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Now, we don't have to remotely enter into the Catholic-Protestant debate here. That is not my point. And really it's just talking about the church, but the church and the word of God go hand in hand. People never will be able to extinguish the word of God. Period. Try as hard as they might. And these 250 million or so believers in China, it costs you something to believe there. It really doesn't in most parts of the state. Maybe some ridicule, maybe a job here and there, depending on where you live, but the cost is just minimal compared to what it can be in China, especially if you want to speak up. And so part of my takeaway here is that we just need to be in prayer for our Chinese brothers and sisters. This is a reminder to not take for granted the freedoms that you and I do share at Biola, at Talbot, in the US and beyond, especially on this 250 years, just to thank the Lord for that. But pray for our brothers and sisters that God will preserve the word, give them strength, empower them. And, you know, the last quick point is, and you kind of said this, is this one, it's all said and done, is a worldview battle. Communism is an atheistic, or Marxism is really truly an atheistic system. It is at odds with the Christian faith. You cannot be a Christian Marxist consistently. It's not possible. And so any other authorities that come in, whether it's the family, Marx wrote a lot about that the state has authority over the family, the state has authority over the church, and the state has authority over any text. These things get in the way on a worldview level and in practice with the doctrine and ideas of Marxism. And we see it practiced here in the communist Chinese uh party, Chinese Communist Party. So let's not miss, we're in a battle of flesh and blood and a battle of authority underneath all of this. Ideas profoundly matter.

Thaddeus Williams 28:35

Yeah. A final quick observation. Last time I was on here, Sean, you and I had a great conversation. It stirred up a bit of a hornet's nest online with some reactions, but we talked about James Tallerico, the Texas candidate who won. And I just want to make this observation. I won't unpack it, but just to get people thinking, what Tallerico does to scripture to make it compatible with left-wing socialist ideas is not that different. It's just not that different than the Chinese communist false gospel. They're advancing a Marxist ideology and then selectively choosing and misinterpreting scriptures to support an ideology that for them is more fundamental than the gospel of Jesus. Just throwing that out there. It's not just a China problem.

Sean McDowell 29:29

Way to stir it up yet again. That's what I do. All right. So this is actually an article you sent to me, and I had seen it and was wanting to talk about it as well, because we've talked once before on this show about Ben Sass, uh former president, University of Florida, Nebraska senator, 54-year-old Christian who has been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. Told he has three months to live, which I think maybe was done in March. He's still alive today. And this article is about how he says death with dignity is a farce, but there is dying with dignity. And Ben Sass, you know, short of a miracle, won't see his 14-year-old son grow up. He won't walk with his daughters down the aisle. And yet, in this article in the Christian Post, it says he's teaching the nation a stunning lesson on dying with dignity. And so he's been using this opportunity, number one, to focus on his family and the people around him, but to keep proclaiming ideas that matter. Now, it seems to me when somebody, we're all facing death, but when it's imminent, it really brings focus on what matters and what doesn't. So people at the end of their life, if they say, hey, let me tell you something that's important. Like I think of King David giving his final speech to Psalm. And it's like, listen up, I'm gonna sum up what matters most. In some ways, we're seeing a similar kind of wisdom passed on uh from Sass. And some of the things he talks about, he see he warns against the allure and limits of political power and proclaims what matters more, being committed to free markets. Interestingly, he warns against the illusion that more consumption, just buying things, can make you happier. And so, you know, he the article says this it says, in a culture that kills to avoid hardship and hides death to avoid reckoning, a man dying well on high profile platforms is a subtly radical act. He is, without quite saying so, making an argument for life, for its dignity, its giftedness, its meaning, even at the last. So, in an age where people who are suffering were like, well, let's uh let's snuff them out, give them the opportunity of euthanasia. He wanted a show with Ross Dalthit, the Catholic uh calmness in the New York Times. And because of some drugs he was taking, I mean, his face was just bleeding all over. And he's publicly out there unashamedly saying, This is where I'm at, this is who I am. I trust the Lord through this. I believe Jesus has risen from the grave. And it's so humbling watching this because you and I are both around 50. I think I've got you a year or two. In fact, this Sunday I'm turning 50, Thad, just for the record. So he's only four years older than I am. It really hit home. Now I have some thoughts from this, but tell me, give me your take.

Thaddeus Williams 32:23

Yeah, well, happy preemptive birthday, man. Five O's a milestone. Uh, and it shows that that extra three years you are above me definitely shows on the on the basketball court. Um, yeah, uh you and I are both apologists, and uh we care deeply about um the truthfulness, the defensibility of a Christian worldview. And, you know, in apologetics, there's the evidential school that that your father really put on the map in a big way in America, probably the best-selling evidential apologist in history by a long shot. Um you have presuppositionalist apologists like Dave Bon or like Greg Bonson and Van Till. You have cultural apologetics, Paul Gould has a great book on that. What fascinates me about Ben Sasse's story is it's it's like a qualitatively different kind of apologetics that does the same thing. It's it's living as an apologetic and dying as an apologetic. Like that there's a case for the power of the resurrection in the reality of God that I think somebody who's who's on the fence, or uh, what does O'Connor call himself? Non-resistant, non-belief, people in that camp, or maybe even die hard, belligerent atheists. There's something to seeing Ben Sass, his his fearlessness, the deep meaning, the lightheartedness that he's able to face death that is an apologetic, that I've had the opportunity, it's been sort of a theme of 2026 for me so far. Many of our listeners are familiar with uh the great civil rights hero, uh John Perkins, who I was honored to call a friend and mentor. And he passed away well into his 90s, um, just a few weeks ago. And and I heard the same living and dying as an apologetic. In his words, I just want to quote uh briefly from one of the last conversations I had with him. He said, uh, this is John Perkins speaking, I'm living at the doorway of heaven, aware that any day could be my last. But joy is all around me. My heart overflows with gratitude for this joy. It has not diminished over time. It grows more radiant each and every day with the promise of heaven set before me. He says, Oh, I want to see Jesus. I'm almost there. I can almost see his face. And Jesus is joy. And I had an interview I did um the week uh Perkins passed away with one of my best friends, Trevor Wright. Folks can can see his deathbed um story of how he went through deconstructing his faith while being diagnosed with uh stage four colon cancer and how his faith reconstructed over that time. It's a video, I think it's called um Christ versus Cancer, uh, Trevor Wright. And listening to him in the throes of what would be ultimately his last two weeks, this side of eternity. And man, there was just such a glisten in his eye, Sean. There was a um a glimmer of hope even at death's door, because he knew like death can do its worst. Jesus defeated death. So we grieve, death is horrible. Jesus gets outraged at the tomb of Lazarus, even though he knows he's about to raise Lazarus. Death is outrageous, it's grievous, but Paul describes it as, you know, the final enemy to be destroyed. And so I heard Sass in his interview with Mike Horton. I encourage listeners to check out uh just go find one of the Sass interviews. He did an interview with 60 Minutes recently that's incredibly powerful. Uh, he did an interview with Mike Horton on White Horse Inn, that's incredible. And he was saying in this interview that the last enemy to be defeated is death. And he was reflecting on that and said, that means once I die and resurrection happens, like all my enemies have been forever defeated. Like all sad and scary things are permanently untrue for him. And man, I think you know, you and I have recorded videos for our Biola class together on the case for the resurrection and the minimal facts approach and the natural and supernaturalist options for what happened there. I think we need to add to the resurrection add to the resurrection case stories like John Perkins, stories like Trevor Wright, stories like Ben Sass, that in real life it gives a meaning to something so outrageous that really no other worldview can offer at the end of the day. I'm just fascinated by those rare moments of the public apologetic, where Christianity shines through, like Erica Kirk at Charlie's funeral saying, I forgive him, like the victims who lost family members at the shooting at a by a racist at a church in Charleston publicly forgiving him, those moments that cut through all the static and all the nonsense of a polarized moment where you get to really see Christianity shine in its radiant colors. Those moments are just all too rare and and precious.

Sean McDowell 38:00

Yeah, very similar. One of the points I want to make is I I teach a class at Dowit on the resurrection, and I teach a class, why does God allow evil? And that's a complicated question with a lot of layers to it. There's natural evil, there's moral evil, there's the emotional response we have. We hurt when we've suffered. But one of the reasons I put out there is maybe God allows evil and suffering for Christians because it testifies to the world that our hope is not in this world. Maybe God allows believers to suffer because it testifies that we have faith beyond this world, and we really believe the things that we're saying. I think that's one reason, not the only one. And there's some passages in 1 Peter 3 and 4 that talk about it, maybe God's will that we suffer for doing good rather than, of course, doing evil. And that's more tied to persecution than what you might call natural evil here in his case. But I think there's overlap with that. That the way we suffer, and of course, this is what we see in Job, it's like this cosmic, you know, maybe the oldest book in the Bible, this cosmic struggle, Job is not even aware of. He doesn't understand it. And everybody around him, given a bad theology. And the theme of Job is trust me, I'm good. I made the heavens, I made the stars, I gave life, I made the gazelles jump. I'm good. It doesn't make sense to you. But trust me. And so I think about what's the most powerful apologetic we have today. Man, cosmological argument, awesome. Evidence for the resurrection, powerful. Evidence for the soul, convincing. But a life of somebody who suffers well with hope and with joy and with peace and believes to the end, I don't know that there's a greater testimony we can give to the world than suffering well, because it doesn't make sense to a world that believes that this present world is really all that matters. Get all you can before you die. And so, in partly, I'm I'm humbled by Ben's example. And I ask myself, I go, man, Lord, I don't want to go at 54. Like I believe that the way we suffer well is a testimony, but I just don't want to be that guy. Like there's nothing in me that says I want to do it. But I do pray. I go, God, if this comes and you're sovereign, allow me to accept it with grace and allow me to just die well as a testimony to you. And that's a prayer that I hope all of our viewers were listening. If you happen to hear this, Ben, we love you. We are grateful for you. Thanks for going ahead of us and giving us an example and courage how to do it well. Keep it up, and God is gonna say, Well done, my good and faithful servant.

Thaddeus Williams 41:05

Amen. Yeah, thank you, Ben, for your living as an apologetic and dying as an apologetic. That there's something powerful there. And I want to tie it just quickly to something you said, Sean. You use the word thinking, pondering our own mortality. You use the word sovereign. If God is sovereign, and to me, one of the points that comes out in the article is that death with dignity, that's a phrase that's been thrown around in the culture now for just north of 20 years. When you and I were studying at Talbot together, getting our master's in philosophy, religion, and ethics, uh, we we went through several classes, a lot of them with Scott Ray, on what then was being called physician-assisted suicide. You remember some of those old lectures on physician-assisted suicide? And that was a huge, raging issue in the early 2000s. And then the proponents of it decided, well, we need to rebrand. Because advocating for something with suicide in the title, we need our PR people to get on this. And so they rebranded about just south of 20 years ago to the death with dignity movement. They thought that's um a far better brand name that people can rally behind. And death with dignity is essentially um another name for it in the literature is active euthanasia. There's passive euthanasia, like the termination of life support, where the disease runs its course. Active euthanasia might be an intentional overdose of morphine, it might be injecting uh alcohol uh directly, ethanol directly into somebody's IV, where the intention is to induce death, aka murder. And so notice that if we rewind this theologically, what Ben Sass is showing us true death with dignity, which is when you recognize God is sovereign over life and death, and that enables us to face it with a certain dignity and unflinching hope and joy in the face of the inevitable, especially in light of Jesus' resurrection. So if we go that road and God is sovereign, we get true death with dignity. This counterfeit death with dignity starts from the opposite starting point, that the self is sovereign, what you were talking about earlier, um, with this follow your heart mentality. And if the self is sovereign, then the most dignified way to go out is to autonomously choose with a doctor's help to end my life. So I encourage our readers, our listeners out there to spot the spot the lie, spot the contrast between true death with dignity, because God is sovereign, versus what is being pitched to the culture as death with dignity with the lie of the sovereign self.

Sean McDowell 43:56

Great distinction. Love it. And that'll bring us to our last. Story here that's uh fascinating to me, sad, but I'm not surprised by this. It says uh nearly two in five Americans went, quote, no contact with a loved one this year. So 38% of Americans, roughly a third, uh went no contact with a friend or family member. So loved one is not just family member, it's friend or family member. Uh Gen Z, 60%, far outpacing baby boomers 20% in cutting people off. Uh and this this was really interesting. It said nearly three-quarters of respondents uh said their instinct during relationship trouble is to pull away rather than talk it through, suggesting avoidance has become the default response to conflict. Now, there's a lot more in here. I mean, again, 60% of Gen Zero respondents cut off a loved one in the past year compared to 20% of baby boomers. What's going on? What's your what's your take on this?

Thaddeus Williams 45:00

Yeah, so you know me, the theology nerd I am, it's all going to come back to who God is, what it means to be human. What's fascinating to me in you know, where we started the show, saying that this Princeton policy being overturned is actually there's under underneath that is deeper questions of what it means to be human. Same thing here. Uh, 28%, no, excuse me, 29% of those polled who said they were cutting people out of their lives who were going no contact, their rationale was um being around this person would be harm to my mental health. Now, certainly there are people out there that are worth cutting out um because they are toxic. Um, but underneath this is an assumption of our human beings, as image bearers of God, are we fragile, like a wine glass, that if you subject us to difficulty, we just shatter? Or um, I'm quoting here the work of uh Nassim Talib, did a brilliant book years ago called Anti-Fragile, where he argues that humans are less like wine glasses, subject us to strain, we shatter and we're useless, and we're actually an anti-fragile system, like a uh muscle. If you're like Sean and I out there and you pump iron constantly and are just ripped and chiseled like Sean and I, then uh you know when you're at the gym those long hours, for people, this is an audio thing. People can't see me. I do, I don't go to the gym. But if I did, you know, use your imagination. Um, I would be tearing my muscles apart in the act of lifting heavy weights. And what happens? Am I useless? Well, I'll be in pain for a day or two, but they actually grow back stronger. And so in a biblical anthropology, we are actually anti-fragile. Think of James 1. Count it pure joy, my brothers, when you encounter trials of many kinds. You know, the testing of your faith produces patience and perseverance and let these things do their full work so that you may be mature, complete, and not lacking anything. So, one of the issues underneath the no contact thing is a lot of people just have this sense that, oh, this is hard. So I'm gonna do the easy thing and isolate. I'm gonna do the easy thing and withdraw. But what the research shows, Sean, is that that's even worse for us because when we withdraw because it's easier, no drama, no risk of heartbreak, that goes against a second anthropological truth. We are created by a triune God for relationship, for community. And this is why, you know, Robert Putnam out of Harvard did a bunch of research on this, where he found that if you are socially isolated now and you decide to socially connect in the next year, you cut your chances of dying in the next year in half. He found people with terrible lifestyle habits who smoke like a chimney and drink like a fish and eat fast food, breakfast, lunch, and dinner. If they're socially connected and meaningful community, they will live longer than somebody who's a health nut but isolated. Like the science is catching up with the scriptural insight from the first malediction in scripture. When God looks into his creation and says something's not good, what does he say? He says it's not good for man to be alone. So I look at this story, Sean, and I see a great opportunity for the step uh for the church to step up because there's going to be a fallout from this. And we are we're already there, an epidemic of loneliness. And so to have churches that are have wide open arms where meaningful embodied community can happen is God's plan A for helping our lonely age. Your take on no contact culture.

Sean McDowell 48:57

Yeah, so I was a communication major as an undergrad, and in some ways I'm a communicator today. So I looked at this kind of through that lens. And I think if roughly 38% of people have cut off a loved one, there's either this person should be cut off, and sometimes that's actually the case, or we're too afraid to deal with conflict and work through differences and not cut the person off. Now, I would I would say all of our default is to say that person did it, it's all on them. But I just invite people watching here to do some self-reflection. And if you have cut somebody off uh from communication, have you gone and got somebody else's perspective on this? A wise person, not someone who will just tell you what you think. Like my mom thinks every talk I gave is unbelievable. I love her to death, but she's not neutral. If I just stand up there and read the phone book, she'd be like, you are amazing. I'm so proud of you. So, and that's how amazing my mom is. But I'm saying get somebody like I had an issue recently. I sent it to you, Thad. I'm like, Thad, I want you to read this and tell me if I am in the wrong and if I need to change here. Be truthful with me. I send it to you and three other people. And and that this is, I won't go into any details there. You know what I'm talking about. Yep. But if you've cut somebody off, ask yourself, have I really gotten the perspective of somebody else who's wise and who will speak truthfully and make sure this isn't just reactive and it's on me. If you've been cut off, ask yourself, uh, do I have any fault in this? Is there anything I can do to restore it? And also seek the advice of somebody else. I've had both of these happen to me. Not a lot, rarely. I'm pretty much willing to speak to almost anybody, and you know this in person and on YouTube. If somebody's just well-intentioned, wants to have a conversation, let's talk. My parents taught me how to talk through conflict. But if you're on either side of this, I would really invite you to talk with somebody else because humility is a Christian virtue and get honest feedback and say, you know what? Even if it's 90% of the other person, is there 10% something I can do to restore this? Because the Bible has a lot to say about peacemakers. So that's my take. Let's jump to some questions here and we'll do a little bit of a speed round here. Sure. But uh, let's see as many of these as we can get through. This person says it relates to our last one. Sometimes in contentious conversations, it becomes clear the person I'm speaking with isn't interested in hearing what I have to say. They're only interested in sharing their ideas and attempting to prove me wrong or shut me down. I'm sure you've interacted with people like this. What advice do you have or determinate at what point it's no longer worth carrying on the conversation? Now I've got some thoughts, but what's your quick take?

Thaddeus Williams 51:54

Yeah, I mean, there's just a few really helpful questions to have in your toolbox in those situations. Uh one of the ones I'll ask, particularly if it's like an evangelistic context, is you know, you're asking a lot of great questions. You're um kind of a Tommy gun just firing all this information at me. Let me just hit pause for a second. If I were to answer, say, your objections or to give you an alternate viewpoint, um, would you be open to that? Uh or in an evangelistic context, if I were to answer all your questions to your intellectual satisfaction, would you bow the knee to Jesus as Lord? Just a question to kind of hit pause when they're coming at you, you know, guns blazing. To just, I've heard you do this many times, Sean. You're very skilled at sort of providing a meta-narrative of the conversation as it's going on. We're just sort of hit pause and say, okay, it seems like you're doing X, Y, and Z. Is that your assessment of what's happening in the conversation? And just get them to be a little self-reflective. Um, but but there have been times, let me get the show's called Think Biblically. So let's take it to scripture here. In Proverbs, I think it's chapter 27, uh, there's this line that freaked me out when I was a new Christian. I thought it was a clear Bible contradiction. And it said, answer the fool according to his folly, or he'll be wise in his own eyes. And then the next breath is don't answer the fool according to his folly, or you'll be like him. And I remember 14-year-old brand new Christian, like in this faith crisis, the Bible contradicts itself in the same sentence. And then I did a little homework and uh realized what was happening is this is ancient Jewish wisdom literature, where it's giving you how to fear the Lord and your relationships and your finances and romance and your time management and your work ethic. It's just what does a life of reverence look like in the nitty-gritty of the fallen world? And so it's giving this advice. One of the recurring themes in Proverbs is the fool. These are people who, if you answer them and point out their folly, they are not gonna say, thank you so much. I really needed that correction. You know, they aren't gonna do what you did a couple weeks ago and sent me something like, Hey, am I in the wrong here? The fool doesn't have that capacity because they are convinced they're right. And so, in a sense, don't answer them according to their folly, or you'll be like them. It's foolish to call out a fool because they're so deep into it. But the flip side of the Hebrew parallelism is answer the fool according to their folly, or they'll be wise in their own eyes. They're going to keep doing that dumb, self-destructive thing and think they're in the right. So, what is the moral of that proverb? It's there are just some impossible people in the world. There are just some people who are so foolish that there's no winning. You're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't. And so, what appeared to be a contradiction at first turns out to be just really sound, down-to-earth wisdom that goes into life eyes wide open, recognizing you're gonna come across some impossible people. So let me let me toss it to you. You I'm sure you've met some impossible people. How do you know they've crossed that threshold of being the proverbs fool? And where do you go from there?

Sean McDowell 55:19

Well, two things. Sometimes I can just tell when somebody is talking, they don't ask any questions, they make their point, they show no doubt, and I'll just know the conversation is done. And it's not really interesting for me to talk with somebody like that. So I don't have to insult them, I don't have to say anything. I just sometimes we'll change the subject and get it's really clear this is not a mutual conversation. There's other times I've narrated the conversation and you stole my thunder, which I love that you did, by the way. Because sometimes I'll say, and it depends on the relationship, obviously, that's there. Sometimes I'll say, you know, I feel like when when we talk, I'm really trying to understand you, and you don't really care what I think or have any curiosity about how I see things. Tell me if I'm reading this wrong. And really, people feel mildly shamed by that. They just don't realize it. I'm not trying to shame them. I'm just trying to say if you don't care what I think, let's not have a conversation. But I care what you think, shouldn't you reciprocate? I'm just telling you how I feel. Am I reading this wrong? And then more often than not, people are like, you know what? I get really passionate about this, and I just love sharing. And, you know, they'll give some justification for it. But I've also sometimes people say, you know what, you're right. Tell me what you think. And then they're kind of bound to listen. Yeah. So I think just narrating it uh is helpful. Now, one question here, and you got like 10 seconds on this one, Dad. You got to land this plane. It says, What spiritual practice have you found most helpful in your spiritual journey recently? For me, memorizing scripture. I've done it some in the past, but I keep a little notebook and I write verses down and I pull it out when I am driving sometimes, when I have downtime instead of pulling on my phone. And I've memorized dozens and dozens of verses over the past few months from Acts and John and beyond. That's been transformative for me. How about you?

Thaddeus Williams 57:13

Big one for me is Galatians 5, the fruit of the Spirit. In the Greek here, it's fruit produced by the Spirit. So I find a habit of praying, God, I'm not feeling very loving today. I'm not feeling very joyful or peaceful or anything. Holy Spirit, you're omnipotent. Would you generate in me love that is not from myself and joy that is not from myself, and peace that is not from myself? And I have found time and time again that's a Holy Spirit, that's a prayer the Holy Spirit loves to answer.

Sean McDowell 57:44

Love it. Good word. Really, really good and practical. So, Dad, this is fun. We will have you back, my man, when we need a sub. So thanks for it. Thanks, brother.

Thaddeus Williams 57:53

It's always a blast. Happy almost 50th. Ah, you got it. I'll enjoy it. What is it? The bicentennial? It is. Yep. Something like that.

Sean McDowell 58:03

Well, friends, this has been an episode of the podcast Think Biblically, conversations on faith and culture brought to you by Talbot School Theology at Biola University. We have master's programs in theology, Bible apologetics, marriage and family, Old Testament, New Testament, Spiritual Formation, so much more. To submit comments or ask questions, which we appreciate, please send them to thinkbiblically at biola.edu. Please take a moment to give us a rating on your podcast app. Consider sharing this with a friend. And we'll see you Tuesday when Scott and I interview one of our own professors at Talbot, Greg Gansel, about the life and lasting legacy of Friedrich Nietzsche, one of the most significant philosophers of all time, and how his shadow even looms today. In the meantime, remember to think biblically about everything.