You're listening to Breakpoint This Week. I'm Katie Faust, and today we're going to talk through some of the top stories of the week from a Christian worldview. We're going to cover the hullabaloo around Sidney Sweeney's American Eagle ad, Jim Acosta's AI interview with a now long dead Parkland shooter victim. A recategorization of the definition of death. And Trump's IVF non-order.
So stay with us, we've got a lot to cover this week. We're glad you're with us. Stick around.
Well, it's great to be with you guys today, joined obviously by John Stone Street. And we are going to do some rapid-fire news headlines just to get the Christian worldview take.
So, the first one we're going to talk about is what the rest of the world is talking about, and that is American Eagle. Yes, it has been at the top of your news feed, and we have seen takes from the left and the right. But here's the lowdown: Sidney Sweeney appeared in an ad to advertise. Denim. And it created an absolute feeding frenzy, especially on behalf of the left, because they were using this play on word: these are my jeans, but also jeans are passed down.
And because she was blonde, white, blue-eyed. There were people on the left that completely freaked out. And they're like, oh my gosh, this is Nazi propaganda. And the Guardian was talking about how this is really promoting eugenics. And it was really, really top of the news headline, especially on X, where I spent way too much time.
So, John. Did we just see a shocking example of the Nazis' return to the United States in 2025 through American Eagle denim products?
Well, first of all, Katie, great to have you back on the program. Secondly, I feel like you are getting more and more and more comfortable in this role. And at the same time, that is more and more uncomfortable for me. And this is. An example of this because I had just committed myself not to talk about this story.
Like, I don't want to talk about this story. I don't want to talk about this story. But I think we have to. And here's why. First of all, if there is an example.
A better example of everything is politicized in America. I don't know what it is, right? I mean, when you get to kind of this level of. Blue gene ad. Uh then You know, come on, like really.
Second, it's an example of the kind of gaslighting. Maria and I talked about this recently, and I'll get to that in a second. It also, to me, is an example of kind of what a lot of people are talking about. I was in an event, I guess, last month, with a number of leaders, and the word vibe shift keeps coming up. Are you in meetings where vibe shift keeps coming up?
You know, like, okay, well, we were in one place. And now, particularly under the Trump administration, we're in another place, and a lot of credit is given to that. And, you know, I have really appreciated the Babylon Bee's headline on this almost immediately. It's like America returns to the good old days of objectifying women, you know, and their advertisements. Because you know Rejecting wokeness, which now we have, like, I am grateful that this isn't Dylan Mulvaney, you know, in the American Eagle ad.
that you know that this isn't a repeat of Bud Light. And I want to tread on these waters carefully. I'm really grateful we're not kind of down this rabbit hole. Of everyone's beautiful kind of mentality that shapes this, our advertising. Over the last four or five years or so.
Are you saying you're trying to walk the non-fat shaming line? Is that what you're trying to communicate right now? Yes. Yes. Fat shaming is terrible, but it's not a good way to do it by then objectifying.
Everyone. You know what I mean? Like. And this isn't a return to what's good, right? This is not a statement about American Eagle.
I mean, good for them. Their stock jumped for the first time in decades yesterday or last week whenever this came out. But I'm hearing this vibe shift, and the vibe shift language almost always has to do with rejecting the woke, rejecting the woke. Listen, rejecting wokeness in all of its forms is a great thing. Rejecting what's wrong is not the same thing as attaching to what's good.
or accepting or re-embracing what's good. And an advertisement that objectifies women is the thing we talked about on this program and other programs for a long, long time because it's just as wrong. And we have to be really clear about that. The world in many ways, America in many ways, has put the brakes on some things that were really bad. It doesn't mean that at the same time we are now Of reattaching our civilization to the roots that made it great.
Okay, questions for you about this? And first of all, I'm not so comfortable that I'm asking your opinion on mom jeans versus wide leg versus flare.
So, I mean, we still have ways to go in this relationship, John. Yeah. But so, a question about that, because I see this vibe shift, right, which I think. Has some connection to Trump returning to office for the second time. And as my executive director would say, you know, Trump wasn't a cure for what has ailed us, but it seems to be a tourniquet.
It seems like there has been a at least we're going to stop the bleeding. But just like you said, this is not necessarily.
So just because we are rejecting the woke doesn't mean that we're embracing the good, trim, beautiful. But. What did you think about the Nike ad? That featured Scotty Scheffler, where, you know, he's down there on the green and his toddler's crawling towards him. And the caption under the Nike ad is, You already won.
So is that an example of the advertising kind of moving towards what you would consider more of a positive vision versus just an anti-left like vision of America? Not even a positive vision. That's an awesome vision. I mean, that, first of all, we talked about, you know, Scheffler here in his incredible run athletically, and then at the same time, In press conference after press conference, kind of articulating what's important. And the fact that Nike.
who has been known for not great ads over the last decade or so. You know, obviously for them, it's a financial decision. Because of how much he's dominating the game. And he basically set that narrative ahead of that ad.
So when people saw the ad, it made sense, right? And that is a great example. I just have to say, it's like one Nike ad versus all the rest that are bad.
So, this is what I mean by a vibe shift. Let's put some brakes on, yes, but we also need. To return to things that are good. And that is something that I think only the church can lead in.
Okay, good.
Well done. Nice job. We're on to the next story. But we can't go yet to the next story because there's one aspect, and I expected you to bring this up, which is so important. Which is the accusation of eugenics from the l my goodness like The gaslighting aspect of this, I'm going to give you, you can do it in three sentences.
Three sentences go.
Okay, here's your 30 sentences because they're freaking out about this being some kind of promotion for a modern-day eugenics movement. And I'm like, hi. We have that. We are doing that. We are doing that in the name of Helping people get pregnant, solving infertility, and delivering children to gay couples.
And it is that now, even, you know, even when we were just buying gametes from sperm and egg donor catalogs, that's a eugenics process. Do I want the blonde donor? Do I want the Yale-educated donor? Do I want the donor that is, you know, at least six foot two? Like a lot of kids created through that mechanism are like, hey, eugenics here.
But now we've gone to a whole nother level. I mean, this summer there was a big reveal that you've got now not one, but three different companies that are offering complete genome screenings of embryos where they will scan for up to 1200 at sometimes different traits that can lead to two things like. Early baldness, or the possibility of blindness, or predispositions to certain genetic conditions, or even just like heart disease. And I'm like, good heavens, if we were all screened, I mean, how many of us would exist if we were screened for all two? 1,200 genes.
So it's like, there is eugenics. I'm glad you're freaking out. It is absolutely not Sydney Sweeney, it is the baby-making industry. That is capitalizing on this consumer mindset that wants to procure the perfect child. Yeah.
Well, look, it reminded me of the whole handmaid's tail stuff. You know, whenever a state legislature was going to put some limit on abortion prior to Roe v. Wade being overturned, everyone would show up at the courthouse wearing, you know, handmaid's tail. It's like, we have that. It's the, you know, the surrogacy farms that are in Pakistan and Ukraine and other places like that.
Or California.
Well, we're California, yeah.
Now now that there's commercial surrogacy, yeah, that's true. But there's also, you know, I do appreciate the memes that are going around saying, you know, with Sidney Sweeney on one side and Margaret Sanger on the other. And saying, you know, the same people who hate Sidney Sweeney because she was in a gene ad love Planned Parenthood. And loved Margaret Sanger.
So that inconsistency is worth noting as well. Yep. Good.
Now we may move on. Yeah. I'm like, be outraged, be outraged about the right things. And eugenics is the right thing. But, you know, direct it appropriately.
You know, people in positions of power need to be held accountable. Comedy is one of the most effective ways to do that. Tyrants hate mockery. And so, one of the ways of holding them accountable is to make fun of their bad ideas. That was Seth Dillon, CEO of the Babylon Bee, and one of the stories that are told in the new upcoming documentary film Truth Rising from the Colson Center and focus on the family.
When the Babylon Bee's Twitter account was suspended for a joke that told the truth, they were faced with a choice, delete the post, get the account back, or stand on truth and lose the platform. How the story came out was completely unexpected by everyone. Here's Seth's story in Truth Rising, which premieres on September the 5th. This is a confusing civilizational moment, but keep in mind it's just that, a moment. It's not the whole story.
The whole story is under the purview and authority of God. And that means we can be confident in the truth. Christ is Lord of all, and He has promised to make all things new. And He's called each of us to this precise moment in history for a reason. You're called to be faithful wherever God has placed you.
That's what Truth Rising is all about. It's an invitation to understand the civilizational moment we're in and believe that God has called you to it so that we can be people of faith and courage where God has placed us. Stay up to date by going to truthrising.com slash colson. That's truthrising.com slash colson. All right, so the next thing is something I haven't followed too closely, so I had to dig in a bit before this, but.
Jim Acosta had a conversation with a teenager named Joachim that was killed in the Parkland shooting. And so he. with the help of Joachim's parents, created this AI Avatar? For him, and then interviewed Joachim. And of course, like not surprisingly, Joachim.
came out. Against you know, gun freedom or in favor of gun control, saying things like. You know, AI Joachim said, I believe in a mix of stronger gun controls, mental health support, and community engagement. And so, what do you think about this application of AI technology as it relates to? I mean, I was like, is this like Saul conjuring up Samuel like ground?
Is that what we're doing here where we're trying to kind of communicate with the dead, not using kind of Old Testament spiritism, but sort of our New Testament technological advances? Like, how, what bucket would you put this in when you're looking at it through a biblical lens? That's the example that came up, by the way, when we were kicking this around in our editorial meeting. Although it wasn't Saul conjuring Samuel, it was Saul conjuring the witch of Endor, right? And instead of Samuel.
How did all that go down? Or was it Samuel afterwards? Anyway, he may have done it a couple times. Let the hearers understand that Katie Faust is correct and John Stone Street is correct. No, is that who's the witch of Endor?
There's a witch of Endor in this with Saul as well. She got up Samuel. There we go. That's what I was saying. Oh, I see.
I see, I see.
So yeah, no, I get you. One for Katie. We were both right. I was just giving you the name of the medium, the name of the service, you know. Remember Cleo, that was this is this was the Miss Cleo from back in um back in the Old Testament days.
So when the shooting took place and and a number of afterwards. I one of the things we noted at the time was this trend. to highlight teenagers as experts. It's a very Rousseauian sort of thing, right? That men are born free and everywhere on in chains.
You know, the unencumbered free teenager has a kind of a inside track on this. It's fascinating and to introduce this not as AI. But to introduce this as an AI version of this person. not not true. I this morning Bob, our producer, sent around a piece where the same AI service that now is being used to give us the wisdom from beyond the grave.
Is the same one that has instructed teenagers on how to kill themselves, on how to use drugs, how to hide their eating disorders from their parents. You know, all kinds of things.
So, the selective authoritarianism here is so. fascinating. But the the very notion that this is a thinkable idea For America, you know, I think also reflects a little bit about the Gnosticism. That the disembodied, kind of the Gnosticism that we kind of embrace, the new version, which is. You know, disembodied truth, disembodied humanity, disembodied wisdom.
And, you know, let's be really clear, whatever fed that AI model. wasn't the NRA. In other words, it was a selective collection. There's not wisdom here coming from beyond the grave.
Now, whether there is something demonic, spiritual. you know, being used through AI, the the jury's out for me. how much this is like witch of indoor slash Samuel. in that order uh is is a good question i'm not sure that we know the answer to that. I know some people are talking a lot about that, but But it is just an odd thing, isn't it?
Where we look, and that somehow this would be. Kind of a breakthrough or a and that, of course, is how Jim Acosta kind of talked about his own interview, which isn't, I guess, too. Too unsurprising.
So let me ask you this, and I think you guys have addressed it before. And, you know, Maria wrote the digital technology chapter for my third book. And so she is. She's up on this. You're up on this.
Give me some hard and fast lines. Appropriate use of AI. Inappropriate use of AI. Where do we draw that line? What are the meta principles that all of us, because I'm thinking about it more in terms of my writing and my research.
And honestly, like, thank God ChatGPT was able to tell me my color season.
So I look better on camera these days. I mean, like, there's a lot of applications that I'm really grateful for. No idea what you're talking about. That's okay, John. All you need to say is those glasses absolutely fit your face.
And it is because of ChatGPT. Those glasses are killer. Thanks so much.
So, give me those hard and fast boundaries that all of us that want to honor the Lord. With our thinking and our speaking and our conduct, we need to be aware of when we approach this new. Never before seen powerful technology. I think the big meta, meta, meta framing right now is that there's twin dangers. One is to underestimate AI and the other is to overestimate it.
The overestimation is coming from a worldview In which Science is salvation, technology is salvation, and there is a human A hubris of belief in human innovation and activity that has been deeply embedded because of the Enlightenment scientific revolution and on. And we're just heirs of that. And so we'll say things like, this is a groundbreaking interview when no one's talking to this kid. Right? Of course not.
He's dead. The lines between life and death that the Bible talks about are still as fixed as they have always been. On the other hand, to underestimate this is to really underestimate our own. habits. And so that brings up the the the second line which to underestimate it is is is to basically Downplay the fact that this information comes from us, right?
AI, in a sense, collates. collects, curates, and then repeats. And that's what we have so far. spouting out stuff, it's spouting out stuff that we put in. And that kind of gets to...
the guideline of our habits. AI is not a dangerous thing. in the right hands, right? Like, you know, being in the proximity of heroin is not a problem for me. For others it is.
When it comes to Uh well don't raise your hand, Katie. When when it comes to When it comes to AI, we are a generation of incredibly poor and impoverished habits of both. with both technology and human relationships. If we were a different kind of person, this would be different.
So it's really what kind of people are we that are using this tool, just like a knife. in a chef's hands, fantastic. A knife in a butcher's hand is really you know helpful. A knife in a a psychopath's hand is really dangerous. And that that's, I think, the guidelines that we need to think about.
Good.
So the issue, if I can just summarize, recap, is not necessarily The technology. It is moral formation. How are we morally forming? People as they grow so that they can know how to properly employ these new technologies. But I got it wrong.
You are making faces. Tell me where I am. But I mean, here's listen. You know, the reason heroin is not a problem near me is that I'm not going to use it. Humans produce technology.
The kind of humans we are determine the kind of technologies we produce. Does that make sense? Not every culture, not every generation is going to produce the atomic bomb.
So The medium is often the message, you know. For example, I would say Well, so is social media in the right hands?
Okay. You know, would the world be a better place without social media? Absolutely.
So, I've reached a point where that to me is not a morally neutral thing. Can it be used by. People for good causes? Yes. Do I wish we were the type of world that never invented it and subjected a bunch of teenage girls to terrible, terrible, terrible things?
Yes. So the the the medium still matters.
So the media matters, but then isn't the social media thing also a matter of spiritual formation? Isn't it also guaranteed? Yes. I mean, like, so to me, I would say social media is neutral. And I think it can be used incredibly powerfully.
I actually think that one of the reasons why we are seeing a bit of a vibe shift is because we have Been free of some of the censorship regime that was put so heavily in place for so long, and now good ideas are spreading faster. Specifically on social media and on things like podcasts are probably more responsible.
So I would say that. To me, again, comes back to moral formation, not necessarily the tool, but I'm obviously on day four of the Colson Fellows program.
So I probably have a lot of people corrected by the time I go to your conference in June.
Well, look, I don't fully disagree. Because there's the realistic side of this. We're not putting this genie back in the bottle. We're not doing it with social media. We're not doing it with AI.
But Morally formed people produce certain kinds of technology, not just use it, but produce it. Right. A culture that's looking for salvation in all the wrong places. Is going to push salvation from certain places.
Now, the rest of us. You know, we live in Elon Musk's world, so what are we going to do? We're going to receive and use whatever it is. Is it better now than it was? Absolutely.
Is it still profoundly dangerous for especially teenage girls? Absolutely.
And just because, for example, Twitter's been I say reined in. I don't know if it's been reined in or set free. I don't know what would be a better example of that. But the Wild, Wild West might be more acceptable than the censorship regime. But it it's it's still an incredibly dangerous place.
And Yes, you have to morally form. That's the only way forward. There's no question about that. But I'm just not willing to say social media. or AI is morally neutral.
And this is in the you know the whole history, you know. I say this about every other week here: Postman, Postman, it's all in Neil Postman. Just read Neil Postman. And of course, he's talking about television not being morally neutral. that as an entity, Soren Kierkegaard, right, early 20th century said, If if there was ever a talking box, whereas people could hit everyone all at once, Then that would immediately need to be destroyed because it would be so, so dangerous.
And he's saying that, you know, way before the television. And now we've got a talking box in everyone's hand and so on.
So I. The medium's not neutral in my mind. But we still live in the world in which the medium exists and the genie's not going into the bottle.
So, how's that for nuance? It's fine. fine. The readers get to decide, I want a straight-up poll after this. Of the Ron Television table.
There we go. Okay. But you said something there that I that leads into a question that I actually really do have some urgency in asking. And it's because this third headline that we wanted to talk about was. This article in the New York Times, co-authored by three different doctors, talking about how we need to redefine death.
And you said, hey, the categories between life and death are still the same. And I'm like, ah, but are they? And for the sake of, and this was written, you know, the title is: Donor Organs Are True Rare. We need a new definition of death. And they're talking about how there is this urgent need for organs.
There are a lot of people waiting for transplants, and it's hard to get. Quality organs that are ready to be harvested into the patients that need them in a timely way where they're still functional. And so they were arguing that we actually need a different kind of death. Broadened the definition of brain death to include irreversibly comatose patients on life support. And they kind of made a philosophical argument too.
They said: since higher brain functions like consciousness, memory, intention, and desire, are what most meaningfully define a person, Once those are irreversibly lost, the The person has ceased to exist.
So Now they are treading on genuinely theological matters.
So tell me, John. When does somebody die? Yeah. Listen, this was a fascinating piece. I've kind of gotten to the point that whenever a bunch of medical doctors write, especially in pairs or triples, in the New York Times advocating for something like you know Your spidey sense should go off because almost always it takes this kind of uh uh What's the word?
Kind of compassionate tone. to be paternalistic. and and make a moral case for what they claim is not a moral issue. To make a scientific case, Like this would be better for all of us. Do you know how many things in the history of the world have been inflicted on us in the name of this is what's good for humanity.
Every tyranny. The answer to that is every tyranny.
So so, so many examples of this. Um and and and that was the overarching tone and we I there was just I'm trying to remember what the issue was like A year ago, it was on, we talked about it. Not you and me, I think it was Maria and I did. And I can't remember what it was, but it was another one of these kind of opinion pieces written by these medical professionals saying, here's what we need to do. It's the only right thing to do.
Now we know this. And it kind of has this kind of moral evolutionary argument behind it. It was, wasn't it brain dead women serving as surrogates? You guys talked about that, you know, that like, well, this is the easy solve. Like, you've got these women, they're brain dead.
Now we can use them as surrogates, and you know, it's the perfect solve. That sounds vaguely familiar. Women to like rent out their bodies, and these women that, you know, have no agency, but they're still, their bodies are still functional. Let's use them.
So keep talking, but yes, you are right. They there are, they are making these cases on a utility basis, right? Like, that's this is a utilitarian arty that actually. skirts the question of What does it mean to be human? And what's the line between life and death?
But see, people here, let's use brain-dead women for surrogacy, and everyone's moral spidey sense goes off, unless you're too smart for that, you know, unless you're in that. Unless you're Harvard educated. Keep going.
Okay. I'm trying to remember who actually said this, but that some ideas are so crazy, you got to have a PhD to believe it. But this is organ donation. Organ donation is not a morally controversial thing in our culture. I think it should be.
And whenever I say that out loud, it gets a lot of pushback. But it's precisely this. There's a level of knowledge that we portend to and pretend to know. by advocating and saying that this is immorally settled. Debate.
But in reality the moral framework of organ donation has been, if we can do it, we need to do it. And now it becomes, notice the thing, I mean, this wasn't even a conversation to be had 100 years ago.
So this is brand new in human history.
So now the technology is available. And because the technology is available, But not available to everyone, it's a crisis.
So we went from this thing, which was a remarkable gift to humanity. To now we have a crisis which we don't have enough organs. You know what another code word is for we don't have enough organs? We don't have enough people who just died.
So, what do you do? I mean, you see what I mean? We don't have enough people who just died in the right way. That's really what I'm saying. And died in the right way.
No, that's right. Yeah. And.
So the answer. is let's hasten death. And of course, there have been lawsuits, there have been examples of this, and so on. It isn't always right to hold back. our ability to heal and to help others because it's been done in the wrong way.
But it should at least make us ask the question: wait a minute. I mean, here you have in the New York Times. Fiddling around with the definition of death. The definition of death changes and moves all the time, particularly in the 20th century. And the question is: why is it moving?
Is it moving because we figured out something new? Is it moving because now we can track brainwaves and we can actually know whether somebody. You know, his brain is it new because we have we can you know more closely detect heartbeats or is it moving because we want more organs? You know, there's that motivation.
Now, the guy who wrote about this first. And I know people are like, what? Organ donation? It's a great thing. My so-and-so was saved, and my so-and-so was saved.
I'm not ready to morally You know, draw the line at organ donation like I am at something like IBF or surrogacy, other things that we talk about. But. I do not think we've ethically wrangled through this, and I do not think we have the ethical categories. in place in the medical profession to do this well. And to your point earlier, I don't think we're the morally formed people.
to make this decision in the right way. And the guy who I Oh. For thinking this way is Gilbert Mylander. We can blame it on him, longtime professor at Valparaiso. His book, Bioethics, a Primer for Christians.
You know, started asking questions about intent and what's driving these conversations. And you start asking that, and you go, Oh, then you have this piece in the New York Times. You're like, Oh, I see, you see what is. What is motivating us to rethink what it means to die?
Now, maybe we will get more information about this and be able to make decisions. We don't have that information right now.
So I do think the wall between life and death is pretty fixed. Uh I whether we have the ability to recognize it. No.
So are you telling me so 'cause my my original question is When does somebody die? What's the Christian answer to that? Is it the time when their brain stops functioning? Is that when the soul leaves the body? According to Christians, Is there an objective line between life and death?
What is it? The Christian view, as best as I can tell, is the objective line. is that it belongs to God.
Well, that's The best non-answer I've ever heard.
Well, I'll admit that it is. You asked what the Bible says. There's no chapter and verse in the Bible that says, and death means. What it says over and over and over is that death belongs to But you have to understand, like, we're post-enlightenment. The Enlightenment was the great shift here.
Does the world belong to God or does the world belong to us? Do these questions belong to God or do these questions belong to us?
Now that's not a get out of jail free card for us to just sit here and and be passive. Right? I mean Genesis Chapter 1, God literally creates humans to image him, to be, you know, to be like him.
So, I never kind of buy the argument that we should never do these things because to do so is to play God. Because, in a sense, we are actually created to play God. And We have ways to physically measure. We know that human beings are A unified whole of body, soul, sp uh uh of the the material and immaterial, the the the body and the soul. People even argue in theological circles about whether we're two parts or three parts or many parts, and that conversation I don't get.
What I do think, but it's not parts because you can't pull one out. It's not like pulling the wheels off of a Volkswagen. It's like trying to pull. out die out of water. The bot uh the human being, you know.
God creates man out of the It forms man out of the dust of the earth. That's physical. breathing in the breath of life that's spiritual, and then man becomes a living soul.
So, to be a living soul is to be both physical and spiritual. It's not to be spiritual and not physical, or physical and not spiritual. And we're reductionistic. from the medical side of things. To say we're body and then the soul is, that's just a matter of personal belief.
And then we're Gnostic, on the other hand, to say who we truly are is this immaterial thing that we want to be, and the body then can be molded around whatever our desires are.
So we're constantly trying to draw this line between the body and the soul. Or between the physical and the metaphysical, the immaterial and the material. And that line is not drawable. What's the word? Drawable.
Is that a word? That line is not drawable according to scripture.
So there, death is died. That's the best I can give you. You didn't ask what John thinks, you asked what the Bible says. And I'm telling you, the Bible says it belongs to God. I'm sorry, I didn't know that asking what John thinks is an option.
And we probably don't have time for this, but does John have us something here that I should know about in terms of when death actually takes place? Because I mean, like, If there's no biblical line, give me the Stone Street line. The Stone Street line is more not helpful at all. Ah!
Well then we're just gonna have to wrap this segment up.
Okay, so you don't have as many bright lines when it comes to death and when it comes to organ donation, but you have hinted, and I know this to be true because I listen, I'm a regular listener to Breakpoint, that you do have strong hard and fast lines when it comes to IVF.
So There is a non-news headline that we're going to cover, and that is that in August 2024, Trump made the statement. that the government is going to pay for IVF. Or we're going to get it. We'll mandate your insurance company to pay for it, which is going to be great. It's going to be great.
We want to produce babies in this country, right?
So we want to give him. That's right. It earned him the moniker of like the father of IVF or the granddaddy of IVF or something. Like he was like, I'm going to be the IVF president. And then he came out with this executive order in February saying, we're going to make it free or we're going to make it cheaper.
We're going to make it more available. And I think most of his bass was like, oh dear. Oh dear. Why is that? Because, number one, as you mentioned, the people that are kind of deep into the ethics of this go: this is not a solve for fertility.
This is a circumvention of fertility. Those that are in the pro-life community have. Waken up over the last couple of years to, oh dear, this is not pro-life, even though some children result. This is actually High death count for embryonic children. You know, like we probably see maybe 3% of children made in the laboratory that are actually born alive.
The vast majority are going to be subjected to things like ORCID, where they will have their genome screened and they will be discarded and eugenically excluded from the human race. And then it really ran afoul of the Maha people, the Make America Healthy Again people who are like. The reason why we're seeing these skyrocketing rates of infertility is actually environmental or dietary or lifestyle-based. And shouldn't we actually seek to heal the person? Rather than manufacture the children and then force the government or insurance companies to pay for it.
So the fact that that 90-day window for executive action to take place post-executive order, that nothing's happened. Is kind of telling that there's some kind of internal conversation happening within the administration. to apparently Put the brakes on. I thought this was Super interesting for being a non-story, as you said, because it kind of was like a, you know, a sneak it out there. Oh, hey, by the way, we're really not going to do anything with IVF.
And And I didn't even see what the context was. Like, was it because somebody asked or was it because that 90-day window passed or? Like, did they kind of volunteer this information? Hey, by the way, we're not going to do anything after all. What I saw was the Washington Post digging in and going, why don't we have anything yet?
Why aren't you telling us anything? And it sounds like. The response was, we can't legally force insurance companies to pay for IVF without an act of Congress.
So it's almost like he said, hey, he said, hey. Yeah, John, it's what you always say. It's like executive orders are nice. They are not a substitution for congressional action. And so this is one place where he kind of made the executive order where he might have been able to push the envelope.
Temporarily. And I think, I hope that the voices in the administration or that the administration was listening to said, Somehow you need to quietly let this disappear. Yeah, I mean, that's my take. And the question is whether that was the intent from the beginning or not. And I think at some level this was the Trump thinking he was bleeding out being kind of something that he wasn't.
He doesn't understand the issue. You know, many of us have said this for a while. Remember his early days in 2016 talking about religious freedom? And, you know, I was actually... In a meeting at one point, where he was talking about religious freedom as being able to say Merry Christmas again.
Not that anyone kept anyone from saying Merry Christmas, I guess, except in stores, but everyone that was in the room was like. You know, this is not what we're concerned about. We're concerned about Jack Phillips, you know, which was the story in 2015. And the first executive order came out on religious freedom. It was a nothing burger.
It was pathetic. We talked about it being pathetic. And but what ended up happening is a number of things that actually were put in place that did make real differences in terms of the protection of people of faith, the protection from being fired. Certainly what's happened on the Supreme Court. Same thing when it came to abortion.
I don't think anyone really kind of thought Trump understood this issue thoroughly and was really pro-life. I talked about this in this particular campaign. that the Republican Party abandoned um their pro-life position. Uh they became like what the Democrats were in the 90s. And There's only one place where the Republican platform came from and that was the Trump campaign.
You said something earlier. That most of his Was it Cabnan or his base or, you know, kind of rose up on this or understand this. I guess I'm a little bit less optimistic on that. I wouldn't use the word most. There were clearly some people who stood up and were like.
You cannot. You cannot. You will lose all these pro-lifers. if you become quote unquote the IVF president. And of course that was hilarious too.
Like him being the father of IVF is like Al Gore giving us the internet. Like you're missing the fundamental cause here. But this was good news. And I don't know, you know, whether... It came because basically they did try to do something, and they realized there's really nothing that they can do.
Or because He was really pushed to say, Yeah, I said this out loud, but I'm going to let this quietly die. And I hope that was the the the case and that this, you know, doesn't come back up. By the way, I thought it was interesting too that this landed the same week. Did you see that story that the oldest embryo was conceived? The oldest embryo ever born.
The previous one had been like frozen 29 and a half years. This one was a little over 30 years, I believe. Was this a snowflake adoption? Yeah, baby Thaddeus. And it's incredible, miraculous.
It is redemptive. And very ethically complicated.
So, yeah, it's like, do you want, and what would an IVF mandate be? What would making it more accessible? What would making it cheaper result in? It would result in a much higher death count of embryonic children. and an expansion of the frozen orphanages that already litter.
The United States, you know, across the country, and the need for more little Thaddeuses to be rescued. But it's a very, it's very like starfish on the seashore kind of problem. Like you can throw one back every now and then, but you still have hundreds of thousands, if not millions, that are going to die in the process. No, you're right. And we don't want more of those.
And, you know, of course, the framing here is that every single embryo is made in the image and likeness of God and has infinite value from the moment of their conception into the moment. of their death and like every other human. And so, you know, there is a wonderful redemptive part of that little tale about the little kid throwing the starfish. you know, back into the water, which is but I helped that one. And when you're you're able to help that one, it is a an incredible you know wonderful math i do i i talk about this when i speak for pregnancy resource centers You know, think about this investment.
Every single life is infinitely valuable.
So, if your investment here to support the work that these wonderful people Do in helping women who are in this vulnerable situation make a good decision and choose life. You know, you're $100, you're $1,000, you're $15,000. You just got an ROI of infinity. That's the best investment you'll get today. And that's the biblical framing, but this is the ethical problem that is created by an ethically bad decision.
In other words, there's a complexity and a complicity here. That by even participating becomes really, really difficult to weed out. Yeah, that's the right way to think about it is. Every child, every child, precious, worthy, made in the image of God. Rescue, do hard things on their behalf.
You're never going to lose that way. And then you also need to turn your attention to how do we make sure that children are not in the position of needing to be rescued. Um and the administration's non-action is a a help in that sense. And I don't have an explanation, a full explanation as to why the administration seems to have done kind of a 180 or Stepped away from this. But we didn't have an explanation why they were advancing this in the first place.
Like, it was such a weird thing for him to jump out on, you know?
Well, I think that he, I really do think that he thought, this is what my people want. Like, they want more babies. You know, he's like, we want more babies. JD Vance. We want more.
Do I want more? I do want more babies. I do not want more babies at any cost, especially at the expense of more dead babies. But. My very layperson take on Trump is not, he's not ideological.
I mean, he just doesn't have, he's not a convictional conservative, but he responds to. The reality's on the ground. And, you know, it's like, I feel like you see that. I mean, sorry if we're weeding into the wrong places, but like you see that on Russia. He went in thinking, I'm going to make a deal.
And Putin showed him. Nope, there's actually some facts on the ground that need to have you sort of reorient your policy on this. And I think that we've seen it in several other areas where he, you know, tariffs, he's like, we're going to do all the tariffs. And the world came back, the stock market came back and said, hi, there's some realities you're not considering. And he had to sort of amend.
And I look at this, I'm like, well, this is one thing where he said, This is a good idea, I'm gonna want this. But then there was enough pushback, enough friction for him to, I hope, I think, go, maybe I need to reconsider. And it just reminds me of that. Line from iRobot. Like the It's learning.
It's learning. You know, like it is responsive to. feedback and then we'll adjust course based on that feedback. Mm. Hi, John Stone Street here from the Colson Center.
If you've ever taken a close look at a really old church building, most of the time you can find a cornerstone. A lot of times, the cornerstone will bear the names of the founders who built the church, not just to last during their time. but for generations to come. If the ministry of the Colson Center is making a lasting impact in your life, and if it's going to continue to make a lasting impact for the kingdom of God, we have to have that same kind of strong foundation. That's why I want to invite you to become a cornerstone monthly partner with us at the Colson Center.
Your monthly support provides a steady foundation so that we can do the work that God has called us to do. It's a way to ensure that resources like Breakpoint, the Strong Women podcast, the What Would You Say video series, and the Identity Project can remain free so that believers, families, individuals, pastors, teachers can continue to use them and benefit from them. Your monthly support also helps to fund Colson Fellow Scholarships for those who have financial need. More than anything else, that sort of financial stability allows us to seize the strategic opportunities as God brings them to us.
So please join us laying a strong foundation for the future by becoming a cornerstone. monthly partner of the Coulson Center. Visit us at colsoncenter.org slash monthly. That's colsoncenter.org slash monthly.
So, the final topic that we were going to address, which is a bit of a return to AI, and a conversation I had with Grok. On the tarmac, while I was waiting for my plane to finally get to go to its gate after. You know, this massive delay getting home from the East Coast last week, where I had like an extra half hour. And I saw, in response to this somewhat viral story that you and Maria covered last week, of the two men that acquired the surrogate-born child. And then within 24 hours, it came out that he was a convicted sex offender, and yet he had been able to acquire this child anyway because there are no screenings or background checks or safeguards for surrogacy.
Like there's no, I always say there's no background checks in surrogacy. The only check they care about is the check at the bank. But it led a lot of people to say. Hey, you know, even when there isn't like a prior felony conviction, what are the outcomes for children raised by gay couples?
So per you know the um technological Tools that we now have, a lot of people were asking Grok, which is the AI. But That's on. X, formerly Twitter. And what AI was telling them is Outcomes for children with same-sex parents show that there is absolutely no difference and no harm to kids being raised by gay couples.
So I just spent a little time on the airplane asking Grok some questions. Like, Grok. Tell me, if you were to eliminate all of those studies that Use recruited Participants, not random samples. And if you were to only look at the studies that actually measure the outcomes, of children, not what the parents think. Is happening with the kids.
Tell me how many studies you would be pulling from. And Grok's like, oh, down, you know, from 80 down to five. I'm like, ah, and what? What did those studies say? And it still was a little bit hesitant.
It was like.
Well, mixed, you know, mixed, but generally loving parents is what kids need. And so, through a few more kinds of questions and steps. I actually got it down to the point where I was like, grock. Tell me exactly why there was such a massive swing in consensus when you had this universal agreement by sociologists up to the point of like 2005 where they're like kids need their mothers and fathers, biology matters in the parent-child relationship, men and women offer distinct and complementary benefits to children, losing a parent is very difficult, unrelated adults in the home. I mean, sociologists agreed on that.
How on earth? Brock? Could You now come to this conclusion. That same-sex parents. result in no harm to children And there's no difference to their upbringing.
Did human nature change, Grok? Or Is political bias on the part of sociologists a more reasonable explanation? And Grok was like. You got me. You got me.
I thought it was awesome. First of all, congratulations. It was good. I mean, what a redemptive way to use that additional 30 minutes of your time. But if you want to compare airplane stories, I got an hour on the runway waiting for a gate just a week before that.
So I win. And even last night, I was taken to a completely different airport than the one that was on my ticket.
So anyway, let's not compare airplane misery stories, which I've got. It's okay. You have one point for airplane. You win on the airplane. I win on Old Testament knowledge.
But keep going. There we go. We were both right. All right.
So, listen, it was interesting to walk through that. And I thought it was interesting on two levels. Number one is. To my by shift point earlier, that basically pushing back on something that's evil is not the same thing as embracing something that's good. Um I'm seeing this.
So the decision, for example, and I think you're Point about pragmatism in this administration. I don't think it's just true of the president. I think it's true of that. entire administration. I think it's true of the Republican Party, frankly.
Um far too often where there's not a a political will to push back on same-sex marriage. But there is a political will to extend same-sex marriage to other forms of marriage and then also to. Then use that as some sort of justification, which is completely inconsistent with the reasoning that was used to give a same-sex marriage in the first place, than to extend that reasoning to same-sex parenting and other forms of parenting. I mean, how often do we hear this? It's like, oh, well, if kids need loving parents, then they'll be better with five loving parents instead of two.
And that's why polyamorous couples should be able to manufacture the children they want and, you know, or be able to adopt with no regulations whatsoever.
So I do think that in that thread Which was all posted on X, and we can link to it on the show notes, or you can find it on Katie's Twitter. Uh advocate, right? Ad advocate, is that what it is?
Something like that.
Something like that.
Find Katie Faust. Is you went through something that's really, really important because we still do this. There's a new study that comes out, and it'll say. That same-sex parenting is just as good as heterosexual parenting. In fact, it probably is better.
And in fact, if we were all really loving and compassionate, we'd take all the kids from all the parents and give them to lesbians because they're the greatest. And you pointed out a handful of things that was really important. Number one. that the The majority of these studies, the vast majority of these studies, are self-selective. In other words, the participants know why they're in the study.
Number two, it's not a huge sample group. It's very selective at gay clubs and gay community groups and things like that. Number three, they're not measuring kid outcomes, they're measuring parents' sales. Self-reporting, what could possibly go wrong? I went through this, by the way, with a group of high school and college students just earlier this week.
Those three points on those studies. And they're all like, that's crazy. And I'm like. That's crazy. And the USA Today still trumpets.
Hey, good news. You know, um these are the greatest parents on the planet.
So, good for you for walking through that. And I wanted, people need to know this because you basically have. This issue How do same-sex parents fare compared to heterosexual parents? And there's two dramatically different conclusions. You have more studies.
That are self-selective, that are small sample groups, that measure parental self-reports, not outcomes. That says It's great, it's the same, might even be better. And then you have a thorough. Overwhelming sample size, a big sample size, at least to get random samples that measure kid outcomes. And that now has been vetted by AI itself in terms of its legitimacy and its limitations.
And that, of course, is Mark Regnerus' study. which he almost got fired for even suggesting back in the day. Which says not that it's the same, but that it's not even close. And we have all the other studies in the world that we have, of which there's a billion, which says that the greatest, the most reliable predictor of a child's long-term success is that they are in a home with married biological mom and dad, oh, and that moms and dads parent differently.
So moms don't parent like dads and dads don't parent like moms.
So we have these basically two different things. They're not even close. And people don't understand that this is not a settled issue. That this is not a question we should answer with our compassion. We need to answer it with what we actually know.
Or some sort of, you know, not wanting to hurt anyone's feelings because we're talking about kids who could then be. Created through an IVF and a surrogate and handed to a pedophile, and there's no regulation on it. It's a crazy thing, but the other part of this story is you talk to Grok, and even just now, you're like, you're like, hey, Grok, like. And I was talking about this story offline, and I want to ask you this, which is. Were you trying to train Grok's mind and does that mean you think Grok has a mind?
So. I look at that and I go, first of all, I go, where has Grok led me astray? Where has ChatGPT lied to me because I didn't know enough to ask the right questions? And that's an area where, like, I am using AI, especially as a supercharged Google. I'm using it like for research and investigation.
And I just was like, it would be so easy for. all of this technology to lead me to the wrong conclusions, Because there are things that I don't know a lot about like fashion And I mean, like it could absolutely lie to me about what color looks good on me, and I would believe it. I just, that's an area where I don't really know anything. Or, you know, like a certain battle that took place in ancient Rome. Like, if I wanted.
Like ChatGPT or Perplexity to tell me about that, I really would not have enough information to know whether or not I'm getting something that's accurate. And so to me, it was an example of AI is a tool. and absolutely not a substitute for a genuine education. And it's like you said, it's very much a garbage in, garbage out kind of thing.
So what are the inputs we're putting into it?
So for example, when I was first kind of playing around with AI, I was like, hey, tell me what you think about surrogacy. And it was. the most flattering portrayal ever. Every single thing that it talked about, it's like, this is a miracle. It helps people have children.
And it's all like consensual, and it's a modern day revolution. Why was it giving me that information, even though surrogacy has been largely banned across Europe as a human rights violation? It's because most of what That AI, what those platforms had to pull from were fertility websites.
So, most of what they were able to compile an answer from was sources that had a very specific agenda.
So, that's the first thing that I. Kind of drove home to me after this Grok conversation was I would so I could so easily be a tool. Um for bad ideas if I don't know enough about the subject matter. And AI did not indeed learn. Like, I did get it to the point where.
Grok said. Yeah, actually these studies are biased. But then when I posted that thread and other people were asking questions about it. It just spit out the same bad first answer. It went back to.
You know, if you look at the Cornell list of 80 of 79 studies, 75 of them show no difference. Like, it didn't learn from my interaction with him, it just went back to pulling from all of the same junk science that formed the junk consensus. Yeah, you know, that was interesting, uh, an interesting development on that. As I wanted to know, too, like, did it quote unquote, did it actually change its mind? Because it is, it's pulling.
From the content wherever it's finding it, and it's going back to that.
Now you just gave it a whole new way of seeing it, and yet it rejected it. Why did it do that? And there was a segment on Bill Maher's show last week where he was talking to an expert on AI, someone who also uses it and also is very concerned about its potential. impossibilities and You know, he brought up something along, you know, when the remember the guy was researching late at night and the AI told the guy that humans were a plague and he needed to kill himself. Did you see that story?
It was like a grad researcher about a year ago. Yeah, yeah. But Bill Maher asked something really interesting, which he's like, he said, well, that's not, I'm not concerned about that. That's an outlier. I'm concerned about is that AI, you know, basically wants to kiss everyone's rear end.
Like, it like it basically wants to tell you exactly what you want to hear, and it wants to.
So this kind of commitment to capitulate and so on. Really plays into this because this whole movement to allow people. to basically buy and sell children. Has been driven by this narrative of compassion.
Well, don't you want everyone to have a child that they want? And so. That to me, when it plays into these issues, can become a poisonous thing, too. But it's an interesting exchange. It'll be my recommendation this week that people go and look at your Twitter feed and And see that interaction, both to learn about the real differences between.
uh uh of the data and the research, but also just kind of How might this be done? How do we go in? Remember, I think it's Paul who says, you know, test the spirits. John says this as well. Actually, they both say it in different places, but test everything.
You know, you always want to be testing. One of the things about our interactions with technology and computers and Google is that we don't. We don't question it and we need to question it.
Well, you have to have the right framework to even know what questions are asked. You have to know.
some boundaries before you know what to ask. Like we were have been talking about and I think that's a good idea. Yes, yeah, that's right. There we go. Oh, I got you to admit it.
You said earlier it was. And now I just got you to say that it wasn't. John wins. No, John doesn't win. Editors, all right.
We got to move on. We got to move on now to the next segment. Moving on.
So, you guys get high-quality listener questions. There were several really good ones that were sent in, and one. Absolutely, like nails a lot of the conversations that you and I are having. And somebody wrote in and said: Is there a possibility that AI could be programmed to have a Christian worldview?
Now I will say that one way that I use AI is: I'll be reading a verse in the Old Testament that I'm not exactly sure how to interpret. And I've got some good commentaries, but I will say something like, What would Charles Spurgeon say about this verse? And then show me where he said something that. like supports your Recommendation. Or I will say, you know, what would New Testament scholars say about this old Levitical law and how it points to Christ?
So I will do it and I'll say, but only draw from Orthodox Christian thinkers.
So obviously, with the right parameters, I think that it can lead you to some really good information. And I know that, for example, Jordan Peterson has his own mode of AI where it is a combination of everything that he's written. and the King James Version of the Bible.
So all of the output. is only those inputs.
So, you can set these parameters.
So, John. Can you make? A Christian AI. I have so many thoughts about Jordan Peterson and the Jordan Peterson AI, but I'm going to let that go. The answer is Yes, because it's not accurate, as far as I understand, to think just about AI.
It's to think about AIs. Like these are multiple systems and they're pulling from multiple sets.
Now, do they. interact and overlap, the answer is yes. But you can create using the same technology kind of a closed box AI where it's only pulling from a certain place. One of the coolest stories of this that I've heard is that there is a And forgive me, I'm going to go ahead and tell this story. And forgive me if somebody from this ministry and organization will correct me.
I'm happy to be corrected on this. Who is the longest running radio preacher in radio history? I have no idea. J. Vernon McGee through the Bible.
J. Vernon McGee. Have you ever heard his old Southern voice? I have heard of him, but I'm not super familiar. I think he's has been dead for More than a couple of decades now.
I don't know exactly when it was, but he's still on the radio. They air his old sermons. He's just kind of a classic preacher, just what the Bible says, you know, that sort of thing.
Well That organization continues, and AI now allows them to put Jay Vernon McGee's Southern Voice. Speaking Swahili and speaking, you know, Mandarin and speaking, you know, Farsi and speaking.
So you're saying the technology is neutral? Is that what you're saying? What I'm saying is that in this case, the technology is being used to pull Jay Vernon.
Now, here's what they're not doing. They're not creating new sermons, right? As I understand it, what they're doing is just basically allowing it to perfect the style and the voice and the. You know, that and that and the translation. And of course, language translations is one of the quick, easiest ways.
But and you're not actually asking it. to come up with information. You're asking it to translate information. Which is problematic, but it's certainly an incredible big jump, you know, in terms of that. I don't think it's morally neutral.
I do think it can be used for good. I do think the cat's out of the bag. I do think the research. And yes, I use it too. But think about if we had a whole generation of students that were taught to just research using AI and not any other way.
Right? They would be dumb. I know. And there's a book right now. I worry about it for me because I've really had, I've had to think through: what are my boundaries here?
Yeah, you gotta have it. There are some. Fantastic shortcuts that this offers me. But I'm like, if I use this shortcut a lot, I will be a dum-dum. And I just want to say that.
Questions that most people don't ask. And good for you. I mean, seriously, because most people. If it's available. Then we use it and we never think about what are my boundaries.
And that's what I would tell everyone in answer to this question. Yes. In fact, we're tapped into a few kind of closed source AI models that are trying to, for example, answer questions on the Internet about Christian worldview and to do it in a Christian worldview way. And uh, you know, and to you know. People have people, you know, where do people go when they're like, who is Jesus Christ?
They don't go to their pastor or priest anymore, they go to Google. And so, can we create systems that would then give good information on that, not Mormon information on that? You know, that's the sort of thing we're trying to do here.
So, yes, the answer is yes, but you have to be intentional about these rules because most of the time, If it's there, you do it. You do it in the way that it's available. Without drawing those lines for yourself.
So that kind of be circumspect. Be intentional. That's the answer to the question. Mm-hmm. That's great.
Yeah. And a really nice wrap-up. Um for a lot of the different topical things that we've been able to hit on.
So do we get to move to recommendations? And do you have any others? I think you like quadruple dipped last week.
So are you out of recommendations for the recommendations? I just have run out of them. I recommended something earlier. Oh, Gil Mylander's Bioethics Suprema for Christians is a great place to start. I'll have ChatGPT give me a nice summary.
A nice summary of that. There you go. Perfect. Hey, by the way, get the second edition of that book and. I don't agree with all of his conclusions.
I think he really fumbles on a couple issues. And it seems out of place when he actually does, but he's one of the great thinkers of our generation on some of these issues. Um, like Oliver O'Donovan and some others that have just thought about it differently and are helpful. There you go. That's my recommendation.
So I have a super unconventional recommendation that has I I'd has nothing to do with what we're talking about, and I think that's why it's Surprising to me. And it is that I think that I've discovered leisure. And I've never really. I like, I have a really, really great life. I really enjoy my work.
I enjoy my kids. I enjoy my church and my friends. I exercise and I enjoy the benefits of exercising, even if I don't enjoy exercise in the moment. But really, really, since we, I don't know, since maybe forever, I feel like everything that I've done. has been because something had to happen.
Like it needed to get done. It had a purpose behind it. And I'm like, the only thing I could think of that I really would do for leisure would be thrift shopping. But even that had a purpose. Like I was always looking for the next pair of soccer cleats so I didn't have to like buy them new.
So I am now the owner. of a Volvo 1800E. Which is a classic, it was kind of Volvo's edition of the sports car when there was this big kind of rush to create these GTs in the 60s. And my father had one when I was a kid. And so I have this super high association with the Volvo 1800s with my dad, this very, very sweet.
really like the most uncomplicated time of my childhood was when he owned this car and my memories of him in this car. And so I've always just been like, I'll be in the Facebook groups for the 1800s. I never thought I'd own one because even though they're not super expensive. Like I'm not frivolous, like I am a utility person, only get things done.
So through a pretty remarkable of circumstances. My husband bought one for me in December, and I wrote about it online. And you can find the story. Actually, I'll send it to you guys if you want to link to it. But I am now the owner.
of one of the most beautiful the most beautiful car ever. That I drive only for pleasure. There's no purpose in driving this car. It Wastes gas. And I enjoy it.
I I'm like, what is this Strange feeling that I have when I am driving around listening to the Beastie Boys sabotage taking corners way too fast, or like cruising down Alkai in Seattle, listening to the Beach Boys Sloop John B, which was one of my dad's favorite songs. Like, what is this bizarre thing I'm feeling? Oh, it is unadulterated pleasure it is just pleasure for the sake of pleasure. And I felt. Strange about this for a long time.
And I was telling a friend, and she goes, Katie, you've discovered leisure. Like, this is what a lot of Christian thinkers have written about. Like, there actually is. A sweet purpose. And I think Chesterton talked about like.
Man's goal Is play. Like there is a play aspect of like a sweetness, and just do it for the sake of enjoyment, and obviously, not in sin. But it's been a hard process for me to go, is it okay for me to feel this happy about something that doesn't do good for anybody at all? But I do.
So I guess I would say: if you're one of those Christians where everything, everything, every, I'm not saying I'm like super focused on this, but really, like every minute, every dollar, you know, every conversation is. How do I advance the kingdom of God? Which is kind of where I was. I am now in this really strange new land where I do this thing. just for fun.
And it has had this sort of Like, like rapturous impact on me.
So, I guess it's, I would say, like, if you don't have, if you don't know what leisure is, I always heard people talk about lesion and I'm like, that's just code for laziness. But it's not. It's like there really is something. I don't know, like almost divine about it.
So that's my. Bob is now showing me a picture of a very lovely maroon 1800. And from my wait, put it back up, Bob. Let me take a look at the front because I can see.
So that's definitely 71 and beyond because. Maybe 65 and beyond because of the front bumper. I don't know anything about cars. I just want to be an expert on this car.
So on this one. Yeah. I was going to make this super sarcastic comment that Volvo, that means you must live in the Northwest. And it probably does, like, you know, because everybody else would be talking about a Mustang or a, you know, some other kind of cool muscle car, and you brought up a Volvo. But it is a good looking car.
I dare you, Google Volvo 1800, and you will see. They call it the poor man's jaguar. I mean, it is like one of the most beautiful cars. Yeah, it it well, the picture was pretty awesome. But then you got into such important theological concepts.
And I'm hesitant to tell you then to read about leisure. Uh and the person who has written about it, of course, is Joseph Pieper. Uh Leisure as the Basis of Culture. Do we know about that book? I don't speak.
Uh it's remarkable. Yeah. But see, I think that would defeat the purpose. It's like here you're talking about how you've Discovered leisure, and now I'm like, now you need to study about it. You know, kind of gets in the room.
But if you wanted to study about the importance of leisure and the framing of how it works as what it means to be human. Joseph Bieber's Leisure the Basis of Culture is a good recommendation. I feel like I just violated the whole thing. That was a really cool play. Because I'm still struggling with guilt about it.
So if I know that there's a theological reason for me to. Hit the overdrive on I-5, then that would be really helpful. Humans don't just survive, humans make things of the world. And we make things that are useful. We make things that help bring convenience.
We make things to help us work. But we also make things for pleasure. And that's, you know, you don't get a lot of that. You have examples that they superimpose and anthropomorphize in the animal kingdom. It's a really human thing that we do, you know, when we play.
And kids learn best when they play. That's an interesting thing.
So, anyway. We'll leave it at that. It was really fun being with you. It's always a joy. The shoes are too large that Maria leaves at the doorstep, but I feel like, you know, if I can just get 50% of the way there, I'm going to call it a win.
It's a win. Thanks for joining us again. We will see you right back here, same time, same place next week.
