Culture Friday: Calculating consequences

Editor's note: The following text is a transcript of a podcast story. To listen to the story, click on the arrow beneath the headline above.

LINDSAY MAST, HOST: It’s Friday, October 24th. Glad to have you along for today’s edition of The World and Everything in It. Good morning, I’m Lindsay Mast.

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: And I’m Myrna Brown. It’s Culture Friday! Joining us is John Stonestreet, president of the Colson Center and host of the Breakpoint podcast. Good morning John!

JOHN STONESTREET: Good morning.

BROWN: John, in one of your recent Breakpoint articles you reiterated to some, and perhaps introduced to others, the distinction between Mormons and Christians. It seems increasingly necessary for a refresher on the differences… especially, as you pointed out in your article, when Pew Research lists Latter-day Saints among all Christians.

In the entertainment industry, where much of the culture war is fought, we have Angel Studios…most people would consider the films they produce and distribute, Christian-based. But the company was founded by Mormons.

And then there were the remarks made by President Trump after a gunman drove his truck into a building where Latter-day Saints were gathering in northern Michigan last month. The president posted on social media, “This appears to be yet another targeted attack on Christians in the United States of America.”

So, confusion is expected.

We do find ourselves appreciating and sharing many of the same cultural values as Mormons… so my question is, how do we then embrace Mormons as cultural allies without compromising our Christian beliefs?

STONESTREET: Well, I think clarity is just absolutely essential when it comes to doctrine, and we're at a cultural moment in which doctrine is often downplayed, where that kind of precision is frowned upon, because it gets in the way of unity. And I get the desire to want to have unity, particularly when we find ourselves with common enemies, which we often do, with various groups with whom we would disagree.

Years ago, I really benefited from being given a framework from a ministry colleague about kind of, you know, checking when groups become what he called, at the time, pseudo Christian. He basically encouraged students, and I always found this framework really helpful to do the math, add, subtract, multiply, divide.

Because if a group adds to Holy Scripture, you know, big red flag. Obviously, the Latter-day Saints do that. They put the Book of Mormon on par with Scripture as the interpretive framework through which to understand Scripture, despite it dealing with, you know, really unusual. Let's just put it this way, pretty unusual things. And then subtract. This is a key thing, if it subtracts from either the deity or the exclusivity of Jesus Christ. And that, of course, is something that the Latter-day Saints do as well.

If the requirements of salvation are multiplied. That's also a red flag. Salvation by grace through faith is a pretty clear statement, and the very clear understanding throughout the history of the church that it is God who brings salvation to man through Christ and the idea of working our way to God's approval or to Heaven is anathema.

And then finally, if it divides the body of Christ. Now, of course, to some degree, all of those things can be found even within Christian denominations. But when you have a group like the Latter-day Saints, where they fail all of those tests, you know, in pretty dramatic ways. Then that is a helpful framework.

I do think that we can find ourselves in a position of co-belligerence with a lot of groups and with a lot of different religious bodies, and we can agree on what we can agree on. Christians, because we believe that truth is fundamentally revealed, we orient ourselves to truth. And if another group finds itself oriented to a particular aspect of truth, then we thank God for that, and we hope that from that perspective, they can reach the extent of truth in Christ, in Holy Scripture, and in salvation.

BROWN: Do the math?

STONESTREET: Do the math.

BROWN: I think there’s a bit of math involved… where we’re going next. Seven-thousand Christians in Nigeria…murdered for their beliefs just this year. This week, the heads of 33 organizations, you being one of them, signed a letter to President Trump asking him to give Nigeria the “country of particular concern” designation. A country gets slapped with that designation when it is found to be tolerating or carrying out serious violations of religious freedom.

When I looked at the signatures behind that letter, I thought, an impressive group…many Christian organizations represented here. My second thought….just 33 signatures. And if you do the math…that’s an average of 35 killings a day. So John, shouldn't that warrant more signatures and support? And if so, why aren't there more?

STONESTREET: Well, you know, listen, it certainly merits much greater concern than has been given this unbelievably awful situation that has been developing in Nigeria for years. Basically every Christmas and every Easter and many other holy days, like Palm Sunday, there would be a massacre of Christians in a church, and then you would see the incredible faithfulness of those Christians going back to church the next Sunday. And this was the story that would sneak out, and it didn't gain much attention. This year we haven't waited for holy days. The massacres have been in church and out of church. It has been on Holy Days and outside of Holy Days, at a rate that's just absolutely astonishing.

The real shame is that this is even a debate. Designate this country a “country of particular concern.” I know that is a legal title that doesn't sound too intimidating, you know, from this side of the government, but it enables all kinds of sanctions and financial pressures.

Now, why this particular letter has the signatures it does? I wasn't, you know, privy to that. I don't know that. You know, a whole bunch of people said no to being on it. I think there was a real push and a timing factor that led it to want to get the right signatures on and get it in front of the president. And I do think we have good reason to suspect that this decision will be made and this designation, you know, will be given, and that's the political pressure that the government can put on.

But look, there's been real hesitation. Because the hesitation, I think, under previous administrations requires that you not accept the kind of the dominant narrative of what's causing this now, which people are calling it a land dispute. And even, I think under the Biden administration, somebody said it was the fault of climate care, climate change or something absolutely absurd. This has been a targeted attack to exterminate Christians, that is coming at the hands of radical Muslims. And what we have had is as after 911 radical Islamic groups did their best to attack Western nations, that was largely turned around and pushed back on. And now we have, you know, Islam going back and attacking within these developing nations, and you've got three groups in Nigeria that have been guilty of this for a long time, the Boko Haram group, the various versions of ISIS that took took root there and then, of course, the Fulani herdsmen. And it's absolutely horrific. It's spreading across Nigeria. It's spreading out of Nigeria into other African countries, and it's spreading in churches, out of churches and also beyond just Holy Day.

So look, something has to be done, and the rest of us should, should not wait to sign a letter. We should all be in prayer. We should all be calling our representatives and saying, hey, please make this designation a reality.

MAST: Well, John, this week, another group of people banded together to sign a different statement. This one about AI super intelligence. Now, I know, I know AI comes up frequently on Culture Friday, but as quickly as the technology is developing, perhaps that's understandable. This statement has been signed by thousands of people across the globe, and includes notable people with a wide range of interests in this, faith leaders, policymakers, artists, business people and beyond.

The statement expresses concern over the development of superintelligence that could significantly outperform humans on on cognitive tasks. That raises concerns about threats to freedom, civil liberties, dignity, even it says the chance of human extinction.

So they want the development banned until there is scientific evidence that it will be done safely and controllably, and perhaps notably, until there is public buy-in.

So, here’s my question…this feels like a bigger alarm bell than what we’ve seen in the past. So, will statements like this help slow the train at this point?

STONESTREET: Maybe slow the train. I don't see a way to stop it, although let me just immediately express my great appreciation as someone who is asked to sign statements on somewhat frequent occasions. For the brevity of this one, I mean, this is just straightforward. It is really simple, and it's really simple because the request is really simple, like, Let's not do this until we figure out how to do it ethically. Let's not do this and wish we hadn't later. And there's a really good reason to suppose that we will have buyer's remorse, and that's because almost all technology proceeds ahead of ethics.

The complication here, of course, is the international development of it and so many other cases, when we're talking about new technologies, that's really arising in a central location, most of the time the U.S. may be spreading to Europe and other countries around the world are catching on. When it comes to AI and computer technology and the speed that we're on right now. The problem is, I think there is almost a mutually assured destruction, that if we don't do this, China will. And, you know, we, I'm like anyone here. And by here, I mean everywhere other than China thinks that China will, you know, sign this pledge and mean it.

We have a real issue, I think, as Christians missing or misunderstanding AI in two ways. Number one is just dismissing concerns as a new form of being a Luddite. I think that's where a lot of Christians are. It's like, Oh, we've heard these concerns before, and they're nothing.

The other is to give it too much credit. You know, there is something called human exceptionalism. We believe humans are made in the image of God. We aren't just like animals with a conscience, nor are we just computers made of meat. So there is an ability I think to put brakes on this. I do think there's an ability to use some of this amazing computing power for good. But the question is, when you're talking about the national players that are involved, whether that's even a realistic possibility.

So I think you know the answer is, I'm glad the statements out there. I'm glad people signed it. I was really blown away by the diversity of the crowd. But even, for example, in the faith leaders, you have people who not, who would not normally sign a statement together, signing, you know, a statement. And I think you would have the same thing when it comes to policymakers.

There's real reason to be concerned that the technology cat is out of the bag here. This is a strong statement. Again, big fan that it's so brief, like, let's just have scientific consensus and buy in before we, you know, move forward. But you know, whether those two things are even possible is certainly with this kind of Mutually Assured Destruction model that we have with China, it's going to be hard to see that become a possibility, really.

MAST: John, do you even see a way for there to be scientific consensus when you have such a broad range of interests? Because I would imagine people who are artists might have somewhat different concerns than people who are business leaders or faith leaders. So is that even possible?

STONESTREET: Well, look, as we have seen, on all kinds of other areas of science, there's not scientific consensus on anything when you're talking about worldview consensus, and when you're thinking about the scientific enterprise is. A, is the world designed. And B, are humans unique and distinct, made in the image of God? Because, there's an incredible difference within the scientific community. I mean within the scientific enterprise, between transhumanists, those who actually think their job is to harness the evolutionary process and drive it forward, as if nothing could go wrong with that plan, you know, and others who actually think ethics and science should go together.

There is a whole camp that thinks that the limit of scientific ethics is, if we can do it, we should do it, and if we aren't doing it, then we're robbing humankind of something, because there is this fundamental belief that salvation ultimately comes through technology. A lot of people don't believe that. They have, a much greater appreciation for the fallenness of man, including, the “experts.” That's a real division. You know, this is not just a theoretical division. The philosophy that drives our science, really matters. I think about that wonderful quote by G. K. Chesterton, who says,there are some of us, who think that someone's philosophy is the most important thing that you can know. He said, for someone who is hosting a border, it's really important to know that person's income, but even more important to know his life philosophy. And for a general going to war, it's really important to know how many numbers the enemy has, but even more important to know their philosophy. The question is not whether someone's philosophy, and what he means by this is their worldview, which includes their frame of reference of reality and their ethics, is whether it matters some but whether anything else matters.

BROWN: John Stonestreet is president of the Colson Center and host of the Breakpoint podcast. Thank you, John.

STONESTREET: Thank you, both.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.