Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 1007 | Republicans Push Taxpayer-Funded IVF | Guest: Andrew T. Walker

Starting point is 00:00:00 Republicans are now pushing a bill to secure taxpayer-funded IVF. We are discussing that as well as natural law. What is it? Why does it matter? How does it apply to our political views as Christians today? Andrew Walker, managing editor at World Magazine, among many other things, is here to discuss this in light of the publication of his new book on natural law. you are going to love this conversation and learn so much.

Starting point is 00:00:33 This episode is brought to you by our friends at GoodVansters. Go to GoodRanchors.com. Use Code Alley at checkout. That's goodvangers.com. Code Allie. Andrew, thanks so much for taking the time to join us. You've been on before, but could you remind those who may not know who you are and what you do? Sure, Allie.

Starting point is 00:00:58 It's great to be with you. My name's Andrew Walker, and I teach Christian ethics at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. and then I'm also a fellow with the Ethics and Public Policy Center. So I've been teaching for almost five years at this point. And that's not even all your titles. You're also managing editor of World Magazine, too, which is big. Yeah, I carry quite a few titles. I stay busy.

Starting point is 00:01:24 I'm thankful to have you as one of our writers as well. Yes, and a girl dad. So a lot going on. Absolutely. In fact, after this, I got to go to a daughter's program for end of year school events. Oh, fun, fun. I understand how that is balancing all the things all at once. Okay, before we get into your new book, I just want to talk about some things that happened this week that you offered commentary on X. And because we talked about it yesterday on this show, the Pope's recent interview with 60 Minutes, we talked about his comments about everyone being fundamentally good. And I guess before I get into what you said on X, I'm curious your take on that. The Pope says we're fundamentally good. There may be some rogues, some sinners out there, but at the end of the day, the heart is good. What did you make of that?

Starting point is 00:02:17 Sure. So, I mean, as a Protestant, I would have to firmly disagree with what Pope Francis said right here. I think this goes to the heart of some of the important differences in Catholicism versus Protestantism. Protestants tend to have a greater stress on the sinfulness of human nature. post fall, whereas in Catholicism, generally speaking, there tends to be more of an optimistic view of human nature. And so on the one hand, it wasn't all that surprising to hear Pope Francis cast human nature in a more cheerful, positive way. But then I think he went shockingly too far in calling humans fundamentally good. I don't even think most people think that we're fundamentally good. If you read a lot of political philosophers through history, who aren't even Christians,

Starting point is 00:03:11 they'll all acknowledge that humanity is pretty corrupt and pretty bad. And if you give humanity free reign to do what it will, it's going to do some bad stuff. So I think that this was, I mean, out of sync with some of its own Catholic doctrine in some sense as well, because he spends this so positively. But I also want to make this kind of juxtaposition is he says, you know, humans are fundamentally good, but then how does 60 minutes end on its program? It starts talking about the Holocaust. It gives this story that literally brought my wife to tears talking about the horrors of the Holocaust. And the Holocaust is one of the gravest moral events in human history, which I think demonstrates that the human heart is fallen. No one is good, according to Scripture. No, not one.

Starting point is 00:04:03 We are, in Colossians chapter one, it talks about how we are hostile. So we're not just kind of in a position of neutrality. We're actively working against God's plan. So this is a thing that was a really tragic overstatement by the Pope. And what did you think about this statement that he made? Conservative is one who clings to something and does not want to see beyond that. It is a suicidal attitude that was a comment that he also made to Nora O'Donnell. What's your response to that?

Starting point is 00:04:36 Yeah. So, I mean, I think if he's talking about this in an American conservative context, that might be the most cheerful way to spin his comments. But even there, what are the American conservative Catholics trying to do? They're trying to hold on to simple Catholic teaching. And particularly all of these issues that are the most controversial around gender, sexuality, abortion. everyone knows that the Francis papacy has been a papacy of, I think, strategic ambiguity and willed ambiguity. And he has, without a doubt, move the Catholic Church to the left, even though, you know, the framing would suggest that he can't officially change the doctrine. Okay. Well, if he can't officially change the doctrine, he can definitely change how Catholics are thinking about these issues and talking about these issues.

Starting point is 00:05:27 So I think that when you think about what biblical orthodoxy is, it's the faith once and for all delivered to the saints. To conserve is to hold onto and to perpetuate a certain body of doctor and a certain body of teaching. And so I think it's absolutely absurd to criticize conservatives for doing the very thing that I think Christians are called to do, which is to conserve the faith. If he's criticizing American political conservatives, okay, I can understand that. I don't think that's what this Pope is doing as we've seen this Pope, this papacy unfold over the last decade plus. And to be fair to the Pope, Nora O'Donnell also asked him, hey, okay, if we've got a Catholic girl who is watching this, can she hope that she's ever going to be a part of the clergy? And he just answered simply, no. So he does understand, at least when it comes to that, that there are things to conserve.

Starting point is 00:06:41 And there's a reason to conserve them. So I don't know, maybe he was talking about a more narrow definition of conservatism there, even though I would still disagree with him. You know, to his credit, he does believe in conserving some fundamental things about Catholic doctrine. Yeah. And I actually, I'll be candid. I am critical of this Pope very much so, but this pope has actually, at this particular interview, he gave some very clarifying answers. He said that the church cannot bless homosexual unions.

Starting point is 00:07:14 He spoke against the issue of surrogacy. And I do want to applaud that, but then you have to put that up against other actions that he's taken where the language in his papacy can appear very, very ambiguous at times. Right. We have our own issues on the Protestant side and in the American side, especially on things that I see Catholics and in particular the Pope remain very clear and strong on. And that is the theology of the body and especially reproduction. I think evangelicals have a long way to go to catch up to how clear many Catholics and Catholic teaching has been when it comes to things like IVF. And we see that. And we see that. in two of our Republican politicians, we've got Ted Cruz, we've got Katie Britt.

Starting point is 00:08:07 I think both of them may identify as evangelicals. I know Katie Britt does. I'm not really sure about Ted Cruz, but they are now announcing a new bill that declares IVF in vitro fertilization a right. This is SOT one. So we came together and said, let's draft a civil. simple, straightforward federal bill that creates a federal right, that you as a parent have a right to have access to IVF. If you want to have a child and you need medical assistance to do so, that should be your right. A right to IVF. What do you make of that?

Starting point is 00:08:54 I'll be honest, Ali. I was really discouraged with this legislation coming out from two senators who I want to be very clear. I really respect and admire Senator Katie Britt, Senator Ted Cruz. I think that this is obviously coming in the aftermath of the Alabama Supreme Court decision from earlier in the year. But I think, tragically, they're going further out in support of a practice that tragically, most Americans are just woefully misinformed about when it comes to what IVF is. IVF obviously can help infertile couples bring children into the world, but there's a dark underbelly to the IVF issue, which is the creation of excess embryos after IVF procedures are done that are perpetually cryopreserved, oftentimes destroyed. And it's just, it's an affront to human dignity

Starting point is 00:09:51 in the service of so-called support for human dignity. And so you want to affirm the desire for a family, absolutely, that's a godly desire. The issue is, scripture doesn't allow us to do whatever we want to bring about good ends. That's called consequentialism. And we can't do bad things in order for good outcomes as a result. And so I think that this is one of these issues where tragically, the Republican Party has been caught flat-footed, and they need to do some more education and more equipping of themselves about what's actually going on with IVF. Yes, we like to say that when technology takes us from what is natural to what is possible, Christians have their responsibility to ask, but is this moral?

Starting point is 00:10:40 And more importantly, is this biblical? And Catholic teaching even goes further, which I love than just saying, okay, you can only make one embryo at a time and transfer that embryo, which of course I think is preferable to making a dozen embryos. but Catholic teaching takes issue with removing or with separating reproduction from sex, which I think is good and I think is fair, because when you make that separation, all kinds of ethical issues flow from that.

Starting point is 00:11:11 And I think we can have compassion, of course, for those who desire a child, what biological children of their own, that's a natural good desire. However, like you said, good desires do not justify an any means-necessary approach to anything, but particularly reproduction, because we are talking about people made in the image of God. And I do see a disconnect here among pro-lifers. I'm sure that Senator Cruz and maybe Senator Britt have said at one point, life starts at conception. I'm just assuming that they've probably said that before. But if life starts at conception, then how we treat embryos matters. IVF very often includes a eugenics process of selecting the best embryos and discarding the others, as you said, indefinite freezing of those embryos. If life begins at conception, then how can we say that we have a right to IVF when inherent in IVF is the mistreatment

Starting point is 00:12:13 of these little human beings made in God's image? I think you're exactly right. And I think this gets back to what kind of the artificial reproductive technology movement has done, which is to treat children as a right rather than a gift. And I think from a biblical worldview, we can affirm that the desire for children is absolutely praiseworthy. It's something that we should commend an individuals that they would want to bring children into the world. But that doesn't mean that there is a right to bring children into the world. However you would want, you'd utilizing any means that you would want. I think the language of children as a right versus children as a gift from the Lord is a really clear categorical differences in how we want to frame this.

Starting point is 00:13:05 But I also want to commend something you just said, because you're really getting to some of the deeper kind of textual theological issues at play when you're talking about, you know, do we have a right to sever the act of intimacy from reproduction? And I think that when you look at what Genesis is giving, it's a giving a picture of creation order where the act that unites husband and wife is the same act that can also make them mother and father. And so for us to introduce third-party technologies that can disrupt kind of this organic, union of bodies, I think that can't be done without some consequences, cascading consequences

Starting point is 00:13:56 happening on the backside. Yeah. And, you know, the interviewer to her credit, tried to confront Senator Cruz with this, with this kind of disconnect that we see among a lot of pro-lifers. Here's that too. Is an IVF embryo considered life at conception? Well, look, I can tell you that there is unanimity. I believe all 100 senators support IVF. I don't know a single senator that does not. I don't know a single Republican that does not. I don't know a single Democrat that does not. We ought to be able to find real agreement on a question like IVF. That was a masterclass in PR. Pivot. An incredible pivot. Just completely ignored the question and said there is a lot of agreement on this issue, which I think I think that he's probably right.

Starting point is 00:14:44 I think that he's right that there probably are no Republicans, at least, who will publicly say that they're against IVF. I think you're right. I think that this demonstrates kind of a gap in a lot of conservative thinking about the nature of human embryos, the nature of human dignity. I think that what we all have to consider is the question of who is our neighbor. and Ali, you and I are having this conversation as an adult male and an adult female. What we both have in common is that we were once embryos. But when we were embryos, we were still same individuals and persons that we are today. What has allowed for you and I to have this conversation together is that we were allowed to reach our developmental capacities. We were able to grow.

Starting point is 00:15:39 And by the way, we're going to keep growing and keep developing until our lives naturally end. I think what we have to reckon with and what United States senators have to reckon with is this question of who is our neighbor. Do we want to leave our neighbors cryogenically preserved for years on end? To speak candidly in some powerful metaphor here, America has a tragic history. in kind of trafficking and trading in human bodies. We did that a couple hundred years ago. It didn't go well, to put it mildly. That was an evil systemic injustice.

Starting point is 00:16:19 But because we have voiceless, small individuals who I believe are human beings who can't speak for themselves, these individuals need advocates who have had their opportunity to grow and mature to lobby on their behalf. And so I'm so thankful we can have this conversation today. Yeah. And I just want to remind

Starting point is 00:16:38 to people too that when we're talking about IVF, we're not just talking about the young Christian couple who unfortunately is unable to conceive naturally. We are also talking about the two men who bought the eggs from one woman and rented the womb of another woman. They also have to go through an IVF process in order to conceive a child that is biologically one of theirs. We're talking about two women buying the sperm from one man and then having a child that way. We are talking about single men using a surrogate to be able to basically buy a child and create an embryo through IVF. So when we have a right to IVF, we are saying you have a right funded by the taxpayers,

Starting point is 00:17:25 I believe, according to National Review, funded by the taxpayers to create children. And as far as I see, there's no limit on how. many children a person can create. For example, I think Paris Hilton through IVF created over a dozen embryos. And she kept on creating more trying to get a girl. And people think, oh, that's just an extreme example. No, that kind of eugenics process is very common. I'm not saying every single IVF case, but is very common. And so again, I would just, you know, challenge pro-lifers to apply the same thinking that we have to abortion, that a person is a person no matter how small, to IVF too. And I do think it's sad to see Republicans as the ones who are championing this.

Starting point is 00:18:11 I totally agree. And I mean, there's two. First is I think what the IVF and surrogacy industries do is to make children preeminently about the desires of adults rather than the good of children. And I think that we're kind of, we're inverting kind of the moral triage here. We're first concerned to what, what parents can get out of children rather than looking to the child's interest. And so I think you raised a good point of when we create this kind of regime of IVF, what we're doing is we're creating situations where children can be brought into the world, where they are intentionally denied either maternal love or paternal love in certain situations. And I think all of this stems back, Ali, from something you mentioned at the beginning of our conversation, is once you step outside that Genesis 1 and 2 framework, once we kind of interrupt or sever

Starting point is 00:19:12 the kind of natural organic goods that go into marriage, that go into family life, these types of consequences are necessarily going to follow because our technology in America often is far outpacing our morality, which is tragic. Yes, yes, that's a good way. that's a good way to put it. The technology is outpacing our morality, but it's our, it takes courage and it takes willpower in order to try to not only catch up to it, but get ahead of it. And I think too often when you've got money involved, when you've got special interest involved, if there's no interest in morally stopping technological development or no courage or no will to do that,

Starting point is 00:19:59 then things get really dark, really fast, really dystopian. and really fast, which I think is where we're going. I mean, you could argue that's the entire moral of the story of Brave New World is technology outpacing morality and ending in a really ugly way. Okay, well, this ties in beautifully to your new book. And your new book is titled Faithful Reason, Natural Law Ethics for God's Glory and Our Good. It was just released, which is really exciting. So just give us a big picture overview of what this is and why you wrote it. Well, Ali, the last 20 minutes, we've been talking and having a conversation about categories that involve the natural law, but we haven't used the term natural law. And so that's what my new

Starting point is 00:21:00 book is about. And natural law might seem like a pretty academic category. But natural law is really a category of Christian morality that is there to help us understand the type of morality that God has placed in the world. Christians believe that morality is universal, it's objective, and it's intelligible. And what I mean by that is we believe that it's everywhere, it corresponds to reality, and we can actually understand that moral law, and we can act on it. And fundamentally, the natural moral law is there for our good and there to help us understand how it is God made us. So when we're thinking about these categories of IVF, we're thinking about questions of what is a marriage, what are the grounds for how children ought to be brought into existence, and if we violate those

Starting point is 00:22:02 natural goods of marriage, ethical problems can result. downstream from kind of, I think, breaking God's natural moral law. But natural law is, it's not just about kind of granular issues like IVF. It's about asking, you know, why do we have the moral intuitions that we do? When we learned the news that Hamas was putting babies in ovens, everyone responds to that in shock and horror. And why is that? Because Christians believe that Romans chapter two talks about that God has placed a law written on the heart that our conscience bears witness to. So individuals may want to suppress their moral knowledge and say that they don't believe in a universal moral law, but everyone at the deepest levels of their being, Christians believe do believe in some type of

Starting point is 00:23:02 moral law. There's a philosopher who uses the language of there are certain things we can't not know. There are just self-evident moral truth claims that all of us just come hardwired with because of our nature that God has given us. Natural law is just this tradition that kind of helps tease out the ramifications of this idea that God has made us rational beings who can conform ourselves to his moral law. Yeah, it reminds me a lot of how C.S. Lewis described it in mere Christianity when he is talking about God is the lawgiver and that that moral law that you're talking about really is written on our hearts and that no one is actually a moral relativist, except for a few insane people and we consider them insane for this reason. Everyone would agree that the Holocaust was evil and that Hitler was evil. You're not going to find. very many people that would say, well, I don't know. Maybe that was right for them culturally at that time. People don't really give excuses to the Holocaust or to Hitler.

Starting point is 00:24:13 No one really is a cultural or moral relativist when it gets down to it. Everyone knows that there is some kind of goal of morality that we should be reaching to in the same way that people understand that one person's drawing of New York City is closer to someone else's drawing. Like there is an actual real place called New York City called Times Square. And if two different people draw it, you can say, yes, this looks more like the real thing than this doodle over here. And yet, it does seem like everywhere we look, there are people in denial about that, that there is such thing. as objective morality. And actually the only moral truth is that you should never say that there is a moral truth.

Starting point is 00:25:07 The only wrong is saying that there is wrong. So how do Christians navigate that world, especially politically? Sure. So I think we're actually living in a really interesting time where American culture and some facets of American public policy are doing their very best to try. try to go to the very outer edges of violating the natural law. And if the natural law is what I believe that it is, it means it's something that is imposed on creation and it means we actually can't evade it eternally. At some point, nature, creation order has a way of snapping back.

Starting point is 00:25:52 And oftentimes it's when we try to transgress the natural law that we end up realizing, oh, we better actually end up living and conforming ourselves to the natural law, not in spite of it. If I can just use one example here, take the transgender issue of biological males competing against females who are identifying as females. I think that this issue captures what the natural law is trying to say to us. The natural law is saying that there is an objective design to the universe that we can perceive. We can perceive it in the world around us. We can perceive it in our bodily design as males and females, such that biological males, because how we have been made, have certain capacities that allow males to run faster than females.

Starting point is 00:26:42 That's not a qualitative statement on females being less than males when it comes to worth. It's simply a fact of nature that in the whole, in the aggregate, males are not a way. are going to be faster than females because of our design, because of how the body is ordered. Now, when we try to tell ourselves lies and falsehoods that men can be women, and then you see men smashing female competition, there's something also that kind of internally goes off inside of us, and that is our sense of justice having been violated because there's this moral law written on the heart. And I think this corresponds to what Paul is talking about in Romans chapter one and Romans chapter two. Romans chapter one, he talks about how creation order is evident

Starting point is 00:27:35 in the things that have been made. So we can see around us order and design and pattern. Then Romans chapter two talks about how our cognitive faculties, our minds, our conscience is structured in such a way that we can observe and respond to the nature of that moral order. So, I mean, the natural law is all around us all the time. It's not simply an academic conversation. In fact, one of my favorite things in this conversation in the natural law is the ways in which kind of progressives do what I call reverse engineering themselves to natural law truths and acting like they've discovered something fascinating.

Starting point is 00:28:18 So last year, a headline. in a progressive publication talked about how the missing puzzle piece for economic inequality was to make sure that children have moms and dads. And it was like they had discovered this like a magical incantation and spell to which you want to respond. Well, no, actually, it seems to be the case that if a man and a woman make a child, that child is most apt to thrive in the context of where they have been created. This is not a novel insight from public policy. This is a novel insight from human nature, from our bodies, and something that human history has testified to for as long as there's been human history.

Starting point is 00:29:02 Yeah. Statistics and science are always catching up to God. I love when I see headlines. I love when I see headlines like that, oh, marriage actually lends to like the stability and success of children. I'm like, oh, really? That's fascinating. I had never heard that before. How do we distinguish as Christians what should actually be written into public policy based on what we believe? The Bible said, like for example, we believe in basing our laws on our biblical worldview. However, we also believe in free speech, which means that we believe in the liberty of someone to say something that we consider downright blasphemous, not just disagree with, but offensive and wrong. So how do we balance our desire to allow human liberty to flourish and the desire to have a country, the laws of which reflect natural law and reflect basic biblical principles that we know that if we abandon those biblical principles like what you were talking about, that is going to hurt our neighbor. And that's going to hurt the most vulnerable. How do we balance harm and liberty based on what we believe about God?

Starting point is 00:30:34 Sure. So I think let's go to what Genesis 1 and 2 is doing as a text. Genesis 1 and 2 is not just a Christian interpretation of reality. It is what we believe is an interpretation of all of reality, regardless of whether you are a Christian or not, which means that the progressive or the secularist, wants to disagree with Christian views on abortion or marriage, they may think that they're just disagreeing with Christians or they're disagreeing with Scripture. What we want to come back with and say is, no, you're actually not just disagreeing with Christians in Scripture. You're disagreeing with the very fabric of created reality itself. Because when Genesis 1 and 2 is speaking to what

Starting point is 00:31:21 creation is, it is orderly, it's designed, it's patterned, it's meant for us to all live in together because Genesis 1 and 2 is about creation order. And when we see what creation order is, it's hitting on these issues like our existence, questions of human nature, what it means to be a male and female, what it means to be a family. And so I want to acknowledge on the one hand that the natural law doesn't necessarily tell us every last kind of entailment of what the natural law ought to look like in law, but what it tells us is that law cannot violate the natural law itself. And there's a distinction there. And what I just said, it doesn't tell us, again, every last iota of detail and how to legislate the natural law, but it says if you try to negate the natural law or treat the natural law as

Starting point is 00:32:21 something that you can ignore or suppress, that is where society is going to be most harmed. And so you think about something like our views on what it means to be a human being. That comes from Genesis 1, 26, and 27. We're made in God's image. And so our beliefs about what it means to be a human doesn't just apply to Christians only. We believe that to be a human is to be a human regardless of whether you're a Christian or not. And so laws ought to uniformly protect all persons equally, regardless of whether those individuals are agreeing with what Christians believe about Scripture. And of course, scientifically, you can get to the reality that embryos are human beings, because if they're not living human beings, then what else are there?

Starting point is 00:33:13 But science cannot answer whether or not that embryo matters. Science can't answer whether or not that human being has value. And that's what Genesis 1 tells us. So what's your response to someone who says, okay, Genesis 1 tells us that that embryo has value, but that's Christian nationalism to try to impose that biblical belief on me, Mr. Atheist over here. What do you say to that? I would say to the atheist, would you rather live in a Christian country that values the human being and affords them rights? Or would you rather live in a truly atheistic regime where there really can be no true coherent concept of rights?

Starting point is 00:33:58 A few years ago, the public intellectual Douglas Murray, who is an atheist, he wrote an article saying that atheists really have three options when it comes to human dignity. We can try, he says, to hammer out an atheist doctrine of human dignity, which we've never been able to do. Secondly, we can admit that we don't have a doctrine of human dignity as atheists. Or third, we can recognize this is really just something that we've received from Christianity, and we all need to go back to church. We live in this moment right now where very few people at large want to go about denying the existence of human dignity and human rights. Oftentimes, some do. A few years ago, the Jewish philosopher Yval Harari gave a TED Talk, where he said that human rights don't really exist. Those are just kind of fictional narratives that we tell ourselves to make ourselves feel better and to provide these kind of legal structures around us.

Starting point is 00:34:59 And he literally says, but if you cut someone open, you don't find human rights. You find organs and entrails. Now, you can be shocked at that, but you can also be thankful for the intellectual honesty of someone saying that out loud because you didn't want to say to your secular neighbor, okay, do you want to live in that guy's understanding of the universe or do you want to live in the Christian's understanding of the universe? Yeah, which is, of course, as you said, that we have human rights that are innate. They're attached to our humanity from the moment of conception. And if it's not at the moment of conception, any point after that becomes completely arbitrary. and based on what people empower decide. And we see, as you mentioned earlier, what that looks like. When people empower decide that some human beings are subhuman, that's the justification of a Holocaust or slavery, or the mistreatment and the discarding of unborn children, of embryos.

Starting point is 00:35:58 And so it's the same line of logic. And you're right. It is the Christian understanding of human beings and why we matter that saves us from. those really terrible human rights atrocities. I know that we're about to run out of time. Unfortunately, so many things that I could ask. But you talk about Tao Evangelicals. You wrote an essay, a national review on that.

Starting point is 00:36:32 Going back to C.S. Lewis and something he talks about in Abolition of Man, the Tao. What does that mean? And what is this term Tao Evangelicals? Yeah, Ellie, thanks for asking that question. question. The Tao refers to this idea of the natural law in C.S. Lewis's book, The Abolition of Man, which I would advocate every person reading. But what he's getting after with the Tao is this idea that there's a universal morality that everyone, to some degree, acknowledges. And so I wrote this article for National Review talking about this growing number of non-Christians who are recognizing

Starting point is 00:37:13 that secularism is going too far. And they have... may not be Christians, but they're understanding that they are going to need to be relying on something like Christian natural law to make sense of objective morality. There are individuals like Louise Perry, Tom Holland, Douglas Murray, Joe Rogan even has a fascinating statements of late, recognizing that, man, we are really bottoming out in secularism and trying to figure out coherent concepts of what is true, beautiful, and good. And we can't do it ourselves. And so we are finding ourselves in these unlikely alliances with Christians at times. In fact, in March, Joe Rogan basically said, my gosh, we actually need Jesus. What I love when he said that is because he went beyond just

Starting point is 00:38:04 kind of the vague abstractions of the natural law and recognized, no, actually, maybe this idea of of Christianity has more plausibility to it than I previously thought. Yes. The Tao and the logos meet their match and their source in Jesus Christ. I think we see that beautifully. Amen. And John 1, which is why it is always a positive development when people start pursuing the truth. That's why you often hear people who say, yeah, once I left progressivism and I started becoming more conservative in my politics, that landed me in church. And then I became a Christian so often. I hear that, and it's because of the concept of what you're talking about. So we'll have to have you back on really soon because there are so many other questions I have for you.

Starting point is 00:38:49 But can you tell everyone where they can buy your book? Yeah, sure. The best place to buy Faithful Reason would be on Amazon, or you can also check it out at the publisher's website at lifeway.com. Yes, awesome. Thank you so much, Andrew. I really appreciate you taking the time to come on. Thank you, Allie.

Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 1007 | Republicans Push Taxpayer-Funded IVF | Guest: Andrew T. Walker

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.